Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/12/2007 S (Proposed Annexation - Collier Park of Commerce) January 12, 2007 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CITY OF NAPLES GOVERNMENT EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT Public Meeting to discuss the Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement relative to the proposed annexation of the Collier Park of Commerce by the City of Naples, pursuant to Chapter 171, Florida Statutes on January 12, 2007, at 1 :30 p.m., County Attorney Office, W. Harmon Turner Building (Bldg. F), Collier County Government Center. PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager Robert Lee, City Manager Chief Robert Schank County Commissioner Jim Coletta E. Naples Fire Commissioner Angela Davis Chief Michael Brown Leo Ochs, Collier County Manager's Office Dan Mercer, Public Works, City of Naples Chief Jim McEvoy, City of Naples Laura Spurgeon, Johnson Engineering Robert D. Pritt, Attorney, City of Naples David Weigel, County Attorney Mike Pettit, Assistant County Attorney Laura Donaldson, Special Counsel E. Naples Fire Dist. Bob Middleton, Public Works, City of Naples Mike Sheffield, County Manager's Office ALSO PRESENT: J. Rautio, Jack Pointer, Lois Selfon, and Aisling Swift Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS iiI" .""'" ." (/ --. ...,..'-<....""'..,,.,..~ AGENDA January 12, 2007 1 :30 p.m. BCC Collier Business Park Annexation Meeting Eighth Floor County Attorney's Office Conference Room W. Harmon Turner Building NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE. Page 1 January 12,2007 1. Opening Remarks - County Manager Jim Mudd, Naples City Manager Bob Lee and East Naples Fire Control & Rescue District Chief Robert Schank 2. Commence "Good Faith" Negotiations for an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement 3. Comments/Questions 4. Adjourn Page 2 January 12, 2007 January 12, 2007 COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: This is phase two of 171 Florida Statutes, and has to do with a good faith negotiation on interlocal service boundary agreements as it relates to the Horseshoe property. What do you want to call that, the Naples Park of Commerce property? CITY MANAGER LEE: Collier Park of Commerce. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Collier Park of Commerce. Well, he'll change it to the Naples Park of Commerce after it's over, no doubt. CITY MANAGER LEE: It's still in Collier. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: But we -- to talk about that particular piece. And then under -- and what I did -- Mike, did you try to -- what I tried to do is put together everything that has passed between us and around us, resolutions and everything in one packet so we'd at least have it someplace. And we could start. If we're missing something, we can include it later in that particular parcel and process. There are -- and just so you know, I've read your Urban Services Report, okay, and I don't know if everybody in this room has read the Urban Services Report. If you haven't, fine, we'll get you a copy. If you have, that's great too. Today is kind of an introductory piece on how we're going to proceed. The Florida statutes are quite clear, I believe, in this particular regard. We've got it within a six-month period of time and a good faith negotiation to come up with an agreement. Is that your read on that, Bob? CITY MANAGER LEE: I think we -- yes, we do the best we can. It talks about, you know, looking at the most proficient way of addressing this. A matter that -- yes, up till six months. And hopefully we can do something much sooner than that. Page 2 .,_____>_.'__._~H..^__>.___. .. ..,....~ "-'-'-""-'-._""~-,-,,,,_,~~,___,,_~_~,",,__o..,.,~,,......,_~,., January 12, 2007 COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Um-hum. From the county's side, we've invited the East Naples Fire District, and received a letter in response with a resolution that said that East Naples Fire District wanted to be part of this negotiation. I believe in your reply to us, you invited the Bayshore CRA. The Bayshore CRA is the Board of County Commissioners, okay. So in that particular regard they're involved. And you also invited the North Naples Fire District; is that correct? And you have replied by resolution, I believe. CHIEF BROWN: That's correct. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Okay. There's some confusion on my part with the additional addressees. And it's okay, we're all here. But I'm just going to be very forthright with the concerns that we had, because the Bayshore CRA and the North Naples Fire District in this particular piece of property that they were going to annex really doesn't have accountability or a part to play in that particular property. And I believe the intent of asking them to come from the city side, and I'm not going to speak for you, but at least from what I could garner were these were areas that abutted the city, and the city might have in the future an annexation request from a -- from a property or a homeowner's association or whatever for future annexation, and you wanted them to be part of this process. CITY MANAGER LEE: Yeah, let me address that. First, if I may, I do want to start by thanking you for hosting this meeting. And I do want to let folks know that also present here is our Public Works Director Dan Mercer, Utility Director Bob Middleton and Jim McEvoy, our Fire Chief. But the reason we had -- and I expect shortly our city attorney, Robert Pritt. But the reason we invited the North Naples Fire District was because we understood that they shared a station with East Naples. CHIEF SCHANK: That's correct. CITY MANAGER LEE: And it's more a belt and suspenders thing. I mean, we didn't want to let anyone out that should be invited Page 3 January 12, 2007 as far as a CRA. It may be that that's not the -- they have no standing here. But that's the only reason we invited those two was we just didn't want to leave anyone out if there was standing. We just weren't certain of that 100 percent. So I appreciate your clarification on that. CHIEF BROWN: If I could, we sent a letter from the city asking whether we wanted to participate in the discussions with reference to annexation, and we returned that in the affirmative. And certainly we -- any agreements or any discussions that took place that dealt with future annexations would be our concerns in terms of boilerplate type of a coming up with some kind of a way that you're going to proceed in the future. We just want to be part of that process in those discussions. CITY MANAGER LEE: Well, I did not address the other portion of the County Manager's question, and that is our intent is just to deal with this annexation. It was not intended to look at future annexations or possible annexations, so it would be more in our error if more than -- if people were invited here that were beyond what were necessary. But it's Collier Park of Commerce is what we're responding to. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: That's Chief Brown. And he's the chief for North Naples Fire District. Okay, one of the things that I was going to ask, and Bob, you saying that, and you had talked about a boilerplate -- Chief. One of the things -- and this particular hearing has everything to do with the Collier Park of Commerce owners association request for annexation and coming up with that interlocal agreement. The -- there was a joint city/county council/commission meeting just a little while ago, okay, in December, I think it was the 18th? Close. CITY MANAGER LEE: It was when I had that bad jaw and tooth. It was a Monday afternoon. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Yeah, do you have your dental Page 4 January 12, 2007 bills yet? CITY MANAGER LEE: Yes, thank you. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: And so the -- what -- one of the things that was a result of that meeting was the direction to staffs to come up with some kind of a boilerplate for future annexations. And it might be something that we want to keep in mind as we go through this, because as this goes through, this might be a precursor to what that finally ends up being. CITY MANAGER LEE: And I would suggest that if we could focus on the Collier Park of Commerce, that may be something subsequently to look at. One of the things our city's going through right now, one of the processes is a visioning process. And it was referenced therein by our counsel, they wanted to make sure that the citizens participated in whether or not we even want to pursue any additional annexations, or to what extent, if we do. So I just want to qualify my comments with saying that in terms of anything beyond this, there is a process that's underway right now in the city that will give direction to our city council as to, you know, what they want to do with annexation on a broader perspective than just the Collier Park of Commerce. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Okay. Is there anything that I've missed on the opening? And we're still missing the Naples attorney. And it's because of the darn elevator, okay. We've got one elevator that's down under maintenance and there's only one working, and that's why the Commissioner and I were here waiting. I either need to install mirrors by the elevator buttons so people can primp and not worry about how long it's taking them to get the elevator to show up. That's been known to work in other places. Just take a look at any bank building and any big corporate building. The whole lobby's full of mirrors, and it's because people watch themselves and they don't pay attention to how long it takes for the elevator to get here. Page 5 January 12, 2007 But the elevator is a little slow in this building. It was slow when there was two, it's really extremely slow right now. If you want to wait a little bit until he's here? CITY MANAGER LEE: No, I think we ought to proceed. And again, he should be here shortly. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Okay. Part of the resolution that the county used to start off this process, and it's the original resolution, it's the one that's double-folded so it should go with your -- Bob, in your packet. And if you have a packet that was stapled together, and Mike Sheffield did pass them out, look for the one that's legal size paper that's been folded over. And it says, now therefore -- and I'm on the second page. And we could go through all the whereas's. Now therefore be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners that the above whereas clauses are incorporated herein. The county, as the initiating county herein, designates the City of Naples as the county-invited municipality. And it goes on, the county designated land area, and it goes to specifics on paragraph four. Paragraph five, the county designated issues for negotiation are any and all issues concerning service delivery, fiscal responsibilities, and/or boundary alignments. The interlocal service boundary agreement issues may include but need not be limited to the following: Identifying the municipal servIce area. And I think we have already identified that: Am I correct? CITY MANAGER LEE: Correct. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Identify an unincorporated service area, okay. And we'll talk about that a little bit probably as it relates to water and sewer and that kind of business. Identify the local government's responsibility for delivering the fund -- or funding of the following services within the municipal Page 6 January 12, 2007 services area or the unincorporated services area, including public safety, fire emergency, rescue and medical, water and wastewater, road ownership, construction and maintenance, conservation, parks and recreation, stormwater management and drainage, garbage/trash collection and recycling. The interlocal service boundary agreement may establish a process and schedule of annexation of an area within the designated municipal services area, if any, consistent with the Act Section 171.205. And then it goes on to give some statements. But I believe paragraph five are those things that we need to talk about and try to at least make that part of the agreement, okay, at the end. Am I pretty well-- now I'm going to look to our attorney, Mr. David Weigel, and his deputy, Mr. Michael Pritt (sic) for some -- MR. PETTIT: Not Pritt, that's their attorney. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Pettit. I got it. Michael and Bob. Did I miss anything? MR. PETTIT: I don't believe so, Mr. Mudd. There's some additional-- on the next page there is some additional information that comes directly out of the statute that allows this agreement to also include decisions related to land use processes. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Okay. MR. PETTIT: So I just wanted to make you aware of that. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: The -- so let's talk. The first number one, public safety. CITY MANAGER LEE: Okay. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Right now in that particular area, the area falls under the East Naples Fire District. And they collect a millage on that particular area of 1.5 mills; is that correct, Chief Schank? CHIEF SCHANK: Correct. Page 7 January 12,2007 COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: It also is provided service by county EMS, which I believe is also a tenant in that joint facility; is that correct? CHIEF SCHANK: That's correct. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: And in order to do that, when I looked at your Urban Services Report, there was a section that talked about -- and I'm going to have to go to it real quick. I think it's on Page 6 of the Urban Services Report. That's also part of your packet, Chief. And it has to do with the paragraph above parks and recreation. It says, at this time the funding for the remaining annual operating cost of $1.15 million related to the operation of the stations number three expanded is not yet identified, which should be funded by growth prior annexations and future annexations. And so there is a shortfall or a shortcoming in what's been described in that Urban Services Report. So I'm trying to figure out, is there any risk of diminishment of providing that service for public safety, i.e., fire, because of that shortfall in at least funding at this particular time for that designated facility? And that's what I'd like to try to -- CITY MANAGER LEE: Yeah, I can address that. Yes, you have to read the whole section. If you read the Page 4 through Page 6, this latter part was to make it clear that after four years we're going to need to be providing additional revenue sources for the purposes of identifying the actual staffing. And as you read this, this was not just for Collier Park of Commerce. We've had other annexations east, in the eastern part of our city. And the concept here is that let's take a look at this entire area. We have a fire station there, which is at the airport. Our expectation is that for the first four years of this agreement East Naples would continue to provide the service, as we have had with other annexations. But we need -- if we're going to be taking it over, which is what we're proposing, we want to look from a city standpoint and fire Page 8 January 12, 2007 service for that area, and as we should. When we take on an annexation, how does it impact any other areas that exist in that immediate area? One notable one is the airport. The reason that station is there is because it services the airport. But there are other properties adjacent to the airport and east of, you know, that area. Goodlette-Frank Road, as an example. So we're looking a little broader than that and saying well, four years from now let's take a look at our areas and let's make sure that we're showing some foresight in fire protection services in that area where this fire station is and where this annexation is. But in terms of Collier Park of Commerce, we have incorporated what we consider their share of those costs into this report. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Another piece that comes to mind, and I don't know enough about the operation of the fire station at the airport. And-- CITY MANAGER LEE: Chief is here. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: -- hopefully I'll get some help. We have mutual help protocols all over the county. Does the fire station that's on the airport respond outside of the airport? Does it leave the airport proper to respond to a call from somebody else, or are they pretty well locked into -- because you have airplanes flying in and out all the time, are they pretty well locked into that particular facility? CHIEF MCEVOY: At the airport specialized equipment has 1,500 gallons of water, lots of foam. So the answer is yes, it can be called out. When it is called out then we backfill that station from one of our in-town stations, one of our two engine companies move into the -- yes, they do respond out when requested. Typically they don't have to. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: For ease of this discussion, if you just -- if you're going to make a comment, just state your name in the front. That would make it a whole lot easier for the record. Page 9 ---"---~'"'--'""""'- "'.."".."......----...--......,"""'-...--.,..-,.........".--,.."'........"..,,,-........ January 12, 2007 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I do have a comment. Commissioner Jim Coletta. Bob, you know, the purpose of this meeting, and I assume everything we're trying to do here is to make sure that we serve the public purpose in the best possible way for the City of Naples, Collier County, East Naples, North Naples, whatever. CITY MANAGER LEE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm hearing this discussion about the fire departments and who's responsible and how it's going to be done and the difference of money and how it's going to cover the cost. Well, we already have an infrastructure in place that's doing that. And so we're talking about maybe discontinuing that infrastructure after five years. Maybe we're missing the point, we're missing a tremendous opportunity. Why don't we go back to the drawing boards and look at the possibility of consolidation of the fire departments and making it independent, one independent fire department? Then there wouldn't be the kind of problem that we're anticipating as far as who assumes control or what happens. And this starts the movement towards that eventual day we're going to get when the whole county will probably be under one emergency service director type of operation with their own commissioners. And I think it would be a wonderful start, and it would certainly remove some of the barriers as far as the difference between Naples Fire Department, East Naples Fire Department. Just a thought. CITY MANAGER LEE: Well, I think you raise an excellent point, Commissioner. I don't know that I see this annexation being the annexation to try to make that countywide effort happen. There are a lot of politics that go in, as we all know, with several independent districts. The efficiencies you talk about, I think many of these Page 10 '.. ,,_.-.. "'-~"'--"-'-~'"''._''-.''-'''-"''''---'-''''-'''~'''''''"',.'"'.'. '"^'." ....... ..... .".. '."""""_..'"0'..,.,,-,,, January 12, 2007 independent districts, and I don't want to speak for them, agree. I think one of the challenges is who's going to be responsible and what does that mean for their particular organizations. But I think generally your concept of trying to find proficiency, and I think that's what I was hearing from you, in service and delivery of service and making sure people are getting that service. But no argument from me on that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the idea of maybe -- because right now we're looking at consolidation with the City of Marco as a possible step to be able to move things forward. It mayor may not happen. I don't know, it's still in the discussion stages. What's wrong with being able to carry this discussion to the next step where we look at a consolidation between the City of Naples and East Naples? CITY MANAGER LEE: Well, I think that, you know, we'd certainly be glad to sit down and talk about that. I just don't know that this annexation should be held up for that discussion, because I think that's a much broader discussion and has a lot of different ramifications, will take a lot of work, will take a lot of evaluation by both East Naples and the city. Because again, if we're talking citywide and the whole -- I don't know the exact size of East Naples, but there's a lot more to -- that would be involved with that discussion that I think would take this __ and perhaps elongate this process longer than what we both would like to see happen. But the general concept, I don't have an argument with the idea of having some discussions, but I would respectfully suggest it not be part of this particular annexation. MS. DONALDSON: This is Laura Donaldson. I'm here as special counsel to East Naples. I think, one, on the discussion of consolidation, unlike the county and the City of Marco, that can be done internally, whereas with a special district in the city, that's a legislative act, since the independent Page 11 January 12, 2007 special district was created by special act. So I think that would cause quite a delay, because constitutionally, we've missed the deadline and there would have to be a referendum. So I think that that would delay the process on this. But one of the issues of efficiencies, the statute does allow the city to elect not to provide fire services and remain status quo. East Naples would continue to provide fire services, there wouldn't have to be a new fire station, and the statute provides for that currently. It's just -- the city just says we're not going to elect to provide services. Status quo we remain. Basically both of our boundaries would encompass Commerce Park and we would continue on. So that is one option that hasn't been brought up yet -- I know we just started the discussion -- is just let East Naples continue to be the service provider, keep Commerce Park remaining in the district. I think not only does it provide efficiency, it deals with the premium tax issue, which is an issue that will need to be addressed during this process, because that's an equity issue for our firefighters, as well as dealing with the regulatory scheme of who provides the inspections, et cetera. So I think that there is a very easy way to keep it, you know, East Naples remains the service provider, there won't be a new station and other issues can get put to rest, if that's even an option. CITY MANAGER LEE: We would certainly -- I mean, if you have a proposal, we'd be glad to look at that. (Mr. Pritt enters the room.) CITY MANAGER LEE: I think it's -- if you look at the millage of one and a half mills for fire service in East Naples and you look at the city's entire millage of 1.24 mills, of which only a portion of that is paid -- pays the fire service, what we'd be saying is let's -- in this particular case, the Collier Park of Commerce would be paying in addition to the city millage of 1.24, but they would also now be paying 1.5 mills, which others within the city boundaries are not having to pay. So that would be one hurdle that we would have to get Page 12 .._"._...,--_..">._..,."~.<_....,,,.....~_..,,.._,.-.,,"---~""--'''-''''''''''''~"'>'''''''''--~ ... January 12, 2007 over. If there was a dollar amount that was worked out -- and I think this is going to be difficult for East Naples to do this -- that would be less than the one and a half mills if it were -- if you said something like, you know, the city will charge -- and I'm just throwing a number out -- you know, .35 mills or something for this annexation, then that might make sense for us to talk about. But I think it would put you in a difficult position to have part of your district paying one thing and then the rest of your district paying one and a halftimes. MS. DONALDSON: Right. That's not an option. I mean, that's -- the district cannot agree to take a millage rate below that what they are collecting. CITY MANAGER LEE: Exactly. And we assumed that that was the case. We've had other discussions on annexations. So that's the reason we didn't. As a matter of fact, we've had one, the Rufina property . We've gone through this exercise before. And that was the reason why we put what we put in the Urban Services Report. CHIEF SCHANK: Bob Schank, Fire Chief, East Naples Fire Department. I don't have clear cut numbers, but I'm sitting here listening how you're going to have to -- as Manager Mudd stated, we have an infrastructure in place. If those owners of Commerce Park were willing to keep us as an option, whether they are or not, you're still going to have to build an infrastructure yourself. We're talking about putting another station that's only less than two miles probably from another station. We talked about automatic aid, mutual aid. I've stated this before from the city when we had other annexations, we have automatic aid out there, mutual aid. And it was all out there, as the Board of County Commissioners directed us as the districts to work together and cooperate. Page 13 --""--~'-"'--'---"~~-"""-'-~-^"<'"'_'__"_"~~"___"'_._-, "v,. .~".,,,._,,~___~___ January 12,2007 But what I saw happening, and it wasn't under Manager Lee, it was under a different city manager, use that very issue against us. Oh, we don't need to worry about fire protection because we've got automatic aid. That's never what it was intended for. It was to cooperate and work together. But when you start taking dollars out of our pocket and then giving us the paper back, we've got a little problem with that. Like I said, I don't have the numbers, but you're still going to have to build stations. And 1.5, I think I heard, million and something you're going to have to work on for capital. You've got to hire manpower and all that. I don't know. And you're talking future annexation. It's already there. I just can't see why, if the people there and the owners are willing to do it, why not do it? One day you will see that consolidation, there's no doubt in my mind. I'm not sure you'll see it with the cities, though. That's another issue. You do with the districts, but if the city's willing to come in, I don't know. Because they'll also have to pay money one day more for fire protection. You're not going to get it for .35. CITY MANAGER LEE: There's been a lot of discussion in the past about consolidation. I haven't seen it. There's been a lot of discussion, though. The districts have gotten together. I know there's a proposal, some discussion with Marco and the county. But countywide, as the Commissioner was saying, I mean, if you look at it countywide and you could plat out the stations that way and the resources that way, and if everyone genuinely wants to sit at the table. I know our Chief is more than willing to sit at the table to talk about that. So you're getting no differences of opinion generally from us. I guess what -- again, the position in this particular case is this annexation of, you know, 100 acres, give or take, is not going to address the issue that we're talking about countywide. And that's my only point. That's going to take in, I think Attorney Barnes, Laura, Page 14 ~_____'""_..,___,""'...~....'__ .._. ,....___...'"'"_"""__""_,____.._o._,._.,.~_~.._,_._.'_,___ ...._...,,_."_.___,_"'___.__.,.....~ January 12, 2007 had clarified that even better than what I could. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Okay. Now I don't know want to -- and this is a conversation, and again, there isn't a whole lot of precedent for this particular part of 171. Dr. Lee basically just mentioned that, you know, are you willing to give a proposal? And he talked about millage rate issues. Chief, you basically came back and talked about service. I would suggest, and this is just me, to come back and talk about service the next time and even talk with the Chief from the City of Naples and see if there's something on the service issue that's left out that hasn't been addressed or whatever in order to work that out. And I understand the millage issue, okay, but I'm talking about from the service side of the house. And in the 1 71 process it basically says that if there can't be something worked out, okay, i.e., either leave it alone or they're going to take it, that you are compensated for a four-year period of time by the annexing municipality at your standard millage for four years, okay. So that part is still in the statute and still there. Now, in that negotiation process that could even be negotiated. So I would ask you, okay, to take a look at that. And we won't have the next meeting tomorrow, I promise. We'll give it some time, a month or so, and then we'll come back and we'll talk about those things that are still on the table and discuss those particular issues. Does that sound amiable to you? MS. DONALDSON: No, we can draft a proposal and get it to the City of Naples, as well as talk to the property owners and see what their position is at least for the fire services issue. CITY MANAGER LEE: And again, first of all, I'd like -- if we could meet sooner than a month, I'd like to do that. Secondly, I don't want to be disingenuous about where we're going forward with this. We've had discussions in the past regarding providing those services. I know we've come to where we are as to Page 15 "--.--..--'-..,--.-.-,..".-"..----......,.-..".~,--"...,,-... '~...."._"~~<<...,.,""'"'''"a.'''~''.."._......,_..,..,,''"',...'''_ .. U January 12,2007 what we've proposed in the Urban Services Report. But I certainly would welcome, if you have something different you'd like us to take a look at. As the County Manager mentioned, we're not locked into that. That state statute does say -- provide us some agreement if we can't come to some agreement. And that's what's provided in this Urban Services Report. But if you do have something for us to look at, it would certainly be appropriate and responsible for us to look at. CHIEF BROWN: I'd like to interject something. We share a station with this group. This is an East Naples issues, but the annexations that you're talking about, there's no growth -- planning for growth for building fire stations and hiring personnel and buying fire trucks. And in four years those people, what do we do with those folks? And that's an issue that continues on. I mean, we're trying to plan for the future, and these annexations. Certainly if it can't be settled through the current law, then that law needs to be looked at. That certainly isn't going to be revolved at this table, but it will be resolved somewhere else. And it's hard to plan for the future when they start taking pieces of what you planned for. And that's a difficult process, what's happening in East Naples right now, what we're fearful will happen in North Naples as well. So that's a problem that's going to be ongoing, and that issue needs to be dealt with in a better way than just four years and you're out. And that's what I see. I mean, that's the law. So-- CITY MANAGER LEE: I think that the four years does provide for some planning. There's some activities in growth four years from now that you're not even aware of in your districts that are actually going to occur, to what level. So it's very difficult. You need to plan. It's difficult to be that precise. But again, we agree with the general concept of looking at who's Page 16 ____.~"_._._'_~._'h..._..,',.,_.~~,~.. ,.._,.~,__",.."__~~_..__""..." January 12, 2007 providing fire service. And I don't want to make this meeting all about fire service, but who are the service providers in the county, and are there more efficient -- proficient ways to plan in the future for those services? So that everybody is getting good fire service and not having a situation where you have fire stations across the street from each other in some areas of the county and in other areas of the county you're spread out significant distances. So, I mean, you can't argue with that point. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Leo, you have something? MR.OCHS: Yeah, I just wanted to ask a follow-on question, if I might. Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager. Dr. Lee, if you don't -- if the City Council ends up not annexing the Commerce Park, did I understand you to say that you still intend to pursue expansion of station three to provide other backup to your primary -- or your two existing stations? Or is this expansion triggered or determined ultimately on whether or not the City Council will annex the Commerce Park? CITY MANAGER LEE: No, it's not contingent upon whether they determine to annex the park. We need to responsibly look at the service areas we have. I think one of the things that does happen when -- if you annex little pieces, soon you have a big piece of property that's beyond what you were providing service for in the past. And I commend our fire chief, because when we were looking at the Urban Services Report, initially we didn't look at expanding that station. But we want to make sure, I mean, we have, as has been mentioned before, ISO rating of two. We have certain criteria we want to maintain in level of service and expectations for anyone in the city. And that's one of the reasons we looked at what we're looking at here. But even with that, ultimately, of course the City Council will be the deciding factor as to what if any additional level of service, fire service, we're providing out there. Page 1 7 January 12, 2007 MR. OCHS: Thank you. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Part of this is an expansion -- while we're still on the subject -- is an expansion of the station on the airport. At least that's my take. Do you have to go through any approval process? You created this beast called the Airport Authority, okay, that basically doesn't respond to your City Council but are basically their own independent decision-making authority. The only thing the board has control over is filling vacancies. Do you have to go through an approval process? Because I've asked them a couple of times as a county for certain things and it hasn't been much fun. And I'm wondering if you have to go through that same process with them and has that already been agreed upon? CITY MANAGER LEE: In terms of the Airport Authority, we do have a, I have to say, I think we have a good relationship with the Authority. I certainly do with the executive director. We have had some preliminary discussions with them on this. They understand it. It's not a requisite. It only benefits them to have an expanded fire service right there in addition to what's already provided. So they would be very supportive. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Okay. But you still have to go through an approval process with them? CITY MANAGER LEE: I'll let the city attorney address that. He's here -- MR. PRITT: Bob Pritt, City Attorney. Approval process for what? COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Building on the Airport Authority. MR. PRITT: Well, the city owns the land. CITY MANAGER LEE: City owns the land. MR. PRITT: The city owns the land underneath the airport -- underneath the airport. So I'm not aware of any process that we have to go through. Page 18 ...... ;..,-",.,- --'~.._..~~._._-,,-,.._-_..._._"'.^.~- -*'-^"--~'~--"._'_''"''-'_''"'"''~"''_''~1<_;ij,.....__... January 12,2007 COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Okay, I'm just trying to ask. I mean, if there's something in here that -- MR. PRITT: They have to go through processes in the city in order to build on the land -- CITY MANAGER LEE: And we certainly will let them know, want them to know. You're talking about a legal question, I think you've addressed that -- COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: I'm wondering ifbuilding on the Airport Authority has to be approved by the Airport Authority before it can happen. And that's the question I have. You might own the land, but I don't believe you have the authority to build on the Airport Authority unless that Airport Authority says yes. CITY MANAGER LEE: Depends on what it is that we're building. Again, we're talking about an expansion, not major, major, but expansion of a fire station that they're supportive of, and I'm sure they would be -- MR. PRITT: I think the parties do have to deal with each other on it. But as far as ultimate decision-making, that's something that -- COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Yeah, I don't know that much about it. I'm just asking the question. CHIEF BROWN: Generally from the FAA standpoint you can't deliver fire service on a regular basis to surrounding areas from the airport fire station. You can do it on an occasional basis, but you can't provide fire protection to the surrounding areas from the airport. That's supposed to be designed for airport fire protection. And I think if you ask the Chief, that's the -- it's not -- it's the exception that you go outside the parameters of the airport, but not as a rule. CHIEF MCEVOY: This is Jim McEvoy, Fire Chief of the City of Naples. You have to provide the level of protection required by the index of the airport. If you're over that and that -- we meet that with the Page 19 January 12, 2007 crash truck and the crash rescue vehicle -- if you're over that, then it matters not where that apparatus responds to. I'm not talking about putting additional specialized aircraft rescue fire fighting apparatus on the airport, we're talking about an engine company. CITY MANAGER LEE: Does that clarify things? COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: I'm just asking some questions MR. PRITT: Those are the types of issues that we -- I'm sure we'll face when we deal with them. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Okay. All right. There's some things that are still out there outstanding and we'll try to address them at the next meeting, if there's anything. And I think we've covered public safety. One piece that's on the table, and I believe your police force is going to police that on a regular basis. CITY MANAGER LEE: That's correct. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: And you still have the sheriffs agreements and things like that that will basically -- does anyone at this table know of any holes or items that we haven't thought about as far as police protection is concerned from a safety standpoint? I'm just -- if not, we'll move to -- CITY MANAGER LEE: We have no independent police districts. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: No independent airport authorities. Okay. And that's what I was talking about before. It's not a dependent, it's an independent. MR. PRITT: Actually, that's not 100 percent staffed. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: It isn't? MR. PRITT: It has a measure of independence, but there still is the power of appointment. And that's one of the attributes of a dependent, that you know what some of the services you have. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Okay. Page 20 January 12, 2007 MR. OCHS: Okay. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Brings us to water and wastewater on the particular agenda. Right now in this particular area, water is provided by the City of Naples. CITY MANAGER LEE: Correct. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: And for -- I'm just going to call it sewer, okay. You guys got this fancy term wastewater, okay, and the next thing we'll get into is affluent with an A, okay? But we'll just call it sewer. And the sewer service is provided by the county. In your Urban Services Report, you talk about that particular arrangement still staying in place. CITY MANAGER LEE: Correct. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: You also quote in the Urban Services Report the section from 1 71 that says, and I don't have it with me, but you're talking a similar service or whatever, municipal services, that the responsibility of the annexing municipality is to make sure that a similar service is being provided, okay? CITY MANAGER LEE: Uh-uh. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: We would -- from a county perspective, we would prefer that the city provide the sewer service to that particular area. We believe that a similar service is not only of a municipal kind but it's also of a municipal price. And I believe that similar means exactly that. If you take a look at the sewer -- if you take a look at the county rate structure, our rate structure is higher than the city's rate structure. There might be a couple categories that are different, but the county's rate structure is higher. Part and parcel of that has to do with the state's agencies, okay -- and we'll just call it the state, but there's numerous agencies -- requirements that the county use alternative water sources to feed the growth in the county. So the county has been forced to use reverse osmosis and brackish water sources in order to provide potable water Page 21 January 12,2007 to the citizens of Collier County to the tune -- well, today the county provides over 40 percent of its potable water to its citizens through brackish water sources. And within the next year it will be 54 percent of the potable water in the county is being provided from brackish water sources. Now, that isn't a new item, because I talked about that particular dimension of water supply with the South Florida water governing board in your chambers at the City of Naples yesterday as we talked about future needs. I also talked to them that having them push toward 80 percent brackish versus 20 percent fresh would be a bridge too far for the county, because water production would be so expensive that we might think about drinking gold instead of water in the future. And they kind of agreed with us. But because we've had that demand to go to alternative water sources, not only in the use of our potable water from brackish sources, but also in our reclaim program in order to push that dimension. Our water and sewer rates are higher than the city's. And I will say to you, even with the 25 percent surcharge, our rates are higher than the city's, okay, if you're providing to an outside service area. And as you grow as a city, I believe that your consumptive use permits and things from South Florida whatever are going -- you are going to find that you are going to be limited about as to how much fresh water that you can draw and you'll enter the dimension of reverse osmosis and brackish water, seawater, whatever it takes as we go through this process. But from a county perspective, we would rather the city assume the sewer service so that it stays within the process within the municipal control of that particular amenity. There's several ways that that can happen: You could pay the county for the infrastructure that's underneath. I would tell you that that's probably not really good, because we've got pieces of our Page 22 January 12, 2007 programs that are intermeshed all over the boundary between the municipality and the city right now. And we might consider a swap of service area in order to -- in order to satisfy that particular issue. And we might want to talk about that later, next meeting or whatever. But from a county perspective, I wanted to make sure that you understand where we would prefer that to be. Now, you weren't the city manager, Dr. Lee, in this particular issue, but I want to make sure you understand some of the hesitancy we have in providing a service and it being in the city and you receiving the phone calls, okay, for the service not being provided or whatever. And we've done very, very well, don't get me wrong, in the areas where you provide service or we provide service in the city or you provide it out of the city. And I want to make sure that you understand that your public utilities folks, public works folks have been absolutely professional in every manner. And I'm looking at the two gentlemen that are sitting right there. Just need to coordinate their shirts a little bit better. At least the color thereof, okay. I think we've got the same make and model, just the color's a little different. CITY MANAGER LEE: This is a guy who has pink flamingoes on his tie. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: That's right. And it matches the shirt striping, you'll notice that. CITY MANAGER LEE: I know, you look like you just stepped out of a catalog. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: That's right. No problem. And so -- but I want to bring a different area and a different beat when you weren't the manager. And this is something that's kind of sat burning for a while. But when -- and right now you are in charge of cleaning your beach, and you have the rates and that kind of business, and we provide those dollars out of the tourist development tax. And that has happened since you've been the county manager. Page 23 January 12, 2007 And one of the reasons that from a county perspective I didn't have any complaint or angst about that particular issue is what I'm about ready to talk about. The previous county manager, and I was the -- excuse me, city manager, and I was the county manager, and we had received a letter from the city that basically said please don't rake the beach anymore because we want it to go back into a natural state. And I received that from the manager, and it had gone through the City Council. And then we had a series of events that transpired on the beach where one month we got all kinds of dead fish all over the place because of red tide. And as soon as we got that cleaned up another month we had seaweed from hell that showed up. And it seemed like every month it alternated between dead fish and seaweed. And I had received this letter from the city that said we want to have it go back in a natural state. And so we abided by what the city wanted. And it was up to the city to call us to tell us to engage the rakes or whatever to clean the beach up. And staff had asked -- called city staff and said hey, do you want us to come rake this up, because it's all over the county, man, and we're raking like crazy. We -- you know, do you think? No, we have to wait. And then all of a sudden the calls started coming in from the city residents complaining about the stinking seaweed, literally stinking, smelling, odoriferous. And then the answer that the city folks got was well, the county hasn't raked our beach yet. And so what I don't want to have is that kind of angst, okay, between -- and oh, by the way, then the city resident called the county and said the city staff just said that you didn't do it, why didn't you do it, you bunch of bums? Why are you treating the city as second class citizens? And I would really like that not to occur. And in those particular cases where we could avoid it by arranging services under control and we could make it very separate and distinct, that would be a good Page 24 January 12, 2007 thing, I think. I'm not causing any angst to present staff, I'm just telling you in the past that did happen. So if there's a way that when this annexation occurs that the water and sewer is provided by the city, we would like that to happen, okay, in total. Now, it might not be able to happen. And then I would say if we're going to take a look at the statute in link services, we probably need to have a link services in rate. And there might be a charge of a city rate to those customers, even though the county's providing it. And the difference between your rate and the county's rate being given to the county, because that's the rate that the county has set. So it's something to think about. You want to wait till the next time to talk about that? CITY MANAGER LEE: Let me make a few comments so that we know perhaps what we're to be working on the next time we get together. What's included in the Urban Services Report is based on law and what's -- and precedent. As you rightly point out, we currently are providing water and sewer services to areas in the unincorporated area. And I think that works out well. As a matter of fact, this is one of those services where both the city and the county have cooperated extremely well. When the county had an issue, before I came here, I know it was a big issue, there was some interconnect and services were provided to the county that the city provided, and these were areas that we wouldn't normally provide. And the best case I can think of relatively recently other than the complex was with Wilma, and how the county was a lifesaver to the city when we needed water and we had our lines broken, et cetera. So I want to make it clear for anyone here, we do cooperate extremely well, the city and the county, on these utility services. And I appreciate Jim's comments about the public works director and the Page 25 January 12, 2007 utility director, because ditto, it has worked out extremely well. With that said, and your comment about the city -- or the county wanting the city to provide the service, I think our one concern would be just to look at to see -- again, I know I come -- coming from a financial standpoint, but I would be looking to see if we could make it revenue neutral, if that's possible. And -- but again, that would be a proposal we're certainly welcome to look at from you next time. Or if you get it to us ahead of time, then we'll be prepared to talk about that. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Well, I'd like to engage not only our utility staff but your utility staff on that particular issue so they can work through that. I could come up with a proposal, but unless they talk, you know, then they're back at it again and we just prolong this. And I'm not too sure that's what we want. CITY MANAGER LEE: Yes, we don't want to prolong it. If you have anything specific, we'll certainly address that right -- take it back today. Otherwise, what I'm suggesting is in the interim if you have something and you want to send it off to us, we can work on that and be ready for the next meeting. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Okay. CITY MANAGER LEE: And the staffs can even talk during that time. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: One of the things that -- even though it says water and wastewater, one of the things -- and I don't believe that there's any portion of that -- of this proposed annexation parcel of 100 acres that receives reclaimed water. I don't think there's any irrigation water in there that I know of -- CITY MANAGER LEE: I don't think so. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: -- unless you guys know of it. But you do know that our board passed a resolution that basically says upon annexation the reclaimed water gets turned off and then they go on potable or whatever the city wants to provide? I just want Page 26 January 12, 2007 to make sure that we all know that that resolution is there. And I think I haven't said anything that folks at this table didn't know. CITY MANAGER LEE: To my knowledge, that's not an issue in this particular annexation. For the record, we do -- there is a different point of view from our legal counsel when that issue came up before. But it's not an issue here, and I don't think we need to address it. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Good. Anything else on water and wastewater? (No response.) COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: All right, let's move to road ownership, construction and maintenance. Okay, we're -- we, the county, are assuming that once you annex that particular property, all maintenance responsibility for the roads in that 100 acres are the responsibility of the city. CITY MANAGER LEE: That's correct. Those public roadways would be the responsibility of the city. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: And with that comes the lighting of those roadways, the drainage off of those roadways, okay, and I just want to make sure that's clear. And I believe you addressed that even in your Urban Services Report or something that backed it up. You were talking about maintaining the stormwater -- CITY MANAGER LEE: Yes. In answer to your question, the public roadways and the drainage as part of that would be assumed by the city. MR. MERCER: That's correct. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Okay, I think we're square on that. There's some kind of roads in between that aren't public, or that you mentioned in your Urban Services Report that I believe that I guess there's an association in there or whatever that it's their responsibility in order to get it. I'm not too sure if they have some kind of a -- I'm showing my ignorance here, but I don't know if there's some kind of an association Page 27 January 12, 2007 dues or whatever that folks are responsible for. CITY MANAGER LEE: I believe there is. And there's a representative here from the association, if you needed that clarified. MS. SPURGEON: Hi. I'm Laura Spurgeon with Johnson Engineering. I represent Collier Park of Commerce for the annexation. There is a property owners association that maintains certain drainage and those alleyways that you're describing. CITY MANAGER LEE: Just for the record, maybe I should enter it at this time as well. If this annexation is to occur, one of the things that will be part of it is an agreement that requires that the Collier Park of Commerce would bring the public road up to a sufficient level, resurfacing, et cetera, within a specific time. I think it was 18 months. But bring it up to a standard. And then the city would -- as contingent -- the annexation would be contingent upon that. That would be part of the development agreement -- annexation agreement, I'm sorry. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Okay. And those are the roads that intersect -- CITY MANAGER LEE: Public roadways. That's the public road that we would be responsible for. When we take it over, we want it to be in a condition that is where the maintenance has been addressed. We don't want to take over a road that has a lot of maintenance problems. And they've agreed to that. MS. SPURGEON: We've been discussing that, yes. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Okay, so you've been discussing it. There's a difference between discussing and agreeing -- CITY MANAGER LEE: Well, we don't have the agreement signed yet but there's been a -- that's part of what is being proposed for annexation. MS. SPURGEON: There's an understanding that the city expects Page 28 January 12, 2007 this to be a fully up to level of service standard road condition when it enters the city. And it hasn't specifically been maintained that way thus far. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there any idea -- this is Commissioner Coletta again -- any idea what the cost would be to bring the roads up to that particular point? CITY MANAGER LEE: I understand it's somewhere around 175, $200,000, something like that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So that would have to go into the ledger for the loss side for the park owners, people that live in the park itself? COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Right. MR. MERCER: Just for clarification -- Dan Mercer -- it's about 250,000. CITY MANAGER LEE: 250, okay. MR. MERCER: 250,000. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's for how much in roads, how many feet of roads? MR. MERCER: It's to rebuild them for the 1.5 mile stretch. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And 250,000. And how many people benefit from this road? Just trying to put it together in my head what this is -- we're talking. How many people? Tenants or property owners. MS. SPURGEON: We have approximately 80 property owners. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it would be 80, and 250 more of less what the cost would be for the property owner. MS. SPURGEON: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that would be up front cost or they's bond it out or what? MS. SPURGEON: I don't know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You don't know. Thank you. MR. OCHS: Excuse me, just a follow on. Leo Ochs. Are the assessments going to be made equally per property Page 29 January 12, 2007 owner, or is it based on some lineal front footage? Or do you know? MS. SPURGEON: I never heard of a lineal measurement. But I haven't been in all the negotiations regarding the road. MR. OCHS: We own several properties there so I'm wondering, is every property owner paying the same share or is it based on square footage of your property or lineal front footage, or is it an assessment or a tax? CITY MANAGER LEE: I was under the understanding that they were -- you're part of the association? MR. OCHS: No. CITY MANAGER LEE: You're not part of the association, right? MR.OCHS: Well, we're property owners. I don't know how they're going to assess. They just said they're going to assess all the property owners in the Commerce Park. And the board owns at least four, four parcels of land there. I know the district owns one. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: We own three. MR.OCHS: Three or four. CITY MANAGER LEE: This would be our proposal to the City Council with the annexation that that occur. Whether that is a requisite or not, I don't know whether they're going to require that. But that's what the discussions have been thus far. There's been a verbal agreement. I don't know if there's even something in writing. Dan, do you recall ? We may have something -- MR. MERCER: Dan Mercer, for the record. What we have right now is a written proposal quote from a contractor that was provided to Chad Lund. And it's broken down. It was estimated on the lineal feet, but I don't know how it's going to be applied to the property owners. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, Commissioner Coletta agaIn. When the final numbers all come together, I would assume that there's going to be a property owners' meeting of all the different Page 30 January 12, 2007 entities out there to be able to take some sort of vote? Or is it going to be decided by a property owners association where maybe some of the people don't have any say into it? I'm a little curious how the structure is going to be for the people that are owning property in there as far as the final decision. MS. SPURGEON: There's actually already been consents filed from the required number of voters in the Collier Park of Commerce. So they met the threshold for the number of consents that they need to proceed with annexation. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But now, do they have the right to come back and make a final determination when they find out what the cost is for the roads and everything else -- MS. SPURGEON: Right-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- or are they done now, they have no more say? MS. SPURGEON: No, that couldn't be agreed to without the-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. When that time does come, when all the final numbers are together, all entities that own property including the county, the Sheriffs Department, fire department, everything else would also have a vote by -- probably by the -- that would be weighted against how much property they own or how many square feet of road surface that they occupy by some sort of mechanism so there would be a final decision made at an open forum? MS. SPURGEON: Right. I understand that whatever cost is incurred to get the roads up to par would be only paid for by willing parties. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, that don't make sense. In other words, if we're not a willing party, we don't pay? COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Commissioner, this is -- let's put it this way. When that meeting transpires, the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the County Manager want to be invited, because we are going to represent our particular properties on Page 31 January 12, 2007 Horseshoe Drive. MS. SPURGEON: I understand all property owners are invited. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Good. Because I believe that your financials that you had at your meeting that you gave to the folks that were around the table was May of 2005 when you had your one and only meeting with everybody that was there. The financials have changed, the millage rate of the City of Naples has changed. I don't believe that the road maintenance piece was part of that financial that was displayed to the folks. So I believe there are some things that need to be discussed amongst that group if annexation is going to be predicated upon making that road acceptable to the City of Naples. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may, I don't think any meeting should take place amongst the property owners association unless the Chairman of the Collier County Commission gets a direct invitation. And that's put on the record now as due notice. CITY MANAGER LEE: Thank you, Commissioner and Mr. Manager. I think -- and that is something that -- you mentioned something about 2005. This was a more recent development or request from our staff -- MR.OCHS: I understand-- CITY MANAGER LEE: -- to look at the assessment. And I think that of course one of the alternatives is that the county could resurface it before we take it over. But I don't know that that would be the case with the annexation. And I'm not being facetious. I'm just saying it is a public roadway and we were looking for a way to say listen, if we're going to look at the annexation, we have to be responsible in making our recommendation. And that is an expense that we feel that the property owners should incur. And that's -- and I just wanted to put that on the record today rather than have that be a surprise was all. Page 32 January 12,2007 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the right thing to do. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Did we talk enough about roads and stormwater? I think we got -- CITY MANAGER LEE: I have. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Okay. I think I've got our pIece. Brings us to conservation parks and recreation. I don't believe that has much to do about this, okay. CITY MANAGER LEE: No. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Okay. Brings us to garbage, trash collection and recycling, okay. And I'm not too sure exactly what you had in your Urban Services Report. Does every one of those particular businesses have dumpster service with a separate contract with a vendor? MR. MERCER: Dan Mercer, for the record. I'm not sure it's a separate contract with every property owner, but I know Waste Management I think is responsible for all the collection on Horseshoe Drive. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: You're right, because it's in their district. What I'm trying to find out is, is it part of -- and I guess it's something I'm going to have to find out about. And I'd ask you to take a look. Is it part of the county's residential curbside service, or is there something special going on? I mean, it's pretty much a Commerce Park. I don't think they're making a lot of widgets there is what I'm trying to get at. So you're not going to get a lot of industrial waste from those particular buildings. I'm not too sure if it's a series of rollouts that they use in order to be picked up and how that works. But I'll check into that. MR. MERCER: For the whole area, it is considered commercial, so I presume that it would have to be dumpster service. CITY MANAGER LEE: I would think so. In the Urban Services Report, just for the record, we were just going to follow state law relative to that service. I think it's up to five Page 33 January 12, 2007 years. Some of them may have individual contracts. When they expire, that's when we would be responsible for assuming the service. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one question if I may, Dr. Lee. The county requires a certain amount of recycling take place. What would happen to that particular program? MR. MERCER: At this time we do not require or mandate commercial to recycle. However, a lot of them do the cardboard and so forth. But that's done by each individual property owner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it would go from a mandatory program to a voluntary program? MR. MERCER: When the city takes it over, that's correct. CITY MANAGER LEE: Commissioner, you raise a good point, though. And I would like us to, before next meeting, for us to take a look at that. And that particular area I think you raised, it's a very important point. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's a big concern to all the citizens of Collier County and the City of Naples. CITY MANAGER LEE: So I don't know what if anything would change, but rather than make that -- we'll take a look at it before the next meeting. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Okay, the last piece that I want to make sure that we're at least cognizant of has to do with the properties as zoned in that particular Commerce Park. The county has significant issues with Airport Road everywhere between Golden Gate -- well, they have significant issues with Airport Road in the entire length that it's there, okay, in its level of service. The level of service on that particular road is predicated by things that have already been zoned, vested, so to speak, sitting on that particular -- or abutting that particular road, and this particular property does abut that road. So it does have a zoning issue. And the present zoning, from what I understand, that the county zoning doesn't have a companion zone category within the city code. Page 34 January 12, 2007 I also know that that zoned property stays zoned as it is with the county until the city can do a compo plan amendment, okay? The county will look very closely at that compo plan amendment in the future zoning, and if there is any intensity in the use of that particular property, I believe the county will object, okay, to the DCA on that particular issue. So I want to make sure that if the development organization has visions of grandeur in a higher intensity use on that particular property and that's what they're predicating this annexation on, that it be put on the record today, the county will fight that tooth and nail. And I don't think I've over exaggerated it one bit. I don't buy we're doing this because we can get permits through quicker, because I have got here every permit that's been issued and the time that it's taken in that particular development from time immortal, okay, and it doesn't support that argument. So there's something else there that meets the eye and I'd like to get to it. But I'm not going to get to it in that meeting. But I will say if the zoned intensity of that particular property is more intense than it is today, and that's predicated on the level of service of Airport Road, the county will have problems with that. I just want to make sure you-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may add to that, Mr. Mudd. Not only the county will, but I'm sure that concurrency is a big issue for the city residents, too. And I'm sure that when that point in time does come that there will have to be a statement of fact issued. I would expect at least a white paper so that the residents within the City of Naples know what they'll have to contend with with any expansion of the business park. CITY MANAGER LEE: Let me just address and reaffirm that. Number one, until such time -- assuming the annexation occurs and you do have the land use and zoning, of course that's what would be followed if, when a compo plan amendment is made. If there's any request to do any -- increase the density, for Page 35 January 12, 2007 example, as referenced, I'm not in a position, nor should I be, to comment on what the council would do. There's a public hearing process, and I certainly wouldn't want to prejudice that as to what that decision is, even for the applicant. But the good news is I think that one of the things of recent that was agreed upon by our council and I think it was actually a county initiative was if there are any improvements within, I think it's a half mile of our borders, that we would let the others know. And I think what was it, a 10-day period, Jim, at least to have some public response to whatever that is. And although it's voluntary, I know the respective boards will take that very serious. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Well, that's a step in the right direction. CITY MANAGER LEE: And I think it's a step in the right direction. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Sure. I just let you know we've got some issues with Airport Road, and you need to know about that, okay. And if we're not taking a look at that, I believe that we could get ourselves in a different thing. Now, last thing, and it's more of a request by the county, that when -- I've got the admin. annex for the sheriff on that particular compound, I've got the entire transportation division on that compound, and I've got all of community development's environmental services on that compound. All of those particular entities use a lot of electricity and a lot of phones. And I know that you have a surcharge, surtax, excise tax, whatever you want to call it. I hope I didn't miss something that you call it. CITY MANAGER LEE: Utility tax. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: You have a utility tax on both of those particular issues. I would ask that in this interlocal agreement that we at least discuss -- we would -- the county would prefer not to pay those taxes Page 36 January 12, 2007 on those particular services on those particular issues. And I know that Chief Schank is buying a piece of property over there so he can expand his fire review for the county in that particular regard. And in buying that particular parcel, he had to -- his district had to, in a clause to buy the property, had to agree to the annexation. I hope I'm not speaking out of turn. That was a clause. But I will tell you because they bought that piece of property and that clause was in there and it's the only way they could get a piece of property that was close to community development's environmental services. And my conversations with Chief Schank, that wasn't them acquiescing to we like this annexation as far as the fire district is concerned. And I hope I haven't spoke out of turn. But you have a future building there that's going to have a government service in it. And I believe that that request that the county is making for at least its three activities on the Horseshoe compound would apply to the fourth, yours. CHIEF SCHANK: You are correct. CITY MANAGER LEE: Okay, we'll discuss-- COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Take it into account. We can -- it doesn't have to be decided here. We have some more meetings to do it. Now, I'm going to -- MR. PRITT: I have a question on that. Have you had anybody check to see whether or not that's at all lawful to have that type of exception? COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: No, I have not. I will. And I know you will, too. MS. RAUTIO: May I make a point of clarification? Chief Schank and East Naples represents all five of the fire districts. So they happen to be the administrators under the interlocal agreement. This is I.A. Rautio, citizen Rautio. However, our boards as a previous fire commissioner, had some Page 37 January 12,2007 discussion and have had discussion about the issue of purchasing that property and the clause that said you had to acquiesce to the annexation. And I as an individual fire commissioner did not feel that we should give up our powers for such an issue. And it will probably come up again at some point for discussion. So it would be nice if somebody would check that out, because they represent all of us, as the administrator for the fire code official's office, all five fire districts. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Yeah, they -- Bob, just so you know, might not know, they rotate that over a period of time. The last -- between fire districts, okay. MS. RAUTIO: It used to be North Naples and we gave it to East Naples. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Now it's East Naples. And there will be another district that sometime in the future will be the steward of that particular review process and then it will go to another district. It might return, but that's the way they've worked it through the process. MR. OCHS: It may have changed. MS. DONALDSON: Laura Donaldson. I think it's staying with East Naples from here on out. CHIEF SCHANK: It would have still been with North at the time. They had some issues they had to take care of and they did a great job of taking care of their issues in the interim we took it. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: I understand. Now, County Attorney, did I miss anything in this particular -- I think I've got all our issues out from a manager perspective from the legal side of the house and any other things that this discussion (sic). And then I'm going to -- and Bob, I've done a lot of the talking, I'm going to let you talk, or we can leave those things to do on the list and next meeting we'll come up with an agenda. And we do have a public comment piece in here. And I don't Page 38 January 12,2007 have sign-up cards. I'm just going to ask if anybody has to comment to raise their hand and then I'll call upon them. And we can do that after we get through that, okay? CITY MANAGER LEE: Sounds good. No, I think we've covered it. I like this venue. I appreciate the way you've set this up very much. I'll just ask our city attorney, public works utility directors, fire chief, whether they have anything to add at this time. MR. PRITT: Bob Pritt, city attorney. Did you get an answer from the county attorney's office as to whether or not they had anymore issues? COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: No, I didn't get that yet. MR. PRITT: If so, I just couldn't see it or hear it. MR. PETTIT: At this point I don't know of any. MR. PRITT: I can't imagine that they wouldn't have something. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: No, he said at this particular time he doesn't know of any. But next meeting we could find some. MR. PRITT: Thanks. CITY MANAGER LEE: Anyone? CHIEF MCEVOY: Nothing. CITY MANAGER LEE: No, thank you. We're finished for today. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Okay. So on the to-do list, I'm looking at sewer swap. I'm looking at fire proposal. The road issue raised its head a little bit. And garbage and recyclables to do as things to come back and investigate to come back at the next meeting. CITY MANAGER LEE: Just so we can designate responsibilities, we'll start from the back. Weare going to reexamine what the recyclable arrangement is. We can come back and respond to that. I understand the East Naples Fire District was going to prepare some sort of proposal. Again, I would urge you to get that to us before the next meeting so we can take a look at it. Page 39 January 12, 2007 And I think in terms of the taxes, I don't know, were you going to provide something to us based on that? MR. PETTIT: Our office will independently look at the utility tax issue. MR. PRITT: I would ask that you share that with us. And we'll share anything we have with you. MR. PETTIT: Okay, thank you. CITY MANAGER LEE: As far as the wastewater, the city taking that over as proposed, if you could provide a proposal for us on that as well, then we can -- COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: I'm going to do that proposal as we coordinate with your staff, and I'll have my staff talk with your staff so we get that worked out. CITY MANAGER LEE: Okay. Again, I know we're going to be opening up to the public, but in terms of the time to get together, you know, as soon as we can with our schedules. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Let's shoot for 30 days, but no later than 30 days. CITY MANAGER LEE: No later than 30 days. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: And this should give everybody an opportunity to work out what they do -- it will be close to 30 days, okay. I'm going to shoot 20, 30. What I'll do is I'll have our folks, my secretary, take a look, call yours and make sure everybody's schedule's okay. Chief Schank, you with me? Chief Brown, you with me? And we'll see if we're okay with schedules, and then we'll do a public announcement. I would ask, do you want to continue to have it here or do you want to have the next one in the city or -- and work through that? CITY MANAGER LEE: Is there a preference, Bob? MR. PRITT: I think the city ought to host the next one. CITY MANAGER LEE: Okay, we can do that. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Okay. Are you going to Page 40 January 12, 2007 provide the court reporter next time? Because we are taking minutes of this, and we'll -- how long will it take you to get -- MR. PRITT: We don't do it that way. My proposal would be that we do it the way we do in the city. If you want to bring a court reporter, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, I'm going to have to raise some objection. There's a cost incurred with this. And I think that it would be fair with the whole thing that either we divide the cost of it or you pick up the court reporter for the other end. The public has the right to these records. And these records can only be generated at the cost to someone. MR. PRITT: Well, it's up to the City Manager, the Mayor. We came over here, we did it the way you do it because this is the way you do it. And-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know. MR. PRITT: We just don't do a court reporter over there at the city, that's the only difference -- CITY MANAGER LEE: We don't do it with any of our meetings but -- MR. PRITT: I don't want to raise a big issue about it either. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But public records, the right to public records, and the public having the right to know. MR. PRITT: We are very -- MR. PETTIT: Mr. Pritt, we understand your position. MR. PRITT: We understand the right to public records as well as the county does. CITY MANAGER LEE: Well, let me see if we can work that out. The point is, let's get the date. And as far as the venue, that's why I said this looks comfortable here. I like these comfortable chairs, we don't have chairs quite as nice as this and enough room. But I think the city attorney's point, when we are somewhere, we follow whatever that procedure is. And we do have a certain Page 41 January 12, 2007 procedure that we use at the city. MR. PETTIT: The only point I would make, Dr. Lee and Mr. Pritt, is that these are in the nature of negotiations as well as a public meeting. And if agreements are made orally, it would be maybe conducive both to the parties and the public to have an actual verbatim record rather than handwritten notes. I understand that there's no absolute requirement to have a court reporter. MR. PRITT: The meetings are taped. CITY MANAGER LEE: Yeah, our meetings are all taped. MR. PRITT: It's not like you have it verbatim. CITY MANAGER LEE: We will-- let's get the -- we'll work that out. I don't think it's an issue for anyone of the other parties. COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Any other issues on the table? (No response.) COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Okay. Any comments from the general public? You want to speak, just raise your hand and -- any? (No response.) COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Are we okay? Everybody square? Commissioner Coletta, we okay? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm fine. I really do appreciate everybody being here today, and I'm looking forward to the next meeting. MR.OCHS: Jim, one last thing. We had a sign-up sheet passed around. If everybody would be kind enough to make sure -- CITY MANAGER LEE: I'm supposed to turn that in? MR. OCHS: Michael will make sure you get -- COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Anything else? Any alibis? (N 0 response.) COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned. (The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.) Page 42 January 12, 2007 ***** TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM. Page 43 --,...-..-"., - .... _.._~-~,,-~._,-'., January 12,2007 MR. OCHS: Jim, one last thing. We had a sign-up sheet passed around. If everybody would be kind enough to make sure -- CITY MANAGER LEE: I'm supposed to turn that in? MR. OCHS: Michael will make sure you get -- COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Anything else? Any alibis? (No response.) COUNTY MANAGER MUDD: Thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned. (The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.) ***** BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL /{~fH JIM ~TT A, Chairman ATTEST~' : i; DW~OHTE, BROCK, CLERK ~;~~',... #' r~~ . ..\. . __' Attm'u?ttI~, ...... Si1.)M..ture '6ll'1.. ie' These minutes approved by the Board on ~V11 I D, ()()()7, as presented V or as correcte TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM. Page 44