Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/14/2007 S (Proposed Annexation - Collier Park of Commerce) May 14, 2007 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CITY OF NAPLES GOVERNMENT EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT Naples, Florida, May 14,2007 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 May 14,2007, at 4:15 p.m., Collier County Government Complex, Building F, Naples, Florida. PRESENT: Jim Coletta, Collier County Commissioner, Chairman Jim Mudd, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Mike Pettit, Chief Assistant County Attorney Leo Ochs, Collier County Manager's Office Robert D. Pritt, Attorney, City of Naples Leo Salvatori, Attorney, CPOC Laura Spurgeon, Johnson Engineering Laura Donaldson, Attorney, East Naples Fire District. Angela Davis, East Naples Fire Commissioner Michael Sheffield, County Manager's Office Dan Mercer, City of Naples Bob Middleton, City of Naples John C. Norman, Rep/David Rivera Jack Pointer, citizen Judith Chirgwin, citizen Page 1 May 14, 2007 MR. MUDD: Let's get started. Bob Lee can't be here today. Well, he can be here but he's in a workshop. And Bob, I think you're representing the city. MR. PRITT: Where are all my people? MR. MUDD: Yeah. They're not here yet. MR. PETTIT: It's raining. MR. MUDD: And so -- and if we don't get more people here by quarter after (sic), we'll talk about it, and then we'll have another meeting here. MR. PRITT: Do you expect any more from the county? I'm not sure that -- MR. MUDD: Maybe the chairman, but I don't know ifhe's coming or not. It's on his calendar, but he could have got caught up in the rain, so -- uh, there he is. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did I miss anything? MR. MUDD: Okay. As far as the county is concerned, I've got everybody that we're going to have. When we last had a meeting, we talked about having a sample interlocal service boundary agreement drafted and passed around so that we could talk about it during this meeting, and I believe that was the intent of this meeting, to figure out what things we didn't have or what things we didn't (sic) have, where we could agree or where we couldn't. But we've had a series of meetings and -- to try to get that on a piece of paper. And so we've -- so we've done that. Your preference, Mr. Pritt, would be to go down each paragraph or -- MR. PRITT: Yeah, if you'd like, I'll be glad to go through this with you. Once again, for the record, I'm Bob Pritt. I'm here on behalf of the city. Unfortunately Dr. Lee is still over in the brief counsel workshop that was to be held at nine o'clock this morning. And __ MR. MUDD: Brief? Page 2 May 14, 2007 MR. PRITT: Yes. I think members -- are they still there, still in workshop? MR. NORMAN: I saw the replay on television. MR. PRITT: They had two or three workshops. I think they might have one tonight, too, I'm not sure. Anyhow-- MR. PETTIT: Before you begin, Bob. MR. PRITT: Yes. MR. PETTIT: For the record, Mike Pettit, Chief Assistance County Attorney. I went back through this, and there's a couple things that are not so much substantive in nature to think about, too, which is, the act does provide for a term for the agreement, which I didn't include. MR. PRITT: Twenty years? MR. PETTIT: Yeah. It could be up to 20 years. MR. PRITT: Right. MR. PETTIT: It provides for a renegotiation period, provides for compo plan amendments for both the city and the county, and it provides for the agreements being adopted by ordinance if we enter into an agreement by both the city and county. So we may want to memorialize those in language and any agreement we finally come to. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. PETTIT: That's it. MR. PRITT: Is that it? MR. PETTIT: That's it. I have one other language change, but I'll wait till it gets to that paragraph. MR. MUDD: Okay. How are the whereases doing? Bob? MR. PRITT: I had a question on this. I see that there is a whereas -- frankly, I didn't have a chance to go back and check it in the files, but one, two, three, four -- between four and five at the bottom of page 1. Did not, in fact, the city invite the county -- the fire control district to the negotiations? I believe that was in our responding -- Page 3 May 14, 2007 MR. MUDD: North Naples. MS. DONALDSON: This is Laura Donaldson. The city invited North Naples Fire Control District. The county invited East Naples Fire Control District -- MR. PRITT: Oh, was that? Okay. MS. DONALDSON: -- by law, yeah. MR. PRITT: Why'd they invite North Naples? MS. DONALDSON: My understanding in watching the tape of the city council meeting -- MR. PRITT: I'm trying to figure out which district __ MS. DONALDSON: -- was they wanted this to kind of be the basis of all future agreements and wanted everyone at the table. MR. MUDD: Well, that was a question we asked, you know, when we did it. But hey, they came and that's fine. MR. PRITT: North Naples and East Naples share a fire station; do they not? MS. DAVIS: Yes. MR. PRITT: Is that in the city? MS. DAVIS: Yes. MR. PRITT: That might have been their -- MS. DAVIS: It's right by Poinciana Elementary School. MR. PRITT: Right. It had something to do with that, that joint fire facility. There's a question that we had, I think, at the time as to whether or not that was located within the city. Regardless __ MS. DAVIS: I'm sure it is within the city's district, but it's East Naples, North Naples, and EMS. MR. PRITT: Right. Did you want to go through these or you want me to go through any responses to any of the ones you have? MR. MUDD: Yeah, let's -- MR. PRITT: You just want me to respond? MR. PETTIT: Why don't you go ahead. I didn't include a copy of a map yet because I thought we could get together on that at some Page 4 May 14,2007 point. I've got several maps, but they tend to be more zoning maps, and I'm not sure that's what they want. We can always get that together. MR. PRITT: I guess down on page 2, number 2, fire service to be determined -- welcome back from Tallahassee. MS. DONALDSON: Thank you. MR. PRITT: If you looked at the transcript from the last meeting, you'll see that we refrained from having any discussions with you -- or about the fire district without the fire district being present, and I don't know if you want -- maybe we ought -- I don't want to slight you or anything, but maybe we ought to go on to the other things in this agreement and then go back and talk about any fire issues; is that okay? MS. DONALDSON: We're here for the long haul, so whatever the committee's preference. MR. PRITT: Is that okay with the county? MR. MUDD: Sure. MR. PRITT: The -- I'm not in a position to know whether or not number 3 is correct on all certain -- in all of its respects, and that would be something that the staff would take a look at. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. PRITT: So that's kind of a recital, I think, more than anything. I think that fairly summarizes the discussions that we were having back and forth concerning that fire station. On page 3, I did make a note here, and that's a sentence at the top that says, the city agrees that should it become necessary to specially assess property owners for the expanded operations in the future, the CPOC owner shall only be responsible -- responsible for their prorata share and that funding at the full expansion of station three shall not be borne solely by the CPOC property owners. I think I understand what you're saying here, but correct me if I'm saying it wrong. Part of -- part of station three will include this area, Page 5 May 14, 2007 or this area will comprise part of what might go into station three and a portion of it will not. So you're just asking that this not -- that we don't stick the property owners in CPOC with the total cost of the fire station, that everybody pays their fair share; is that correct? MR. PETTIT: Correct. MR. MUDD: Yes. The Urban Services Report talks about a shortage of funds. Was it 1.7 million, Leo, if I remember correctly. And it talks about a shortage of funds as far as the future expansion is concerned, and it talks that that expansion will be funded by growth. And one of the things, when we had this dialogue and we talked about that particular -- I think it's on page 6, Leo, of the Urban Services Report. MR. OCHS: I'm looking. MR. MUDD: About two-thirds of the page -- two-thirds down the page. And so there was -- (Mr. Mercer, Mr. Middleton, and Ms. Chirgwin entered the conference room.) MR. OCHS: Yeah. MR. MUDD: Page 6? MR. OCHS: Page 6. MR. MUDD: I'll be darned. Two-thirds down the page, down at the bottom of the footnote? MR. OCHS: Two-thirds. MR. MUDD: You got it. MR. OCHS: You got it, sir. Do you want me to read it? MR. MUDD: Go ahead. MR. OCHS: It says, at this time funding for the remaining annual operating costs of 1.155 million related to the operations of the station number three expanded, this not yet identified but should be funded by growth, prior annexation and future annexation. MR. MUDD: Okay. And the dialogue we were having at that time was to make sure that with the CPOC, if you were going to make Page 6 May 14, 2007 the expansion, that the CPOC properties, property owners, would pay their fair share of that growth, but that the whole expansion wouldn't be on, so to speak, on their back until those other things happened. And so when we talked about it during the particular time, we talked about a pro rata share and those kind of things. And what I believe Mike did was go back to the record of that time, read over it to make sure that we memorialized that particular conversation so that it didn't -- that it didn't allude anybody so that it was there. MR. PRITT: And I -- I don't know if you were trying to, Mike, or not, but I think it addresses to some extent the legal concern that I had concerning the law of special assessment, and that is we have to be fair -- the public versus private share has to be fairly apportioned, whether it's 100 percent or 0 percent or 50 or 75 percent. How much does the public pay, if anything, versus the property owner, specially benefited, and then it has to be fair among the property owners specially benefited anyhow. So -- but that was -- and I was concerned about whether or not we needed to memorialize anything that is part of the law anyhow at the risk of saying something that's not part of the law. I don't think that this -- MR. PETTIT: Yeah, I don't think -- MR. PRITT: -- does that, and I tend to think we're okay on that subject, my thinking about it a little more. But my main concern, I think, has been addressed by the way you read it. MR. PETTIT: Okay, yeah. And I think -- I was thinking about that when we wrote this. I think that we felt we wanted to have that expressed, and I -- my impression from statements that the city manager made, that he was not uncomfortable with having it made express in the record. And it looked to me like -- I went back and took a look at the law at special assessments. The general black and white, you know, Hornbook Rules, and I don't think you could nick us for the whole thing anyway, but we just wanted to make sure it's express. Page 7 May 14,2007 MR. PRITT: Okay. So I tentatively, at least, I think we're okay on that. I had the bigger concern probably, but I think we're probably okay on that. You don't think we could nick you for the whole thing, huh? MR. PETTIT: No. MR. PRITT: Really? Remember that now when these guys are trying to nick somebody for the whole thing. You know I'm going to come over. I'm just going to come over. Now, Mike said that. I'll read this. MR. PETTIT: I said I don't think. I didn't give you a definitive opmlOn. MR. MUDD: Okay. Recycling. Paragraph four. MR. PRITT: I don't think we have a problem with that __ MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. PRITT: -- unless there's something in there that I'm just not seeing. Dan Mercer? MR. OCHS: Hi, Dan. MR. MERCER: Present and accounted for. MR. PRITT: All right. Recycling. The language that we have in the recycling -- MR. MERCER: I think the language was okay. MR. PRITT: Do you have a copy here? MR. MERCER: I grabbed the wrong folder. MR. MUDD: Why don't you come on up here, Dan, and sit at the table. Bob, if you want to sit up there. You don't have to sit in the chiefs seat. MR. MIDDLETON: I've got his back. MR. MUDD: You've got his back. MR. PRITT: Is this a copy for anybody to you? There, Dan. MR. MERCER: Yes, I think that was the wording we agreed upon. Page 8 May 14,2007 MR. PRITT: Okay. Wastewater service. Dan, why don't you go ahead there, if you had a chance on that. I didn't see a problem with it . . III my reVIew. MR. MUDD: Bob just wanted to make sure that we still had the option that we could talk about it later if we wanted to. MR. PRITT: Right. MR. MUDD: And I believe that basically covers it. MR. PRITT: I think either he or I brought it up at the last meeting. The only thing is, is that relates to the term of the agreement. Well, it mayor may not relate to the term of the agreement. One of my comments later on -- and Mike's already kind of covered it -- is that we need to have a term, and term of the agreement, the statute says 20 years, as you said. It's 180 days prior to that time for notice of renegotiation, et cetera. But I'm wondering, it seems to me that we ought to have a shorter period of time on this agreement because we don't need 20 years. And we're -- I think the intention, at least, of a lot of people here at the table, between the city and the county, would be to talk about the service area issues anyhow. And this very well may be something that we'll want to be talking about again in the future. I mean, I don't know that we will or will not. But we were talking about this as one of the areas before, so I'll presume we'll probably talk about it again. MR. MUDD: As soon as I'm done with this, we're going to start again. I just like seeing Dan all the time, you know. So, you know, I miss it if! can't get a monthly dose of Dan and Bob. MR. PETTIT: Are you suggesting that we put a limitation in that provision itself? Because we don't have to have this agreement for 20 years. It can be less, according to the statute. Are you suggesting __ MR. PRITT: I don't know if you want to talk about the term of the agreement yet or -- until we get to it. MR. PETTIT: Let's just wait till we get to it. Page 9 May 14,2007 MR. PRITT: Yeah, but I would like to talk about the term of the agreement, and this is kind of the poster child paragraph for that. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. PRITT: The numbers, I believe, on number 6 -- and Dan, throw something at me if I say it wrong, but I think these were the amount of monies that we're talking about. And-- MR. MUDD: And the only bone of contention here, real quick, is there's a difference with what the city estimates the cost of the repair is going to be and what Mr. Salvatori and who he represents and what they have agreed to pay, okay? MR. SAL VA TORI: That's in part correct. For the record, this is Leo Salvatori. I think part of this is -- and I think Mike appropriately worded it based on the Urban Services Report. The Urban Services Report initially opined that it may require some widening. I think since that time George Archibald from the city has walked the site with our client and agreed we're not going to widen the road anywhere because to do so would remove those trees, and that's what shrinks the cost to 175,000 that was reached with the result of some discussions with our client's engineers as what would be a reasonable cost to do what needed to be done. The only thing I would suggest is you may want to take out the widening aspect of it because our client did not want to have the road widened because they didn't want to lose any trees in the process. That's a bone of contention with the property owners. And I think then you will find more than likely when this is redone, the quotes are refined, the cost is probably more in line. MR. MUDD: So could we agree to, this will involve -- I'm down, third line -- this will -- go into the fourth. This will involve resurfacing, and in some cases, other improvements? MR. SAL VA TORI: Correct. That would be more appropriately worded. MR. MUDD: Okay, would be better than widening? Page 10 May 14, 2007 MR. SALVATORI: I agree. MR. PRITT: What about that next sentence then; are they still going to pay exactly $175,0007 MR. MERCER: We may want to recommend changing that to 175- or less -- or I don't know how we want to word it from a legal standpoint, but the concern is, too, is the cost of material is coming down again since the boom is over so if -- we may get all the work done for 153- or '50-, so I think it -- maybe not to exceed 175-? MR. PETTIT: Up to 175. MR. PRITT: Up to, yeah, simply up to. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does that really cover it? You may run into a point where it runs a couple thousand dollars over. How about just a plus/minus? MR. SAL VA TORI: Well, I think when they ran the quote the last go-round, the quote came back, I think, around 167,000, something like that, if the materials have fallen since. If you put a not to exceed 175,000, I think that would probably be the safest way to do it. And if the costs come in more, of course, we'd have to do something. MR. MERCER: Bob? MR. PRITT: Well, Chairman Coletta's comment is -- that's a pretty good comment. Yeah, it might be -- MR. MERCER: Without having a written proposal in front of us CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, but suppose it runs over. I mean, just on the outside chance that we go through a period of inflation, are you not going to do it, are you going to stop when you reach 175- and not complete the job? Of course you're not. You're going to -- MR. PRITT: Is there approximately? Would that -- I mean, that covers you a little bit on both sides. MR. SALVATORI: Well, you know, the only commitments that Page 11 May 14, 2007 our clients would make were to pay up to $175,000. So conceivably if the costs ran over and you were annexed in, it would have to be done and there would be some excess cost that the city would end up eating, or the city may -- MR. PRITT: You've got my attention now. MR. SAL VA TORI: But right now as we're sitting here, the only authority I have is for the $175,000. MR. PRITT: Dan, I'm kind of looking at you. MR. MERCER: Well, I'm done thinking, not out loud yet. I don't -- I really can't respond off the cuff right now. I just -- I don't have written bids. MR. MUDD: How about, Bob, you and Mr. Salvatori, you work that out on how you want it worded here, but you've got the essence of what we're basically saying. Whatever you guys work out as far as the costs is concerned, that's fine. Your client -- or the county government and the fire district, okay, are not party to that particular agreement and don't expect to have to pay anything in order to get it done, okay. And that's the general rule, and I think we've got that down. Now we're just basically trying to figure out exactly what that verbiage is. If I was the city, I'd make sure that I got myself covered as much as I can on this particular issue. But, hey, I'm glad things are coming down. If you could please tell me on your crystal ball how much they're coming down because I haven't seen a whole heck of a lot. MR. MERCER: It's only rumor. I don't know. MR. MUDD: It's rumor? MR. MERCER: I know cement's come down. Asphalt may be a different story. MR. MUDD: Yeah. MR. PRITT: Okay. And then it says, neither the county nor the fire district shall be obligated to contribute any maintenance or repairs to the public roadways. In other words, that's none of this -- these Page 12 May 14,2007 public roads above -- MR. MUDD: That's right. MR. PRITT: That's within the CPOC? MR. MUDD: And it's what you require prior to annexation? MR. PETTIT: I'll put these public road right-of-ways to make it consistent. MR. PRITT: The confirming letters. We're going to have those attached. Is that -- or are they attached? MR. PETTIT: I think the confirming letter was attached. MR. MUDD: Yep, it's here. MR. PETTIT: I didn't have it. I had a map Exhibit 1. MR. MERCER: You know, I missed the -- I apologize. Dan Mercer, for the stenographer down there. I missed the last meeting. There might have been a lot of discussion I missed. But this is only a question. It's probably a loaded question. Bob Pritt's sitting way down there so he can't kick me. Why would the -- I guess I'm curious why the fire departments or the county would not expect to be using or helping maintain the roadway in this. I mean, do you all not plan on using it, or why would you all want to be exempt from it? MR. SALVATORI: I think they're exempt from the initial payment to bring the roads up to speed, but thereafter they will liable, just like any other taxpayer. MR. MUDD: That's a fair statement, sir. MR. PETTIT: That's exactly what the point is. MR. SALVATORI: This is just a one-time fix. MR. MERCER: Oh, it's just the way this next sentence is worded. I agree with what you're saying. That was what we agreed to. But neither the county or fire districts shall be obligated to contribute to any maintenance or repairs on the public roadways. MR. MUDD: Required by the city as part of the annexation of the CPOc. Page 13 May 14,2007 MR. PETTIT: As I understand it, there's got to be some kind of agreement ultimately between the city and the petitioner. MR. MERCER: Okay. Just wanted to be sure. MR. PRITT: Anything else, Dan? MR. MERCER: No. That's all I got on that. MR. PRITT: Page 4, utility taxes, communications taxes, and FP&L franchise fees. Anyone know what the legislature did positively for anybody around this table? (No response.) MR. PRITT: As far as I know, they took away more franchising authority. But all I can say is I want to take another look at the new statutes that have been passed. Dave, that took up about half the morning last Saturday -- Friday or Saturday, I guess it was, but -- at our conference, but -- MR. MUDD: The only -- MR. PRITT: I don't think there's any difference as far as this is concerned. MR. MUDD: And the only piece in here that Bob was -- that he hadn't definitively said anything, okay, the utility tax, and it gets to the last -- the last paragraph. The city also agrees that it shall rebate to the county a 5.9 percent franchise fee that would otherwise be imposed upon the county. MR. PRITT: Right. I think that was illegal. I was the one that squawked on that. MR. MUDD: Yeah. MR. PRITT: Yeah. Since that time I ran across a little squib about a case, and I'm thinking it was a U.S. Supreme Court case within the last year or so. I have not had a chance to look at it. But I think that you've got to be very careful about not rebating -- having discriminatory rebating of franchise fees. What's left of franchise fees? My looking at the crystal ball is that now that they've taken away the ability to franchise the Page 14 May 14,2007 rights-of-way for, I guess it's phone and cable, they've taken that away now, so the next thing will be that FP&L will come in and say, you're not allowed to franchise up anymore. So I think that that's in jeopardy anyhow, so -- but I don't think that we have the authority to rebate. MR. MUDD: But I don't believe -- I don't believe in that franchise agreement, from what has been laid out by the legislature, that they've closed out existing agreements. Your existing agreements still stand. It's -- you're not going to be able to do additional agreements and nor will you be able to when -- the present agreement that you have, when it sunsets, are you going to be able to renegotiate that particular issue? It will go away, too. MR. PRITT: Well, we've got 28 years left or so on the FP&L agreement and only about a year or two -- two years, I think it is, on the cable agreement. But apart from the -- whether or not the city would want to do it, I still think that there is a legal prohibition against doing that. MR. MUDD: Can we get a definitive on that before the next meeting? MR. PRITT: Yeah, I mean -- MR. MUDD: I mean, we're going to try to get this interlocal agreement to both bodies, I would believe, before -- City of Naples breaks, what, 18 June? MR. MERCER: Well, 14th of June is the last meeting. MR. MUDD: 14th of June. You guys, and then you don't come back until? MR. MERCER: August, second meeting of August __ MR. PRITT: August. MR. MERCER: -- which is about the 13th of August. MR. MUDD: Okay. The 13th. Now, we'll break the end of June, okay, come back on the 24th of July, and then they'll break again until after the first week of September. So I guess what I'm going to say to you is, if we aren't relatively Page 15 May 14,2007 -- if we're not moving this thing here within the next 30 days to either one of the bodies, we're not going to have anything set probably till September, okay? So I -- or July or August at the best. So I just want to make sure that we're all aware of that. You know, the break does cause a little bit of a concern, so -- MR. MERCER: Well, 30 days. Of course, your June -- boy, that's after ours, but I would presume we could probably meeting that week. MR. PRITT: Well, everybody's June is the same time, Dan. MR. MERCER: I know, but I was thinking -- I don't know why I was thinking their break was before ours, but it's not. It's after. Thanks for pointing that out. MR. PRITT: That was a joke for the record. I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. MERCER: But anyway. I'm thinking the 30-day mark would be about that Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday of that last week that we meet, so maybe, you know -- of course, the council's not involved in that issue. MR. PRITT: If we have to do ordinances __ MR. PETTIT: I don't know whether the act is -- it's not really clear, and we'll talk about that. We have to do ordinances to -- did it say to adopt or -- may have said adopt. Get through the ordinances and it seems like -- and we have to advertise because it's cited we advertise in the statutes under the ordinance procedures. Shall adopt the agreements by ordinance under 166.041 and 125.66, so we're going to have to deal with that issue too. That builds in more time. MR. PRITT: And ordinance adoption is more complicated for cities than it is for counties. MR. PETTIT: Right. MR. PRITT: We have one council meeting three weeks from today -- from Wednesday, and then the next one is the week after that. Page 16 May 14, 2007 MR. MERCER: Week after, the 16th -- 13th. MR. PRITT: And we have to have 10 days notice. So we have some real complications in getting it in before the break anyhow. MR. MUDD: Okay. What does the ordinance say about this negotiation and six months, and do we get ourselves slammed up against that wall? MR. PRITT: Anybody know when we start -- MR. PETTIT: Without actually going back and finding the provision, I'm going to talk out loud while I look for it. I think what it suggests is that we have to negotiate for six months before somebody can do something else, but I don't think it says we must negotiate. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. PETTIT: Would that sound right to you? MR. PRITT: That's kind of my vague recollection. MS. DONALDSON: Here's the section. MR. PRITT: Oh, you have it, okay. Somebody actually reads the law; that's good. MS. DONALDSON: No earlier than six months after the commencement of negotiations. So we actually start at the end of January. MR. PETTIT: All right. MR. MUDD: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: Either the initiating local government or both may declare an impasse and seek resolution of the issues under 164, which would be the joint. So I don't think -- as long as it's moving forward and someone doesn't declare an impasse, you can keep going over the six months. MR. PETTIT: I think if we have an agreement in -- written that everybody has -- at least that the people can recommend, then we can just bring the ordinances forward possibly on the 24th of July on __ what'd you say in August? What's your first meeting? MR. PRITT: Third Wednesday, I guess. Page 17 May 14, 2007 MR. PETTIT: I mean, certainly we can meet those dates. MR. MUDD: Yeah, okay. If you would -- if you would check, Bob, then, and Mike, and make sure that it's legal or not legal what we're asking on the -- you know, in the bottom piece where we're talking about a rebate of the 5.9 percent. It's an issue that still remains unresolved and we need to get definitive one way or the other. We're certainly not going to have a request in here that's illegal. MR. PRITT: There are two issues on that. One, of course -- in all negotiations. But one is whether or not it's legal to do it. If it's not legal to do it, that's kind of the end of that story. MR. PETTIT: Right. MR. PRITT: The other is, if it's legal to do it, whether or not the city would, in a million years, agree to something like that, and that's subject to negotiation and we're, you know, back on the table. I'm saying a million years facetiously. A million years or in a minute, I don't know which. But I have some real qualms about the legality of that. MR. PETTIT: Well, why don't you do this, Bob. Why don't you send me any authority that you have, and I'll have our franchising attorney take a look at it, and I will get into a dialogue with you and see if we come to a conclusion. Because you're right, if it's illegal, we can't do it, we can't do it. MR. MUDD: Yeah, I'm not -- you know, and that ends that discussion. MS. DONALDSON: Can I add something for this section? MR. PRITT: Sure. MS. DONALDSON: Under the statute, the fire district is actually exempt from the communication services taxes, and then we may be except from the utilities taxes. I'd like a declaratory -- you know, if we're saying the county's exempt pursuant to those statutes, then we would at least like -- and I understand that we still have to negotiate the issue of the utility tax. But as it relates to the Page 18 May 14,2007 communication services taxes, which the statute specifically states we're exempt, I would like that statement in here as well. MR. PETTIT: Okay. And I guess what we could say is we're going to have to do a to-be-determined on utility tax. It's my recollection they have the discretion -- MS. DONALDSON: Correct, correct. MR. PRITT: Are you -- are both of you suggesting that it be in here in number 7 for the fire control district also? I'll tell you, I think that's a logical place to put it, utility tax issue. MR. PETTIT: That's what I thought. MS. DONALDSON: Right. MR. PETTIT: We can add them in for the communications tax. I guess you're going to have to get your issues resolved on the other. MR. PRITT: So how would you say that there? Can we actually do that here? Can we sit here and kind of try to wordsmith it a little bit? MR. MUDD: You can smith all you want. MS. DONALDSON: I mean, the easiest would be after -- and the fire district is immune from and cannot be subject to any communication taxes levied by the city. MR. PETTIT: Yeah, we can just put that after -- before the statutes and citations. MS. DONALDSON: And that's a different statute. It's 202.125, subsection 3. MR. PETTIT: 202, what was it? MS. DONALDSON: 125, subsection 3. MR. PETTIT: Well, that would just a be follow-up sentence following the first citation, to be a citation. That's not a problem. And I don't know whether you're going to reach any conclusion on the other or not. MR. PRITT: Do you have enough on that that you could do a draft that would just show that language -- Page 19 May 14,2007 MR. PETTIT: Yeah. MR. PRITT: -- so that I can -- yeah. I kind of understand you, but you both have said something just a little slightly different. MR. PETTIT: I got it. MS. DONALDSON: Yeah, you're -- I mean, you know what we're looking for. I just figured since you're making a declaratory statement that this is the case for the county, then we also wanted that statement for the district. MR. PRITT: Right. Concurrency. Somebody had to swear, right? Are we done with the taxes and all that? (No response.) MR. PRITT: Okay. Let's go to number 8. I marked this -- let's see -- accordingly should any increase in density or intensity of use beyond that currently authorized by the CPOC/CPUD be permitted within the CPOC following annexation into the city, acknowledges and agrees that it shall make the necessary intersection improvements as determined by the county at Horseshoe Drive -- I'm sorry, Horseshoe Drive -- Progress Avenue and Enterprise Avenue, both Airport and Livingston Roads. I have no idea if George or anybody has taken a look at that issue, but that sounds like a lot of work. And it was my understanding that -- that under any other circumstance, people would pay their share of the improvements but not pay for all of the improvements. And that seems to be a very high number, and does not seem to be proportionalized in any way. Can anybody enlighten me on that? We didn't agree to that, did we? (Mr. Middleton leaving the conference room.) MR. MUDD: No. Well, wait a minute. MR. PRITT: That's an airport ticket number, right. MR. MUDD: The airport -- well, it could be depending on how Page 20 May 14,2007 concurrency is and if it's failing or not. If it's not failing, then there's no -- then there's no cost. The issue is, what happens if the intensity and the density -- well, first of all, this is a moot point because I believe Mr. Salvatori's client has said they're not going to increase the intensity or the density on this particular development. They just want to get their permits faster. MR. SAL VA TORI: That's true, but keep in mind, they do not own all of the vacant lots within that property. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. SAL VA TORI: So there's a point. The other thing I need to point out is there is no PUD for CPOc. That's straight industrial zoning. So you need to be cognizant of that because that could change. That front strip is zoned retail, for example, so that's a more intense use as opposed to an industrial use as it is now. MR. PRITT: Well, let me just tell you what my concerns are. One is, it looks to me like the county's trying to shift all the cost to the city and it seems to be forever. And there must be some way of encompassing what I thought Chairman Coletta's points were about density. And you'll recall at the last meeting I said I have qualms about the city bargaining away its sovereignty, sovereign power to make zoning decisions, just like the county could not bargain their power away either. So I think this was a good faith attempt to try to deal with that part of it, but then the rest of it is just -- frankly, the numbers are beyond me, and it seems like it goes on forever, and it -- and I imagine that the condition of the roads will shift, hopefully for the better, as time goes on, and I'm asking if there's any way that we can massage that around to not be quite so onerous to the city. MR. MUDD: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Bob, if I may, what I was trying to come up with originally is we have concurrency, checkbook Page 21 May 14, 2007 concurrency. And the way it works in the county is, if you cannot meet -- concurrency is not met out there, then you're not allowed to continue or bring your development up until that concurrency issue is addressed. Problem being is that with the City of Naples sharing the same road as the county with jurisdiction on one side and with us having jurisdictions on the other, there's no balance, there is no assurance that we'd be able to have that concurrency. Now, I don't say I've got the answers to this, but there's got to be something. We can't arbitrarily just change our concurrency. It's all in the Land Development Code. You know, if the city council could give us some sort of assurances that they would aim for something similar as far as a concurrency ruling that would more or less mirror the county's, you know, then we're already there and we could work in conjunction the way we should be on a regional issue. MR. MUDD: What I would -- as a minimum I would make sure one, two, three, four, five, six -- seventh line into the concurrency paragraph, it says both the county and the city agree that these intersections could be in a state of failure and require needed improvements, okay, instead of would, which is definitive. Is says it's already going to be there. It could be. And then you've got to talk about what the concurrency issue is. And there's probably going to be a traffic impact statement or study done on the particular issue. And I think would -- you know, the could versus would to give it -- at least give us some leeway into that particular issue. But take a look at it. Dan, have George take a look at it. There's four intersections that sits there. It's North Horseshoe. South Horseshoe's got to connect to Enterprise now, okay, and most people are coming out that way to get to the light, okay, and they're coming across at the Nissan dealer, which is the north side, and then they're Page 22 May 14, 2007 coming across the light at the south side, okay, and they're coming straight out, not making a left and right from Airport, and they're going straight down to Livingston and then getting on Livingston and going whichever way they're going. And that's -- and that's what we're basically seeing as a dynamic. A lot of that could be because of the overpass is being constructed, and when you get in there, you get all gnarled up. If we could see that change, that pattern change when the overpass gets completed here in June, when that happens, we could see something a little bit different. So it could -- Bob, it could alleviate Livingston to a great extent when that particular thing opens up. But right now, you're a fool if you make a left-hand turn trying to get out of there during rush hour to try to go north. You're going straightaway to Livingston to try to get around it. MR. MERCER: What I'll do is -- Dan Mercer, again. What I'll do is have Greg look at this one more time, because I know he's worked with you all's staff, and they can come up to speed. There's really no concerns at this point, especially when the bridge does open. So I'll make sure we can -- we'll look at the wording, and I'll shoot it over to Bob. I can probably do this by Wednesday. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ifwe can get by -- if we can get by this one obstacle, I think it would remove a lot of my misgivings of what we're going into. I always felt that one of the reasons why the commerce park was interested in coming aboard was the fact that the City of Naples' concurrency rules don't measure up to what the county's are, and so they have a little bit more ability to be able to operate without government interference, or however you want to call it. However, we see that government interference as a control over the infrastructure. And if we can get by that, I think we're really there as far as the -- Page 23 May 14,2007 as I feel as a commissioner. Now, my other commissioners may have some other issues. But concurrency is the big one for me. And I think if you ever went public with your residents in the City of Naples, you'd find that concurrency's a big issue with them also. MR. PRITT: Well, I guess that takes me to my next comment, would be in the next part of the sentence here. See, both the county and city agree these intersections could be in a state of failure and require needed improvements should there be any such increase of density or intensity of land use within the CPOC following annexation. Again, I just saw a little blurb about the new statute at the city/county local government -- or conference Friday and Saturday; haven't had a chance to really digest it. But from what I was hearing from the speaker, it seems that the proportionate fair share issue has undergone yet another change. And Mike, I don't know if you were there for that one or not. I know David was. I don't know, either one of you have a comment on that? It seems to me that -- MR. MUDD: You can't -- MR. PRITT: -- this thing is getting pretty complicated. But it was like the last person in doesn't have to pay for everybody else, and that was the -- that was the impression I got from the speaker on that. MR. MUDD: Well, what I've read in the fair share ordinance is -- and it's -- and the growth management thing that stated about six different times that basically the previous Senate Bill 360 talked about proportionate fair share and it was pretty much silent on the backlog, okay. MR. PRITT: Right. MR. MUDD: The past sins. But the way it was worded, it alluded to the fact that a development in order to do fair share, would have to bring that segment up to standard and do its future impacts. Now, this latest change, which the governor hasn't signed yet -- I Page 24 May 14, 2007 have no reason to believe he won't -- it basically says that when you pay the fair share, that you don't have to worry about the backlog, the past sins, so to speak. MR. PRITT: Right. MR. MUDD: That you only have to worry about your future impacts. MR. PRITT: Now, wouldn't that tend to bring the cost-- assuming that we didn't have something to the contrary in here -- let's just say it said the city would pay its fair share, end of story. I mean, wouldn't that bring the cost down significantly? MR. MUDD: Yeah. Ifwe were developing stuff around Enterprise and Progress, but if you take a look at that industrialized zoning part of Collier County, it's built out. The vacant lots in there are few and far between. And believe me, I tried to find them so I could have a transfer station, okay? I wasn't very successful. So I guess what I'm going to say to you is, it's kind of -- we're kind of in a Naples kind of scenario. We're built out, and the only way you get yourself to get into a failing intersection is, something completely changes as far as the traffic pattern is concerned or you add intensity to something that you still have. Because when we did these intersections, we looked at what the zoning was on that particular area when we designed the intersections and did those kind of things. So I guess what I'm going to say to you is, those intersections are designed based on what we have today on the books and so, we're looking for the future dynamic that would change that. MR. PRITT: Well, would it be unreasonable for us to ask that this paragraph -- and maybe you've done it already, so that's why I'm asking. But ask this paragraph be looked at by your transportation people in line with what wound up coming out of the legislature that we all just started looking at here the other day -- MR. MUDD: Sure. Page 25 May 14, 2007 MR. PRITT: -- to see whether or not -- hopefully there would be a helpful answer to this quagmire here. But it seems to me that this is a pretty expensive proposition, and especially where it says that the city further agrees that needed improvements shall be made within six months after any zoning approvals. I could understand why you would want that, but I'm not sure that that would -- I don't know if that's your general policy or if that's otherwise reasonable, but it would -- I have a little comment here, and maybe it's not the correct comment. But, you know, it would be dependent also on the county, I would think. And I'm wondering, you know, that -- has the county office itself been the -- would that be an increase in rated density? The county office is over there, you know, on Horseshoe Drive. It's pretty large. MR. MUDD: When Schmitt -- when Schmitt expanded his operation, okay, I had to go in there and put in the throat distance __ put in a new throat coming off of Airport left-hand turn going into North Horseshoe because it was too small. And we extended it way back in order to do that. And I guess what I'm going to say to you is, if you get into that mode where there's a sharp increase, that -- that commercial park is very, very -- what happens in that commercial park has a definite one-to-one relationship to what happens on Airport Road and how you get in and you get out of that facility. One of the things that we did to try to alleviate some of the traffic flow problems from the commercial park was we put the connector road in from South Horseshoe into Enterprise where it comes through just before you -- just after you pass the transfer station. And so that took a lot of the problems out of South Horseshoe. When they were coming out of South Horseshoe, they were making a right-hand turn, and then they were getting over real fast to get over to Enterprise at the light so they could either make a U-turn or make a left-hand turn and get out, and it was -- we had a couple accidents. So Page 26 May 14, 2007 we opened up that road network to make the intersection, and it's alleviated it a lot. I'm just letting you know, it's very -- the traffic patterns in that particular development and how they come out on Airport Road and how they get in from Airport Road, may it be from Livingston or whatever, they're -- you can pretty much see an impact as soon as something changes. And we believe we have captured everything that we could as far as the development on that road. But we'll be glad to have our transportation folks, along with Greg Strakaluse and crew, take a look at that particular area. Just understand, the fear is if there's a change to intensity and density in that particular area, you could pretty much make that whole commercial park be very untenable for people going into work there and coming out to work or anybody that's going in for any kind of servIce. MR. PRITT: I guess what my whole thought on that was, is, would the county potentially be shooting itself in the foot by having something that's so strict that the city's going to say -- if the county needs to expand its own -- its own facility, the city says, well, we can't do that because look at this agreement. I'm not sure that that's something that, in the long-term, would not wind up in yet another potential dispute between the city and the county. We have enough of those already. So just think about that. And you can have Greg look at it, or George. MR. MERCER: I think I've said this in -- two or three meetings ago, and I'll say it again. No matter if the city has any projects, any development going on, like over off of Central or anyplace like that that dumps onto a county road, whether it be Golden Gate Parkway, whether it be Goodlette-Frank Road, we do look -- in the development plans, we look at what the concurrency and everything is anyway. We look at all that. We would not treat CPOC any different. So any growth in there Page 27 May 14,2007 -- when we met with your staff about four months ago, that we could literally -- the way it's set up today, the concurrency or the level of service for Airport is set up to where we could build a Wal * Mart back there and it would not exceed your level of service. We're not going to build the Super -- I shouldn't say that. I don't see us recommending building a Super Wal*Mart back there. So, you know, I don't see-- MR. PETTIT: Good luck getting to it. MR. MERCER: -- any challenges, but if we do, the developer that's building would coordinate with the city and county and make any improvements necessary to get out onto Airport Road without affecting that leveling of service. That's just the way we looked at it, and I think it's the same way the county looks at stuff, is we would look at everything. We wouldn't get tunnel vision. We would work with your staff just like we do now to make sure the development, if any, is to not overload any roadway concurrency or any other issues over there. MR. SALVATORI: And if it helps any, it's Collier Park of Commerce that paid for those two driveway interconnects that Jim was talking about to alleviate the traffic. They worked with the county on that, so they actually footed that bill. Even though I don't think there was anyone particular development there that caused it, it was just something that needed to be done, just getting it to transpire. So I need to find the spirit of cooperative things. It's worded in such a way that you mention that. If traffic warrants the -- some improvements be done, be it the county and staff can agree between themselves. I don't think the property owners would have a problem with that either. MR. PRITT: I'm not sure that says that anywhere in that -- MR. SAL VA TORI: No. This is kind of strong. I think it changed the way -- along the ways you're suggesting, I think that would probably be amenable to our folks. MR. PRITT: All right. Anything else on that, Dan? Page 28 May 14, 2007 MR. PETTIT: I have just another point. I'm going to -- depending on how this ultimately turns out, I would want to change the language in the last sentence to say that -- make it clear that any land use approvals increasing density or intensity would trigger this issue, because I think now it just says zoning approvals, which is a specific kind of approval, and I don't think you wanted to be that specific. MR. PRITT: You want to change zoning to land use? MR. PETTIT: Any land use approvals of any type increasing density or intensity of uses. MR. MUDD: Now, this is a sensitive point, and I want to make sure that you understand it's a sensitive point for our board and it's a sensitive point for the city council, okay? And there was a statement that was made at the last joint workshop, and I bit my tongue, but I'm not going to bite my tongue right now while it's being done. The last two annexations for the City of Naples increased intensity, okay, of the items that were done, Rafina, we went to 42 feet on height. County's cap is 35. One of the reasons they went is so they could get increased height for their development, okay. And the Cameron development just north of Golden Gate Parkway, Goodlette-Frank, north of our water quality park, that was basically, what I -- what I called contrary -- or zoning annexation, okay. Their new zoning in the annexation were side by side in front of the -- in front of the council, and the zoning that was done was more intense than it was ever zoned in the county. So I just want to make sure -- they said that's never happened in an annexation, and I'm telling you the last two the city's done has increased intensity. So there is -- there is, especially at this intersection there is a concern, okay, and if your city council doesn't know that they're being used for intensity purposes on their annexations, then somebody needs to tell them, okay? Page 29 May 14, 2007 MR. PRITT: Well, I think it depends on your definition of intensity of use. If a greater height is an intensity of use, then I understand what you're saying. But greater height is not necessarily an intensity of use in all -- in all books. MR. MUDD: I'm not arguing. I can't tell you ifhe did more floors or he did more ceiling heights. That I can't tell you, but I will tell you what he went for, and it was, he couldn't get the development he wanted with 35-foot height, so he went for the city's 42 feet, okay. And I don't know if that gave him an extra floor or not. Hey, I didn't see the plans before or after. I just tell you what he got. MR. PRITT: This says here -- and this is the usual terminology. It says here, density or intensity of use. And density's pretty easy, residential density is pretty easy. Intensity of use is -- MR. MUDD: Agreed. MR. PRITT: It's a little more difficult, you know, but usually that translates to floor area and, you know, some of those types of things as opposed to a, you know, parking -- maybe a parking lot improvement or a height or something like that. MR. MUDD: Sure. MR. PRITT: And if that is a -- if that is a big source of misunderstanding between the two boards, the city and county boards, then maybe we need to clarify that, but I didn't see that as an intensity of use. MR. MUDD: I'm just letting you know it was stated, and I'm kind of going, okay. And then Fred Coyle -- or Commissioner Coyle was talking about something that happened in 1997, I believe, was the year he was quoting. And I believe you could do a lot more updating as far as an example was concerned. Just -- I just want to make sure we're covered here. We've got four sensitive intersections, okay, and we want to make sure that whatever happens in that particular development, that we don't end up with four intersections that fail. And it will do nobody any good if Page 30 May 14,2007 that happens. And nobody likes that situation. So let's -- whatever we word this, I'll have Norman review it with his planning staff -- that's Norm Feder -- to make sure that the new growth management change in the law is covered in this particular area. I'd ask Greg Strakaluse to take a look at the intersections and get it so that we've got it worked out so that the staffs could work together on the concurrency issue. The issue is, we don't want to have failing intersections, not on Airport or Livingston Road, because of whatever we do in this particular development. MR. MERCER: We'll commit to meeting with Norm Feder this week and his staff. MR. MUDD: Don't get too close to Norman. He's really sick, okay. When I heard him this morning, man, I said, Norman, don't come in to work. Please stay home. The whole county staff will be better if you don't do what you're about ready to do. So hopefully he'll be feeling better in the next day or so and we'll have him back. MR. PRITT: The last thing that I have -- we talked about one of the two things I had left, and that was the duration issue. I put that down after 13. Did you have anything up until the end there, Mike? MR. PETTIT: No, I mean the only other thing -- MR. PRITT: Or Laura? MR. PETTIT: -- is I put down term, and I think we could cover renegotiation in a paragraph dealing with the term. MR. PRITT: Right. MR. PETTIT: I noticed that, like I said, a couple of the other little things, like adoption by ordinance and compo plan amendments, I don't know whether that needs to be memorialized in the agreement or not. MR. PRITT: If you want to put it in, I don't think I'll object. It might be helpful to remind people where it came from. The other thing I have is a notation, and that is a question mark. I put down county's obligations, question mark, county's agreement to forego Page 31 May 14, 2007 challenge to annexation. I didn't see that in there. Frankly, I looked at the contract, and really I had two major legal concerns about it. One was that it seemed to go on forever, and I think that, Mike, you already handled that from the get-go here. But the other is consideration. You know, what does the city get in return for going through this process and agreeing to some pretty major things from the county? Obviously we would be interested in not having the county continue to oppose the annexation. I think that's something we can negotiate. But it seems to me that there ought to be something in there where there would be some reciprocity. MR. PETTIT: If you want to give us some language. I guess -- MR. PRITT: I don't blame you for not putting it in. MR. PETTIT: I didn't -- the reason I didn't is because I thought the purpose of the agreement was to resolve all issues that could lead to litigation or challenge. So once you have the agreement approved MR. PRITT: One of which would be the county's objecting to it. I mean, obviously, we-- MR. MUDD: I don't mind -- I don't mind putting it in there. You know, just -- I think it's -- it's a good statement. You know, the reason you want to do this is so that you don't get yourself in a legal battle after it's over. Why not put it in? MR. WEIGEL: It works. Although obviously you come to the agreement and you adopt them into ordinances. I think you've fulfilled the, call it the predicate, the prerequisite, to essentially prevent yourself from going into 164 proceedings, which is necessary before you actually go into litigation. But if you want to cover it expressly, obviously there's nothing to stop you from doing that. MR. PRITT: Okay. I'll try to draft a -- MR. PETTIT: Draft a paragraph. MR. PRITT: -- a paragraph or sentence or two. Page 32 May 14,2007 MR. PETTIT: And I'll make the changes, I think, the other changes that we talked about and send them back to you. The only thing I'm not quite sure of, I'm going to leave this payment on the public road maintenance issue just to pay up to 175,000. You guys are going to have to get together with Leo and his client for whatever discussion they might have. MR. PRITT: Is there anything else that the county has that -- MR. MUDD: Nope. MR. PRITT: -- before we start talking fire? MR. MUDD: Fire, I think's, the next issue. MR. PRITT: Welcome back. MS. DONALDSON: Thank you. I guess -- Laura Donaldson on behalf of the East Naples Fire Control District. Since we haven't gotten a counterproposal to our initial offers, the best way to go is just to say that we're going to follow what 171.093 provides. That's what the statute says. That would have us -- basically we would be providing services all the way through -- I mean, the four years start -- if the city adopts a resolution and it brings -- or wanting to take over fire services, the four-year period would start October 1 of 2008. So it would go -- we would remain the service provider from this year until October 1,2012, and that's what the statute provides. I think if we just reference East Naples Fire Control District shall remain the service provider pursuant to 171.093, and then what would happen is from annexation to October 1,2008, the district would use the county code for inspections and permitting, and from October 1, 2008, to 2012, we would use the city code to do the inspections and permitting. MR. PRITT: And you think that that's what the statute says that -- we kind of had a discussion about that before. MS. DONALDSON: I think the issue was what-- MR. PRITT: The time before last. Page 33 May 14, 2007 (Commissioner Coletta left the conference room.) MS. DONALDSON: -- what code applies. And I think that we agree that the county code applies until our boundaries change. And after our boundaries change, the city code would apply, but we still remain the service provider. It doesn't say just -- it says, shall remain the service provider, and the services under 191 includes inspections and permitting. So, I mean, you have to read both section 171 and then chapter 191 of what our powers are, and that's what we would go by, just like for Rafina the city requested, and at the time the district provided, an interlocal agreement that said that the city would take over inspections and permitting. So that's what's happening with Rafina and that's why the district does not provide inspections or permitting for Rafina. The district agreed to give that up for Rafina. MR. PRITT: We had an agreement with Rafina? MS. DONALDSON: Yes, just a form -- I never even saw it. It was before I came on. It was like a two-page thing that just says that -- that the city would take over inspections and permitting for Rafina. The district's theory was, why split up the development between two different inspecting entities? MR. PRITT: What were those dates again, 10/1/08 to 10/1/12, was that -- that we go under the city codes? MS. DONALDSON: That's if the city adopts the prior resolution by the end of this year. MR. PRITT: Those dates are correct? MS. DONALDSON: Yes. It would be October 1,2008, and then four years from then that the city code would apply, but we would be doing inspections and permitting. And then prior to 2008, the county code would apply because our boundary still includes the area even though the property has been annexed. MR. MUDD: Now, I'm going to complicate the issue with one Page 34 May 14, 2007 question. Can you apply the codes, the city codes, to -- and this is truly a question, okay? If somebody's got the answer, it would be great. Can you apply the city codes to an area that hasn't had a compo plan amendment to be -- to be added to the city's rolls, so to speak? I'm of the opinion that until you get a compo plan amendment that's approved, the county's codes prevail, and then once the compo plan amendment is done, that's when the codes change, Land Development Code. MR. PRITT: That's my impression, too. MR. MUDD: So I don't understand -- you're making an assumption that the Growth Management Plans have been changed by those dates, okay? And I'm not too sure they're going to be simultaneously done or they're going to be before. They could be after. MR. PRITT: That's a very good point. MS. DONALDSON: Yeah. That is a very good point. I was thinking more so that when an area's annexed by a city, the city's, basically, codes and rules and regulations apply to that annexed property, and so I guess the question would become, is the fire code -- if that's covered when the requirement of the compo plan amendment changed. And I would have to look at that section because that's -- MR. PRITT: You just sent four lawyers back to the books. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, but not very far. I think that that is probably the outcome, that it automatically transfers on the adoption or the amendment of the comprehensive plan or the city to take into account the annexed property, and that's the trigger. MR. PETTIT: Do you need to have exact dates? MR. PRITT: Anyone have 171 with them? MS. DONALDSON: I do. MR. PRITT: It's right there, toward the end of part one, if I remember right. Page 35 May 14, 2007 MS. DONALDSON: 171.093 at the end of part one. Yeah, I mean, what this just basically says is that the district's boundaries change at the start of the four-year period. MR. PRITT: It's not an 093. There's another section. Effect-- it's called effective annexation. MS. DONALDSON: Effective annexation. MR. PRITT: And I can't -- the only thing I can't recall is just that it only applies to land development regulations or to all -- or it's all. MS. DONALDSON: It's 062. MR. OCHS: I don't know it that's it. It's circled there in the middle of the page. MR. PRITT: Yeah, it says -- well, actually it says it in -- and this is the part to the new -- MR. OCHS: Part two. MR. PRITT: Part two. It actually says that in part two here, under F, however, the county comprehensive plan and land development regulations shall control until the municipality annexes the property and amends its comprehensive plan accordingly. But the question was -- it's a very good question. That's the comprehensive -- your land development regulations do not include your fire. MR. PETTIT: Right. And that says that the city codes take effect upon the effective date of the annexation. MR. PRITT: Yeah. MR. PETTIT: And I think it's a distinct issue. MS. DONALDSON: And I would think that the reason why I've argued that the county's applied for that while the boundary change is right now the fire district under 191 has the ability to have its code. We chose to use the county code. So our code is in place until our boundaries change. MR. PRITT: I think that all of these provisions are mandatory anyhow. Do you agree with that or -- I mean, I don't think that we could, by agreement, change who does what and who is what for this Page 36 May 14,2007 anyhow, because I think these are mandatory provisions; are they not? I'm not sure that there's anything in part two that makes any of this other than mandatory, or have I forgot that? MS. DONALDSON: I think the difference is, is under part two, basically we get to negotiate the issue of fire services, and there's even a provision that says if a fire department doesn't agree to the agreement, we still get to seek compensation. So it's not -- so we can't be crammed on. But I think -- I mean, truly we could sit here and say, well, we don't want to do fire protection for that four years and put into that agreement that says the City of Naples is going to be the fire service provider for -- you know, upon annexation. So I think anything is up to be negotiated as it relates to the fire services. But no matter what we get compensated, if we don't agree -- you know, ifthere's not an agreement -- if you guys -- if the city and county sign an agreement and the fire is silent, we get to seek compensation under the 171.093. So I would think -- you know, we do have the ability to negotiate, just like we have the ability to negotiate under 171.093 a lot of different things as it relates to fire protection services. I would just hate to keep meeting on this when the district has kind of made its wishes clear and we haven't really received anything back as it relates to a counteroffer. And so I just think the simplest thing would be to just say, you know, the four-year provision under 171.093 applies. Because if I were not going to keep coming back, and we're just going to sit here and say, well, we've given you our offer. Where's the counteroffer? And we'll just keep wasting time. MR. MERCER: Can I ask two silly questions? First of all, what's the issue of who provides that service, other than, is it just a money issue? What's the issue with the East Naples Fire District, just for my benefit? Page 37 May 14,2007 MR. MUDD: Are you talking about fire review? MR. MERCER: Fire service, and then the second question -- MR. MUDD: Fire service is a big issue because under -- under the statute it basically talks about them getting their millage for four straight years -- MR. MERCER: So it's just a money issue? MR. MUDD: -- from the time -- yeah, it's a big -- for them it's an issue, okay. And the other piece is, if they're reviewing plans, there's a fee for the review. So it's another money issue, okay, for that particular organization, okay, so -- (Mr. Weigel left the conference room.) MS. DONALDSON: I can tell you the intention of the statute, because I worked on it when I was on staff, was cities were annexing into special district boundaries and almost causing some fire districts to go into bankruptcy because they were just taking property, and fire districts could not budget for that loss of income. And so the four-year period, the theory was, is it allowed for a transition of services to the city in allowing the special district to account for that loss of revenues, because, I mean, there have been occasions where a fire station has just been built and then a city will annex, so we made an area that's kind of -- the fire district is going -- the fire station's going to serve. As it relates to the inspections and permitting, to be honest, that's one of our powers. We get to do it now. We don't feel like we should have to give up. We gave it up for Rafina. We had a legitimate reason on why we wanted to give it up, so right now the district doesn't feel inclined to do it. MR. MERCER: But I mean, is it related to your inspection -- the guidelines you're inspecting, criteria you're inspecting, is it different than what the city would inspect? MS. DONALDSON: They are up to -- but as I've said, we end up having to change the code at a certain point in the future, so we Page 38 May 14, 2007 would be using the city code. No. I mean I think it's basically the -- one, there's a safety issue, and I know we've talked about before that the city would be willing to give us the plans, but our firefighters would be going into places having never inspected them, not having the plans, and so that's a safety issue. And then the other issue is, you know, we have made an offer and we haven't gotten a counteroffer back really that says, okay, well, we'll do this or this, we'll give you this, we'll give you that. So why would the district want to give up an authority it has -- MR. PRITT: Well, you've said it three times, so I'm going to respond. The reason you didn't get a counteroffer -- one of the reasons you didn't get a counteroffer, is because you went to the state legislature to try to change matters that were on the table so that we could not negotiate those. And you know that I believe that that was not in good faith. You didn't tell us you were going to do that. You went to the legislature, which is your right to do that, and you said that you couldn't make that meeting during the legislative session. So here we are. You don't have a counteroffer. We just found out the legislature apparently has not adopted anything, so we're back at the table as of last Friday. I guess the legislature didn't do anything on it. That's what I heard. If you know any different, tell me. So I mean, why would we be wanting to negotiate something with you when you're up in the legislature trying to pull the rug out from under our negotiations? MS. DONALDSON: First I just want to correct something. North Naples Fire Control District hired me for that change. MR. PRITT: I don't care who hired you for that change. MS. DONALDSON: It makes a difference. I am here representing East Naples Fire Control District; East Naples Fire Control District was not. North Naples Fire Control District hired me Page 39 May 14, 2007 back in, I think, December or January, to seek changes, and we are not in an annexation fight, and there is no good faith requirement for the city of -- for East -- or North Naples Fire Control District as it relates to annexation. And I can tell you as it relates to the premium tax issue that issue did not pass, that it will be coming back because the Department of Revenue in the bureau that oversees police and firefighter pension plans was surprised that those monies, where they're supposed to be going, are not going based on 171. So I just wanted to correct that North -- I was representing, on the annexation issue, North Naples Fire Control District. And I can point out one reason specifically as it relates to the EMS issue, the signing language, that when East Naples Fire Control District found out about it, they specifically called me and said, make sure that you don't tell anyone that we're supporting that legislation. That's a North Naples Fire Control District legislation. So I just want to go on record, that was a North Naples Fire Control District issue. They are not working on this and they are not involved with this annexation, and there is no good faith requirement for them on that issue. MR. PRITT: There's a good faith requirement for negotiations on this issue. MS. DONALDSON: For? MR. PRITT: And you being the same human being that's representing North Naples Fire Control District, you're up there trying to -- trying to effectuate changes that would have the effect of invalidating or voiding all of our negotiations at this table without telling us on behalf of the East Naples Fire Control District that that is what you were doing. Now -- so you did it, that's fine, but don't be three times telling us, well, we're waiting for some kind of response from you. MS. DONALDSON: I'm saying, let's do the statute. Let's go Page 40 May 14, 2007 with the statute. We don't need to wait for any counteroffer. Let's go with 171.093, which is current law, which there are no changes to this year, which we did not -- so let's go with that section. And so we don't have to wait for any counteroffers. We don't have to wait for anything. We'll just go with what the statute says, and the statute says we're the service provider. MR. PRITT: Well, now that there haven't been any changes, we will get back to you with our response. MR. MUDD: Okay. Have we resolved the fire for at least the time being? MR. PRITT: Yes. MR. MUDD: Okay. We have one speaker. I think we've covered everything that's on this sheet, okay. Mr. Salvatori, we hit your client's issues, at least what you were aware of? MR. SALVATORI: (Nods head.) MR. MUDD: Mr. Pritt, we squared away from the city's side? MR. PRITT: I think so. MR. MUDD: Okay. From the county's side, I think we're okay. We have one public speaker today. Michael? MR. SHEFFIELD: Judith. MS. CHIRGWIN: Oh, I saw a notice in the paper about this meeting, and I said, I know annexation is a very hot topic in the City of Naples right now, and I said, I think I'll go to the meeting, so here I am. MR. MUDD: Okay. MS. CHIRGWIN: And I'll try to keep track of it. When do you meet again? MR. MUDD: That's what we're going to talk about after you're done talking. MS. CHIRGWIN: Okay. Thank you for asking me. MR. MUDD: Do you have anything else -- was there anything Page 41 May 14, 2007 else you would like to talk about? MS. CHIRGWIN: Well, I need the windows done in my house and the grass cut, but other than that, I can't think of anything. MR. MUDD: I got it, okay. MR. SHEFFIELD: Can you spell your last name for the record. MS. CHIRGWIN: Judith Chirgwin, C-H-I-R-G-W-I-N. MR. MUDD: That's the next question. Normally we do these within the next 30 days. And the City of Naples, you've got that one. We would be glad to have it sooner than that if you're prepared for counteroffers and -- MR. PRITT: Yeah, I -- let me suggest this. Mike, you have something to -- that you're going to work out. I have something to send to you. MR. PETTIT: Let's put that. Let's get that definitive. I think what I understand is I'm going to make the language changes to the document including changes related to the fire district on the tax issue in paragraph seven. I'm going to leave, to be determined under fire service; however, you are going to provide a provision concerning the term and you are also going to provide me with legal authority to support your concern that the rebate of the franchise fee would be illegal. Is that everything? MR. PRITT: And you're going to find a decent map? MR. PETTIT: Well, somebody is. MR. PRITT: Somebody will find a decent map. MR. SALVATORI: I think we have one. We'll get one -- Mike, you'll be the draft person on this? MR. PETTIT: Yeah. If you want to send me -- what I have, right now I've got good colored maps, but they're really zoning maps. MR. SALVATORI: Yeah. MR. PETTIT: I'm not sure we want that. MS. DONALDSON: Aerials maybe, or a street map? MR. PETTIT: I don't know. I think a street map would be good. Page 42 May 14, 2007 MR. SAL VA TORI: You want to do that, Laura? MR. PRITT: Okay. So Laura Spurgeon's going to head that up and get it to -- can you get it to Mike, since he's -- MR. MUDD: When you talk term, it was term renegotiation and challenge were the issues that you wanted to talk about, okay. MR. PETTIT: And you're going to provide a provision regarding the challenge also. MS. DONALDSON: And I think the resolution that you were-- that this had to be adopted by resolution. MR. PETTIT: Oh, by ordinance. MS. DONALDSON: Oh, by ordinance. In the district it's by resolution. MR. PETTIT: It's by resolution. Now, on term, we didn't talk about whether you wanted to go below 20 years. MR. PRITT: I thought I did, but I do. MR. PETTIT: Have you got a number in mind? MR. PRITT: I want to explore whether or not we ought to go to something a lot more shorter in term, knowing that we very well may turn right around and start talking about service area issues. MR. PETTIT: Well, why don't you just provide that? MR. PRITT: If you want a number from me, let me suggest five years, okay? Again, I'm not -- not that -- MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. PRITT: --I'm strong on that or anything like that, but it seems to me that -- I think that most of us would agree the longer a term goes, the less value the agreement has because things change. We have elections, we have changes in property owners. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. PRITT: We have changes in people there, so -- MR. MUDD: I don't have a problem with it. MR. PRITT: So just think about that. But meanwhile, we -- I Page 43 May 14, 2007 think we all know that we're probably going to try to look at this issue agam soon. MR. PRITT: And I think Mr. Salvatori is aware of that so that his client knows that. MR. SAL VA TORI: That's fine. Anything else? Anybody else? MS. DONALDSON: I would just ask, with the -- and I'm sure that the county staff would be just as busy. You know, the special session coming up on property tax, I think everyone's pretty much focuses -- will be focussing on the impact of property taxes, that we try to do it earlier than that special session. MR. MUDD: Oh, yeah. I don't want to be around -- if you're going to try to have a meeting the 12th through the 24th, you can forget about it. I'm going to be doing 44 different contortions on how bad am I going to lose taxes on this deal or on the next one. What did they just say, okay? And the next change, and try to feed five commissioners and everybody else that asks. MS. DONALDSON: Yeah. I just wanted to point out it's just not my unavailability during that special session. I believe that a lot of people will be unavailable. MR. MUDD: And of course you've got the F AC conference where I've got three commissioners out 12th through the 15th anyway. It's -- that's a trying time. So if we could get it before that, that would be absolutely great. MR. MERCER: We're probably looking at the week of June the 4th. MR. MUDD: Make it on the 5th. It's my birthday. MR. MERCER: Then we'd have to bring a present. MR. PRITT: Or the 8th is mine. MR. MUDD: I don't want a present. I can't take gifts. We have a no-gifts policy, okay? Your presence is gift enough, Dan. MR. PETTIT: I would remind you on Jim's behalf that you -- on his birthday you can give up, that the subordinate may give to the Page 44 May 14,2007 managers. MR. OCHS: He reminded me of that. MS. DONALDSON: I mean, we could potentially meet earlier. It doesn't sound like there's that many outstanding issues, so I don't know if we even want to wait a month or I don't know -- MR. MUDD: No. Let's clean it up as fast as we can clean it up and -- MS. DONALDSON: If you're trying to get noticing and everything else -- MR. MUDD: Bob, I'm going to tell you that the date is strictly in your hands. I mean, you call it and we'll come forward. We want to get this thing moving as fast as we can as far as the agreement, make sure everybody's comfortable with it, start working on the ordinances and get it done. MR. PETTIT: I'll get my changes out tomorrow or, the latest, Wednesday morning. MR. PRITT: Well, we have a wonderful, tremendous phenomenon that occurs this month. It's called five Wednesdays. The five-Wednesday effect. MR. MUDD: Well, we have a five-Tuesday effect, and it's the last week of May. MR. PRITT: You do, too. No. Yeah, that's right, you do, too. MR. MUDD: It's the last week of May. MR. PRITT: So we could fill up that Tuesday or Wednesday. The only problem is, I don't know the availability of the city manager and -- MR. MUDD: Just take a look, just take a look. Set a date and we'll try to make it work for everybody, okay? That's what we always have tried to do. MR. PRITT: Okay. MR. MUDD: Okay. Thank you very much for coming. This meeting's adjourned. Page 45 May 14,2007 (Proceedings concluded at 5:40 p.m.) TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 46