Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/07/2007 S (Proposed Annexation - Collier Park of Commerce) June 7, 2007 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CITY OF NAPLES GOVERNMENT EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT Naples, Florida, June 7, 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 June 7, 2007, at 3:30 p.m., City Hall, Second Floor, Multi-media Room, Naples, Florida. PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Mike Pettit, Chief Assistant County Attorney Michael Sheffield, County Manager's Office Dr. Bob Lee, City of Naples Robert D. Pritt, Attorney, City of Naples Liz Rogers, City of Naples, Records Leo Salvatori, Attorney, CPOC Laura Donaldson, Attorney, East Naples Fire Dis. Angela Davis, East Naples Fire Commissioner ALSO PRESENT: Judith Chirgwin, Citizen Jack Pointer, Citizen C. M. Abbott, Citizen David Aldrich, CBrA Jim McEvoy, Naples Fire Michael Brown, North Naples Fire Eric Staats, Naples Daily News Page 1 June 7, 2007 DR. LEE: Why don't we go ahead and open the meeting. Good afternoon. For the record my name is Bob Lee. I'm the city manager here in Naples. Welcome to the Naples City Hall. Once again, another meeting of the -- to discuss the interlocal service boundary agreement for the Collier Park of Commerce annexation. As I understand it, and I was not here at the last meeting, but as I understand it the proposed agreement was prepared and was distributed and there was some discussion on it. Our city attorney has prepared some changes which what I'd like to do is refer to him to review those changes to the document and open that up for some questions and discussion. Jim, I don't know. Is there anything you want to say before we -- MR. MUDD: Yeah. What we did last meeting just to bring everybody up to speed is we went over the draft agreement, the inter -- the interlocal service boundary agreement. And we -- and we talked about -- we talked about some issues that -- that -- that needed to be resolved or firmed up one of which was fire service. There was some -- there was some additional language that was added to paragraph 6 which was public road maintenance. The concurrency issue on paragraph 8, there was lots of language changing and some things like that. But -- but in essence, we needed to make sure that Norm Feder and his crew met with George Archibald and his crew or -- and -- and got through and made sure that they could all agree to that language, and I believe that happened. And -- and then the last piece had to do with terms, renegotiations and challenges. And I believe Mr. Pritt was going to take that one on. And I did notice that in the new agreement there is -- there is a part for term in there. And a five-year issue was one of the things that were brought up. But that brings everybody up to speed on what we talked about last time and what we were challenged to do to come back to this meeting and firm it up. DR. LEE: Thank you. Page 2 June 7, 2007 Mr. Pritt, would you mind providing an overview of what we -- we have here before us today? MR. PRITT: Not at all. The draft that I have prepared I had just a little while ago. Unfortunately, I'm not real good at doing the tracking changes especially since I did it from two different computers and two different places. So I gave you a final copy. There aren't that many changes. They're not that hard to find from the previous draft that Mike Pettit had provided. So if you want to, if you have Mike's, you might want to go by his and then I'll just go over the changes. Obviously, I'm on page 1. We changed it to June 7th. But I think you did it in your draft, too, didn't you, Mike? MR. PETTIT: Correct. MR. PRITT: And the first change that I would like to highlight was on -- hold on one second. Let me make sure real quick here. Okay. The first change I think I have is on page 2. If you see one before that, let me know. I just don't have the notation for it. We went into fire service under No.2. And I have a fairly long section under two that is all new. And that should go over to page -- the end of page 4. And that is something that we will have to discuss with the fire control district. The idea there was to try to come up with at least the outline for a -- an agreement with the fire control district as opposed to just leaving it out there and leaving it for the four-year period that's provided by 171093. Before we get into the details of that, because I'm sure that's going to take a little while to talk about it, I'd like to go over and see what else we have. On page 5, paragraph 3, at the top, we changed the language. It says -- where it said, The City acknowledges that it will be expanding its fire station, we thought that ought to be changed to, plans to expanding -- plans to expand. I'm not sure we got that right, but it should say -- yes, plans to expand. Page 3 June 7, 2007 Mike, I'm not sure if that was in your draft or in ours. MR. PETTIT: I'm having a hard time following you because we just -- we didn't -- this is the first time I've ever seen this. MR. PRITT: Okay. On page -- MR. PETTIT: I mean, this is the first time I've ever seen the draft was five minutes ago. MR. PRITT: Okay. Paragraph 3. (As read): In its urban services report for the annexation of Collier Park of Commerce dated October 17,2006, the City acknowledges that it plans to expand the fire station. MR. PETTIT: Is that -- that's an exact quote out of the urban services report? Is that where I'm going to make the change? DR. LEE: Take a look. No. I think that's just back. I can't say we are. I mean, that is our plan. I don't know that it actually says "plan." MR. PRITT: Well, I saw that as pretty minor, but-- MR. PETTIT: I just -- just wondered. I mean, I don't have the urban services report in front of me. (Inaudible). THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. I can't hear you. MR. PETTIT: I didn't -- I didn't bring the urban services report with me today. I had it the last time. I was trying to make it consistent with that. DR. LEE: I don't think it's inconsistent. It's just that I don't think -- I don't think it says that exact. It doesn't quote that. MR. PRITT: Bob, after that the next one that I see is on No.4, recycling. And the last sentence should read, The City -- this is a new sentence -- the City is in the process of considering for adoption its own nonresidential recycling ordinance. And upon adoption, the City's ordinance will be followed. I think that's what would happen, anyhow. MR. MUDD: Yeah. I don't have a problem with that one. MR. PETTIT: I don't either. Page 4 June 7, 2007 MR. PRITT: On page -- well, I can't go by page numbers, I guess. On No.7, utility taxes, communications taxes, we're recommending deletion of franchise fees. And we would add, The parties acknowledge -- I think that -- I think it said the City acknowledges -- but the parties acknowledge that the County as a property owner and the CPOC is immune from and shall not be subject to any utility tax or communication tax levied by the City. Oh, I know. We said -- it had said the parties acknowledge and agree. MR. PETTIT: Uh-huh. MR. PRITT: I think that this -- that more appropriately it should be an acknowledgment. We believe -- we all believe around the table, I think, that these -- that these things are true. But I am suggesting also that we add the language, The fire district -- well, I think we already added the language. The fire district was also immune from, et cetera. And then last sentence, The parties acknowledge that immunity from taxation is created, conditioned and/or abolished by operation of state law and not local enactment. And I think that's actually underlined in this draft. And I don't know why, but -- anyhow, that would be an added recommended statement. I think that's a true statement. MR. PETTIT: And you want to delete the reference to the rebate? MR. PRITT: Yes. Yeah. I continue to have a problem with that. Did you happen to get my e-mail? MR. PETTIT: I got that, although I don't know that that's dispositive, Bob, because I agree that FP&L can't treat folks differently, that this is an agreement with the City for purposes of affecting an interlocal service boundary agreement. I'm not sure that you're bound to treat us any particular way for purposes of this Page 5 June 7, 2007 agreement by statute. MR. PRITT: I understand that. That's a place I don't want to go. And we'll recommend that the City not under any circumstances agree to that. I know the County has other ways of dealing with matters concerning the City. I don't think that we need to get involved in something that -- that is that much of a potential problem. MR. PETTIT: My recommendation, Mr. Mudd, is we take that under advisement. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. PRITT: Does anybody have a clue as to how much we're talking about? MR. PETTIT: Pardon me? MR. PRITT: Anybody have a clue as to how much money we're talking about per year? I don't know if it's a $5,000 item or $50,000 item or half-million-dollar item, but that might be something worth knowing. MR. PETTIT: I don't know. DR. LEE: That's a good point. MR. PRITT: Yeah. We pay it. We can't get ourselves out of it that I know how. And it seems to me that FPL would have a problem with it and I don't want to go there. Okay. On concurrency, paragraph 8, some of this language might be yours, Mike, the underlying strike-through. I don't know. If it isn't, then it must be mine. MR. PETTIT: Some of it -- some of the underlying and strike-throughs you have is -- is mine. MR. PRITT: Yeah. MR. PETTIT: And in addition, in the draft I sent out this morning and that I brought here today, it's kind of -- it came out faint. We were trying to get it to come out in red. It didn't. We have some language that we think tracks agreements or understanding between County and City transportation issues. Page 6 June 7, 2007 MR. PRITT: Okay. Well, let me just go through this just -- just for purposes of going through the one draft and highlighting everything that we have. And then we'll go through whatever you have. What the thought was here was -- ours came out faint, also, rather than color. But it said, The City acknowledges and agrees -- about halfway down -- that it shall contribute or require contribution of the proportionate fair share occasioned by such increase toward the necessary improvement as determined by the City and the County at Horseshoe Drive. I have no idea if that's consistent with any discussions that our departments are having. And that's only a very tentative subject of what -- what understanding they may have. And then further on down, The City further agrees that the needed, I would say, contributions toward the proportionate fair share would be made within six months. I'm not sure about that date, but I kind of left it alone for now. I just put a question mark above it. After a post -annexation zoning or other land use approvals increasing density or intensity of uses within the CPOC. And then beyond that currently authorized by the County GMP and Land Development Code which -- which I think is about the same thing that you had said in your draft. And, again, maybe that was your change. This does not apply to the extent that any increases in density or intensity are attributable to County operations as a property owner in the area to be annexed. And this particular annexation, we all know that the County is a, I guess, an owner of a pretty intensive use portion of property within the district. And we wouldn't want to be penalized by something that the County's actually doing. And then I had asked at the last meeting where -- where is the County's agreement? What is the County going to do, the fire district going to do? And I think it was left as I was supposed to come up Page 7 June 7, 2007 with some language, but I did anyhow. And it would say, The County -- a new No.9 -- the County and the fire district agree that they will forego objection and challenge to the CPOC annexation which is the subject of this agreement. If any of their agents, employees, unions, or any other person who may be acting in concert with or at the behest of either agency shall challenge the annexation, this agreement shall be void. MR. PETTIT: Okay. Just, Mr. Pritt, let me -- let me go back to eight. I -- I don't think we're going to get -- I hate to say this, but I don't think we're going to get that finalized today because I -- on the language I sent you, there were changes that I understood were the result of the discussions. I just got it this morning and I sent it out to you. It doesn't necessarily track what's in your draft. I don't think I'd be prepared to advise Mr. Mudd to go forward until we can compare it and maybe have some more discussion. MR. PRITT: Well, and then going to No. 12. MS. DONALDSON: Oh, also, can I ask a question on No.9? I don't mean to interrupt. Do you want me to wait until we're at the end? MR. PRITT: Oh, sure. No. Go ahead. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. Laura Donaldson on behalf of East Naples Fire Control District. My question to you is this last sentence, No.9, If any other agents, employees, unions, or persons who may be acting in concert with or at the behest. I just want to make sure, you know, if we can make it very clear what "in concert with or at the behest." Because obviously our unions can do whatever it wants to do. And I don't know if we provide information regarding the annexation, are we then considered acting in concert with? So I would just like that somewhat clarified. We can't control our unions just like you can't control your own Page 8 June 7, 2007 employees. If they want to challenge the annexation, they want to challenge the annexation. I'm just a little uncomfortable agreeing to something that deals with our unions and employees that we have no control over. MR. PRITT: Well, if that happens and the agreement should be void, that's all we're agreeing to. MS. DONALDSON: All right. It just seems like a lot of time's been spent on trying to get an agreement that could be voided because someone's employee challenges the annexation, but, okay. MR. PETTIT: I just -- you know, I mean, the only thing I would say is that I don't think the County's affected by nine. Just at first blush, I don't see why we have a problem with it, but Laura may have. That's absolutely true. We spent, I don't know how many -- it seems like we've been in a meeting a lot and we've got drafts going back and forth. I agree. I don't know how the fire district necessarily controls the union. I mean, there's just -- and -- and so, therefore, actions that they can't control, you would have -- basically undo all this work we've done. MR. PRITT: I understand everything you-all are saying. I'm just saying if that happens, then the agreement's void. If you can't control them, you can't control them. MR. PETTIT: You know, I wouldn't -- I recommend we agree to that. MR. PRITT: Okay. Why should -- why should they go through -- the City go through another six months of hearings only to have somebody from one of the districts come in and the district come in there and innocently say, Well, gee. We can't control them. All -- all I'm saying is, hey, if that happens, then the deal's off. The deal should be off. MS. DONALDSON: I think you misunderstood. I said I'd like clarifying language what you mean by "in concert with and at the behest." I didn't say delete the provision. Because my concern is, you Page 9 June 7, 2007 know, the City of Naples finds out that they don't like a provision and, you know, someone in the union files a challenge and because we provide information. Which we're a public agency so we have to provide information any ways, that's deemed to be in concert with. I would just like that clarified. MR. PRITT: There are two separate sentences. Let me try to clarify it one more time; two separate sentences. MS. DONALDSON: I think we can just move on from that one. I mean, I think we're just not going to be able to come up with anything. MR. PETTIT: The only thing -- let me -- what about if it said -- MR. PRITT: Well, do you want me to clarify it or not? MR. PETTIT: Well, why don't you clarify it and see if we understand your clarification? MR. PRITT: Two separate sentences. The County and the fire district agree that they will forego objection and challenge to the CPOC annexation, which is the subject of this agreement. That's one sentence. The other sentence is, If any of their agents, employees, unions or any other person who may be acting in concert with or at the behest of either agency shall challenge the annexation, this agreement shall be void. MR. PETTIT: Well, my problem is with the word "may." May. Who determines that? Somebody may be acting at the behest. I mean, even if you have the word "is," that would have to be something definitive. Here it says "may." "May" is in the eye of the beholder in this set of circumstances. And I think you gave an example for about potential for people asking for public records and then using those and turning around and using those records to put together a challenge. DR. LEE: Why don't we -- anything else? In this particular case, why don't we -- we move on. I think there's been -- I think if we Page 10 June 7, 2007 can get through the contract and at least understand what's being presented and then we could probably go back to where there's still a question. How's that sound? MR. PRITT: Dispute resolution, No. 12. Should any disputes or alleged breaches arise with this agreement, the City, the County and fire district agree that such disputes shall be resolved in accordance with -- and I think it's just recitation that it's the Florida Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement Act, Section 171.212. And then I would recommend adding, However, nothing in this agreement shall prohibit the parties from attempting to resolve or to resolve any disputes under this agreement by any alternative dispute resolution means in the most expeditious and least expensive means possible, and alternate dispute resolution is encouraged. The procedures in paragraph 2-G will be employed in those matters under that paragraph and may, with the consent of the parties, be employed herein. You have to go back to -- to G. And, again, that's a matter of the fire control district. And what would happen -- what could happen there is there might be some fairly minor intramural disputes about an amount of this or that or the other thing. And I was trying to do something that was cheap and quick and expeditious as possible to resolve those issues so that we're not going to do 164 proceedings and all of those types of proceedings for matters that could easily be resolved quickly and cheaply. And not -- so that's what that sentence does. It refers back to that. It would not only be for 2-G, but would be at least a thought for all of us rather than running off to the formalized proceedings, one formalized proceeding. Let's see if we can take a shot at getting together and getting it taken care of through ultimate dispute resolution. I think that's it. We did -- well, the term, the initial terms would be for five years following the effective date. Renegotiation shall Page II June 7, 2007 commence not later than 18 months before the date of expiration. And renegotiation shall be governed by the initial negotiation procedures as set forth in the act. And I think that was your language, Mike, or it was out of the -- I think we agreed that was out of the statute. And have I covered everything that was of interest too? MS. DONALDSON: Can I make a comment on 15? Depending on what's decided on Section 2, I would like the term to kind of mirror how long the fire service, because that seems to be the one issue, that's kind of an ongoing. I know you proposed four years and however many months. But depending on what ends up being that final thing, if it's changed, I don't want to have an agreement that expires when we're still providing service or whatever is agreed to in Section 2. MR. PRITT: That's a valid point. DR. LEE: I would agree. MR. PRITT: Okay. I'm looking to see in missed anything other than -- I believe that's it. If not, is there anything on this? And if not, do we want to go to talk about No.2, Laura, or do we want to talk about Mike's draft first? What do you guys want to do? MS. DONALDSON: You know, I -- I think we should address Mike's draft first. I'd like for you to go through all of Section 2 and then what I'll probably recommend is that we break since we just got this. And this is a first time we've seen this proposal. And it's extremely substantive and very different than what we've ever seen before. But we can -- I think Mike -- if you're okay with going next. DR. LEE: Is this Mike's draft? I'm not sure which one's Mike's draft. I'm sorry. I wasn't here last meeting. MR. PETTIT: My draft is the one in red with the red "June 7th" on it. DR. LEE: Okay. I don't -- I don't have one in red. MR. PETTIT: We have 10 or 12 copies. Page 12 June 7, 2007 MR. PRITT: Do you have one for each of us? MR. SALVATORI: You can borrow mine, if you like. MR. PETTIT: I -- I sent that out this morning. MR. PRITT: I was -- yeah. You know, I was in -- DR. LEE: Does anyone not have a copy? We can run a quick copy. CHIEF MCEVOY: I'd like to get a copy. DR. LEE: Laura, if we could just take a couple moments to make some copies. MR. PETTIT: That's fine. (Short recess was taken.) DR. LEE: Okay. We're back. Was Mike going to cover the agreement? MR. PETTIT: I'm just going to move it into paragraph 3. We have a change that the City's proposed some language that says, The City acknowledges that it will expand its fire station. That's our language. The City wants, the City acknowledges the plans to expand its fire station. I've just got a "maybe" by that. That's probably something we can agree to, but I -- I really, frankly, want to look at the back of the (inaudible). I think Mr. Mudd and I have already agreed that the City's additional sentence in paragraph 4 is okay on recycling. I don't think there were any changes in paragraph 5. When we get to paragraph 6 -- I sent these changes several weeks ago now. You can see the changes there. One of the things I think we changed was to make it clear that we weren't going to be dealing with widening. That came out of the last discussion at the last meeting. I'm going to seven and comparing the two. I think we're -- we're not quite there yet on the rebate. W e'lllook at that some more. I heard what, Bob, you said and what your recommendation is. So I want to put that one to a side, but I don't think we object to the sentence about immunity from taxation. So I think we can -- we could Page 13 June 7, 2007 add that in. But I think we're still maybe a little bit at odds on -- on the rebate issue. Paragraph 8 is where we had changes that we only sent out this morning and I apologize for that. As I -- as -- again, as I understand it, a lot of this language captures what the transportation officials discussed. And it may be that because it is different and it's -- it's brand new today, I don't know how much we can get done with that today . You may not be prepared to -- to work through that, but obviously there is some differences. MR. PRITT: Mike? MR. MUDD: I just -- can I just -- MR. PRITT: Oh, I'm sorry. How do you see -- how do you think we're really far off on that? I'm kind of skimming through as we go in here. Because I see you have "fair share" in here and "coordination" which is kind of what we're asking for, I think. MR. PETTIT: In that -- well, let's -- let's walk through it. I know -- MR. MUDD: Mike, I just want to make one issue on -- on paragraph 6 real quick because we've already gone through it. MR. PETTIT: Okay. MR. MUDD: There -- there is one -- there is one sentence that's new. Okay. And -- and I'm -- and I'm trying to -- it's at the bottom of five on -- on Bob Pritt's draft that says, The repairs needed shall be determined by the City. Okay. I don't know if you caught that. I'm just trying to -- MR. PRITT: I'm sorry. Paragraph what? MR. MUDD: Paragraph 6 -- MR. PRITT: Paragraph six. MR. MUDD: -- bottom of page 5. There's only one sentence that's inclusive in the bottom line. It says, The repairs needed shall be determined by the City. And that's not in Mike's draft. So I just want to make sure -- Page 14 June 7, 2007 MR. PETTIT: I didn't see it. MR. MUDD: Do you see it? MR. PETTIT: I see it now. MR. MUDD: Okay. DR. LEE: You want to cover that, Bob? MR. PRITT: Okay. MR. MUDD: I don't think I disagreed with the line being added. DR. LEE: I don't know. I thought that might have been covered. MR. MUDD: I just want to -- I just want to -- I just want to make sure -- DR. LEE: Absolutely. MR. MUDD: -- that -- that we know that that line's been added and it's different than the draft that you have, Mike. DR. LEE: That's correct. MS. DONALDSON: Do we know when the actual amount will be determined? I mean, is it going to be part of the annexation -- part of the annexation agreement with the -- or the property owners? DR. LEE: We have some consent with the property owners. I think the purpose of this was just stating that they're in agreement to pay up to 175,000. It could be something less than that or it could be something more, but we'll have a separate annexation agreement to cover that. MR. PETTIT: Well, I think, Jim, the key piece for us is the next sentence. We're not obligated. MR. MUDD: Yup. That's -- that's still -- that's the same sentence as I believe what you've got in yours. MR. PETTIT: I think as to public roadways is that I don't see a problem. That sounds good. Decide what the standard is you want to bring those roadways up to. MR. MUDD: I'm sorry? I'm back to you. MR. PETTIT: Let's go back to paragraph 8. I mean, we could-- we can go through these and compare these side by side if you want, Page 15 June 7, 2007 because I'm not sure. There was some changes in what we sent to you earlier and now there are more changes what I sent out today. I'm not sure they're all (inaudible). In our draft we have -- I think one of the things we're trying to make clear is that there are two types of development that did occur here. One is that we could have development that expands intensity beyond what is allowed today. That's one kind of development. Another kind of development may be development of what's already there in accordance with that intensity, but still may have an impact on the roadways. I think we're trying to -- trying to deal with both circumstances. I think that's the best way I can describe it. And Jim Mudd has suggested -- and I see -- see the reason for the suggestion. In the sentence that begins with the word "accordingly," the second sentence and paragraph. If you follow along there it says, The City acknowledges and agrees that it shall coordinate the review of the development to assess the impacts and collect any fair share. We should add the word "contributions" there or "contribution." And then I think that tracks one of the changes in your draft, Bob, farther down where it says, The City further agrees that needed contribution -- I put this language in -- needed contribution toward proportionate fair share shall be made within six months after any post-annexation, zoning or approvals increasing density or intensity. Now, that one I don't know that we can agree with. It does track that language of contribution. I think we need to look at that one. MR. PRITT: Just conceptually -- and I apologize ifI'd forgotten since we went over it, but certainly Dr. Lee wasn't here. Conceptually on these improvements that we're talking about, wasn't it four intersection improvements? But conceptually these are County intersections, are they not? And this -- I think it originally had said that we were going to make the improvements. And I don't think you want us to make improvements to your County intersection. And, of course, we would object to paying -- I think where we Page 16 June 7, 2007 were and maybe we would object to paying all the money to make improvements to County intersections. And I think that's what we were sending everybody back, the traffic people back. And I don't see our traffic people here. Are they here to talk about -- and I don't know what they came up with. So maybe this is it. MR. MUDD: Let me -- let me -- let me put it this way. Okay. When I -- when I plan to leave here, I will get Norm and his crew and say, Go on over to the City with their group and beat out language on eight that everybody can live with. Okay? And let them come back with that -- with that language. And I'd expect your guys, Bob, to come back up to you or Bob. And -- and -- and Norm to come back up to Mike and -- and relay that. And then hopefully when they swap their thing, that it's there. And they've got that concurrency piece down pat. Okay? But I'm not going to sit there and try to smith over that. I'm going to let those guys work it out. That's what they get paid for. MR. PETTIT: I -- I think we're pretty close to that. MR. MUDD: Yeah. I don't think we're that far -- I don't think we're that far away. MR. PETTIT: We're almost there. DR. LEE: One suggestion maybe, too, it appears that we're going to be meeting again, is if we can work off one document at a time. The City's proposal, this date and then you'll come back with some amendment if that need be. I'm following it, but it's not the easiest way. MR. MUDD: Well, I'm following. I'm trying to do three documents. Okay? This isn't fun at all. MR. PETTIT: And I -- and I totally agree with you. I think what's -- what's got to happen, we've -- we've narrowed this down now to the point that really Bob and I need to create a unified document to distribute next time. So we just have to get it out in sufficient time tocdo that. Page 17 June 7, 2007 DR. LEE: Okay. MR. SALVA TORI: Can I raise one more point so -- I agree with Jim's suggestion about word-smithing it out, but you've introduced a new concept that's not in the City's that we haven't seen before, Mike, and that's in the first change that you had in paragraph 8 about ifthere should be any additional development or redevelopment. And the way I'm reading that is that if somebody comes in and wants to build an industrial use on properties zoned industrial, they pay their impact fees. But potentially could have to pay additional costs for some of these infrastructure improvements that we're talking about. And to me fair share should be the impact fees that are being assessed and nothing more if you're really consistent with the current zoning that you have on the property. I could see additional monies being paid if there is intentional -- more intentional development, commercial use of that front piece, for example. That makes sense to me. But if they're -- if they're building something already zoned for, they should probably be paying only their impact fees. I'm not sure how you feel about that, but from a property owner's perspective, that -- that's -- MR. MUDD: And I don't -- and I don't disagree with you on that one. Okay? And I think that's part of the hammering out that they need to do. MR. SALVATORI: Y eah. You could kind of keep that in mind, you know. DR. LEE: Good point. MR. MUDD: Ours -- ours -- our -- mine was -- mine was always intensity and density. MR. PETTIT: Right. And I agree. That's what we started out with that I will tell you that there was a concept that I know there's some vacant property back there. MR. SALVATORI: Yeah. Page 18 June 7, 2007 MR. PETTIT: And the concept was you have an allowed intensity now, but that can cause -- that could throw one of these intersections into failure also. MR. SALVA TORI: But it just strikes me as a property owner that that would be disproportionally borne by that particular property as opposed to something zoned for. That's what his impact fees would be for. That's -- that's -- MR. PETTIT: As well as transportation. MR. PRITT: You know, as you might guess, I would jump in and agree with Leo's point of view, but I -- I -- because I do think conceptually we are talking about something that's over and above what the County would be permitting. And the County would already be permitting -- MR. SAL V A TORI: Industrial. MR. PRITT: -- development of that park. And so, anyhow, if we can keep the concept of anything over and above, then I think that we're getting pretty close to it. DR. LEE: Okay. MR. PETTIT: I don't think on the next series of paragraphs after eight there was much. The only two questions I have -- really the question, we debated a little bit about -- about the second sentence in the additional paragraph 9. Because, again, I just -- I'm troubled that all this goes down the tubes because somebody may be acting. I mean, this doesn't make sense to me. We may need to discuss that more. And then dispute resolution. DR. LEE: Do you -- do you have a question? Do you have any problem with the first sentence? MR. PETTIT: The first sentence in nine, no. DR. LEE: Right. Because that's -- okay. MR. PETTIT: No. In fact, that's what I thought it was going to be. That's what I thought it was going to be. I thought Bob was one Page 19 June 7, 2007 going to add that. That's fine. MS. DONALDSON: And the district doesn't have a problem with the first sentence either. MR. PETTIT: We just need to deal with the second sentence. And maybe there's a way we can assuage Bob's concerns and our concerns with reasonable additional language. And then, Bob, I -- you got me on 12. I mean, the dispute resolution process, and I don't have the statute in front of me, I thought maybe required Chapter 164. If the statute could be read to be flexible, I agree with you. I just don't -- I need to go back and look at it. MR. PRITT: Yeah. And I'm not saying we wouldn't go through 164. I'm trying to put in a pre-164 provision in there so that we could take care of kind of rinky-dink disputes. Primarily if it had to do with something to do with something -- some numbers crunching between the City and the fire control district that -- because 164 is pretty -- MR. PETTIT: Ifwe lawfully can do that, that's fine with me because I find that procedure to be unduly cumbersome. And a lot of times it prolongs disputes. And I just want to check the statute. I think we probably -- we can probably get that one fixed pretty quickly. MR. PRITT: Laura, conceptually, do you have a problem with that as long as we're not going to legal. MS. DONALDSON: Conceptually, no. MR. PRITT: A pre-164, let's see if we can find it, then. Get something -- get the chief judge to appoint somebody which he'll usually go through. I've -- I've done that in the past. It's always been successful in resolving disputes. I can't think of one that didn't get resolved. And the -- normally what they do is appoint somebody who -- who does arbitrations or mediations. And the only -- the only reason for asking the chief judge to have that done is that then nobody can Page 20 June 7, 2007 complain that it's -- that somebody's trying to monkey with the process. It takes away that argument really. There might be a better way of doing it, but I just -- let's do it as cheap as we can. MR. PETTIT: I think it's worth exploring definitely because I agree with you. You don't want to be in 164 unless we absolutely have to. MR. PRITT: Right. MR. PETTIT: That would be my recommendation to my client. But that's getting the board together and the County manager and the City manager together and it's a pretty time-consuming process. The only other change I had was on the term which we've already talked about. And you guys talked about -- you and Laura talked about something just now, I'm not sure I caught it on the term. I wasn't sure what you were saying. MS. DONALDSON: Depending on what the final conclusion is of the interlocal -- of the fire service section, it may actually be more than four years and six months. For example, if we go under the statute, say it goes for four years six months, it would go under the statute, it actually goes until 2000 -- October 1,2012. So depending on when it was signed -- I just want to make sure that -- MR. PETTIT: We could have five -- five years or -- MS. DONALDSON: Exactly. MR. PETTIT: -- whichever is longer. MS. DONALDSON: Yeah. That's -- that's all. I just didn't want to have an agreement expire midway through whatever the fire service prOVISiOn. DR. LEE: I would agree. MR. PETTIT: That's -- that's no problem. MR. PRITT: I think lawyers can come up with the language that covers that. And there are a couple ways of doing it. We may not want to have the whole agreement go the same amount of time. Let's say the agreement's longer than the -- than the agreement Page 21 June 7, 2007 between the City and the fire district, but you could still have provisions that survive the length of one agreement or the other. So I think we can work with the language on that. MS. DONALDSON: And I just want to point out going back to the dispute resolution. The statute does say "shall" but, obviously, we have to review what your lot equipment and interlocal agreement. And maybe they'll allow us to not follow Section 171.212, but it says if there's a dispute, a local agreement shall initiate under Chapter 164. MR. PETTIT: What I -- what I can't remember sitting here without looking at the statute is whether 164 itself contemplates some alternative to 164 before you get to 164. I think it might. And I think we ought to look at it because that's just such a cumbersome procedure. That would make sense particularly in a small -- some sort of small issue. I think that takes us back to the fire service piece which is, I guess, between you two. MR. PRITT: Okay. On the fire service issue, I'll speak for myself, I tried to come up with something that would track 171.093 and have it as part of this -- this agreement. I don't know that anything is cast in concrete, at least not in my mind, but the district has been asking for some type of an offer. And we know what 171.093 says. I know it's got some ambiguities in it, in my opinion. But I'll try to come up with something that would at least be the springboard for a -- for discussion. And I realize that maybe it's a lot to -- to try to figure out. Not to figure out, but try to digest at one time. And I don't have any problem if you want to caucus for a while or if we need to come back and talk about it again. But I'll just try and go through it and lay it out for you. The transition with -- under 2-A would be 90 days after annexation and that the City would become the provider of the services. The fire district and the City would provide for transfer of Page 22 June 7, 2007 service responsibilities, equipment and personnel to the City within that period -- within such period. The fire district shall within the 90-day transition period provide first responder services. So that would be clear as to who would provide the services during that transition period. B, the City would be responsible for plan, review and approval upon annexation. New applications filed after the annexation date will be reviewed by the City. The fire district would turn over to the City all pending applications and plans for plan review within 30 days after annexation. Fees for plan review and permitting will be charged by the reviewing agency in accordance with the City's fee schedule. And the fire district shall cooperate in the transition and provide a plan review for briefing and training if requested by the City. The City will reimburse the fire district for the actual cost of the reviewer. The boundary would contract to delete the annexed area on the date of the -- and that should not say by the time and date of annexation. Employees, any employee of the fire district that may be displaced by the transition will be considered for employment by the City in the same capacity or in as equivalent a capacity as may be available within -- within the City. This was written without any knowledge on my part as to whether or not there would be any contracts, union contracts that might -- or policies that might impinge -- impinge on that. And I recognize that there mayor may not be. But it seems to me that an employee would have the right to see if he could or she could be employed by the City regardless of any contracts, but, then, again, maybe somebody could show otherwise. Equipment and equipment that may be deemed surplus by operation of this agreement will be considered for purchase or assumption of the lease or other obligation by the City and its then fair value. I don't know if that's even relevant, but I tried to put something in there that would at least cover that. Page 23 June 7, 2007 And then payments by the City in order -- in order to provide an orderly transition and to ameliorate loss of fire district. Ad valorem tax revenues -- I said, "ad valorem." It probably should be "tax revenues." Ad valorem tax revenues that may be detrimental to continued operation of the fire district, the City as provider will agree to have the fire district provide first responder fire service, but not planned review and inspections over a four-year-and-six-month period payable in equal installments within 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter in according to the following formula. And then the formula has, too, an amount equal to the ad valorem taxes or assessments that would have collected had the property remained in the district reduced by the expense of the City for personnel cost, purchase of the equipment or assumption of indebtedness for equipment and for any other expenses incurred by the City under this -- under the paragraph, which is paragraph 2, or otherwise as a result of this agreement in each fiscal year. And, two, an offset against any ad valorem taxes and assessments that may be levied by the fire district in the fiscal year in which the boundary contracts. IfI'm correct on that, No.2, just the explanation is that in the one year -- in the year that it contracts, there may be some ad valorem taxes and assessments that are levied and collected. And we would want to have an offset against that. But that's not relevant. You-all know more about how you do your taxes than I do. But that's -- that's kind of the concept there, so -- so that you understand what the thinking is, whether it's valid thinking or not. And then the dispute resolution clause. Again, I recognize that there may be other things that would need to be covered. I'm sure there are other things that need to be covered, but this was an attempt to at least put into playa concept for you to -- for us to talk about and for you to take a look at so you have something that you can at least go by and react to and respond to. MS. DONALDSON: I -- at first I just wanted to say that I have Page 24 June 7, 2007 some questions to ask and then based on your answers, I think that this will be something that we're not going to have an agreement on today. This is very different than what the statute provides for in regards to boundaries, four years six months, the reduction of revenues. But, so having said that, I just want to say when the next meeting is scheduled, I will make sure that you have it well in advance. I know I did that with the first offer per Dr. Lee's request. He asked me not to give it to him the day of or the day before. And I think I sent it to you two weeks before. And I will give the same courtesy this time. Because if not, it really becomes almost a waste of time. My Fire Chief is out of town right now. So I'm not in a position to make decisions on this. Had I received it last week, I might have had responses to some of the issues. But if I could ask some questions on page 2 -- MR. PRITT: Before you ask the question, could I respond to one thing? MS. DONALDSON: Yes. MR. PRITT: The -- we probably need to really understand and agree, if we can, or agree/disagree on the concept as to whether or not we can do that. Because it's my understanding that that's what the ISBA statute is designed to allow. If you disagree, then -- then I think we need to -- at least I do -- hit the books to see whether or not we're wasting our time on this too. Because I agree with that. I don't want to waste my time on something that would be not allowed by the statute. But I -- but in reading 171.093 and the ISBA statute together, I think that this is designed for us to be able to do that. So if you don't, then -- then we probably ought to talk about that as a special issue. MS. DONALDSON: I don't have a problem with the concepts. I have taken issue with getting them the minute before the meeting starting and hoping to have some resolution. My comment about wasting time is more so getting an agreement Page 25 June 7, 2007 right before a meeting starts and not having the ability to discuss it through with a client makes it a little bit difficult to really have a very fruitful meeting and come up with some resolution. That was my only point. And I'll just make sure for the next meeting if we have one, that you'll get a response to this section in advance of the meeting. DR. LEE: One thing too I might add, the way we've been approaching this I think has worked very well. But when we get down to something like this and I think Mr. Pritt mentioned it a little earlier, there may be some advantage to us having some caucus. Typical -- typically during negotiations, as you're well aware even collective bargaining agreements, I mean, that's all open to the public. But certainly each side's attorney could get together with the people they represent, take 10 minutes, 15 minutes, and come back. And maybe we can productively work through some of these issues so we're not having to -- even if we get that from you ahead of time and we come back with something at the meeting, it's still begging if there's anything different yet another meeting. So I don't know if we could have some agreement that -- that we will actually try to work it through at that meeting even if it means I need to take a break to consult with legal counsel and you do the same. And then we come back. You get on the public so we can -- not having to wait thirty days or two weeks or whatever it is. It's not like when we're not having meetings with our legal counsel. It's not like you're not having any meetings with your police chief, any ways. This may be a way to move it more expeditiously as opposed to waiting, you know, till we get together on it. Is there any -- anyone have any concerns with that? MS. DONALDSON: I mean, I think as we saw earlier today, we were -- there were things that we could agree to right here that didn't need caucusing. I think when you have something that's really Page 26 June 7, 2007 substantive, though, you know, I mean, you could have a really long caucus to try to come through it, and it could be a really -- I mean, I'm fine with it. I think that would be a more efficient use of our time. But I think we should plan on at least if it's a big substantive issue, plan on a longer meeting. I don't know if this has got like a -- the meetings that we did is with an end time. Because I think that the caucusing on something like what we just received would take a very long time. Because I think it's not only coming up with a response, but coming up with a counteroffer. DR. LEE: I think what I was going to -- and I don't disagree with you on that. There may be some things that take extra long caucuses and that may not be fair to particularly you. If one party's -- if we're able to get to some resolution with the County on the issues that we have, but for them to be sitting through this, but it maybe just long enough where you can say, If you can give us some direction as to what you're going to be looking at and what we should be looking at, again, so we could have some -- the next time we get together is a little more productive. At least that's what I'm suggesting. And I understand without the chief being here, that's certainly a disadvantage for you. But maybe if we plan on coming next time with the understanding that that's okay, then that may help us to continue the meeting as well. MS. DONALDSON: I'm fine with that. DR. LEE: So-- MS. DONALDSON: Can I finish up my questions? DR. LEE: Yeah. So if you want to go with your questions -- MS. DONALDSON: Okay. Let me -- and I just want to go on record, just because I'm not asking questions on some things, it doesn't mean we won't have an issue with that. I just want clarification on some points. You put the fire district and City will provide for transfer of services, responsibilities, equipment and personnel. Page 27 June 7, 2007 And I guess my question, and I think you alluded to it through your comment, what equipment and what personnel? I mean, we just can't transfer personnel. MR. PRITT: You can add "if any." MS. DONALDSON: Okay. In subsection or paragraph B, you put, The fire district shall cooperate and shall provide a plan reviewer for briefing and training if requested by the City. And I guess my question is: What do you envision that be? Like, how long do you envision that -- I mean, you've got a 90 -- 90 days after -- you know, you've got this 90-day transition period. Does that mean during the 90 -- all 90 days we're providing a plan reviewer to the City for training? I guess I'm just trying to figure out what you want for that provision. MR. PRITT: In one of our meetings, I think maybe it was in one of the annexations, I had heard that you have an outside firm. Everybody shares an outside plan review. MS. DONALDSON: Angela, Commissioner Davis is saying no. MR. PRITT: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. MS. DONALDSON: No. MS. DAVIS: No. MR. PRITT: Well, it may if it's outside or inside, but we would want to have somebody available to provide any type of training. We don't want to have somebody to just go turn out the lights and send something over. And by the same token, we would be willing to reimburse you for that. DR. LEE: But we don't -- I don't think with this we're not really sure to what level we would even need any. But I think the idea was here that there would be an agreement that if we did need your assistance over here in an appropriate transition, that we would pay for that. But not knowing what, if anything, is on the table, it would be difficult to -- it would probably be more specific than that, but that Page 28 June 7, 2007 was the intent just so that -- MS. DONALDSON: Okay. DR. LEE: -- it would be a transition. MS. DONALDSON: Basically you just don't want us to drop off all the plans that they might have been in the pipeline for three months and not telling you what's happened thus far? DR. LEE: There may be an issue of -- of great importance that you -- that we should know about. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. And then for E, There's any equipment that may be deemed surplus. And then if you go on by operation, This agreement will be considered for purchase by the City. It's then marked at fair value. Who's deeming the equipment surplus? I mean, are we going to sit down -- if we come up with some agreement to what this section says, also going to come up with a list of what equipment we deem to be surplus? MR. PRITT: I think you have the authority to deem what is surplus of your own equipment. My guess is that you would be taught -- that your chief would be would be talking to ours and -- and looking to see whether or not anything has become surplus. DR. LEE: Deemed surplus by the district? MS. DONALDSON: By the district. MR. PRITT: I don't mind saying that. Because I think they're the ones who have the legal authority to declare it surplus. MS. DONALDSON: And then on page 4, your F-1, you put that the ad valorem taxes payments would be reduced by the expenses to the City for personnel cost? MR. PRITT: Yes. MS. DONALDSON: Is that personnel cost to serve the area? That basically you're going to take over the plan review. And then you're going to say, Well, this is how much it costs us to do plan review. So we're going to decrease how much the payment to you is Page 29 June 7, 2007 by that amount. I'm just trying to figure out what the expense the City for the personnel costs. MR. PRITT: I'm sorry. That would be personnel cost attributable to the -- to the agreement. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. The personnel cost for that trainer, that -- MR. PRITT: Sure. Right. MS. DONALDSON: -- plan reviewer in B? MR. PRITT: Yes. MS. DONALDSON: And that's the only one that's what that's supposed to be for? So basically you're saying that we have to give -- we have to give you someone to train -- (Phone ringing.) MS. DONALDSON: Oh, I apologize. And that you're going to pay us, but then on the back end you're going to take it out of the money you owe us out of the ad valorem? MR. PRITT: Yes. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. Well-- okay. So in reality we could strike out the, if we agreed to this language, that the City would reimburse the fire district because in reality you're really not. I mean, it's kind of taking money from one hand and putting it in another. MR. PRITT: That's your editorial comment that -- if you think that's a problem, then you can respond to it. DR. LEE: I think I'd like to see what you folks -- and I understand what your concerns are. I do. MS. DONALDSON: I mean, it just seems kind of -- you're paying us for us to give someone to you to train and then you're deducting what you have to pay us for that training, but, okay. DR. LEE: I understand. MR. PRITT: Let me -- let me go back. It seems like the concept should be that neither agency gets a windfall or suffers any adverse consequences as a result of transferring simple services from one Page 30 June 7, 2007 agency to the other. We've got to keep in mind the taxpayer. And the taxpayer shouldn't be paying twice. And somebody -- and one governmental agency should not be able to line its pockets at the expense of the other or at the expense of the taxpayer. So how can we as lawyers and as people in different agencies look out for the interest, mutual interest of the taxpayer? And we're willing to -- at least I'm willing to take a look at anything that makes sense. MS. DONALDSON: I guess my question was just if you're saying you're paying us for someone that's training, but then you're deducting the cost later on. I mean, I can understand it's a taxpayer thing, but it -- I think it could be -- that issue could be simplified. I just wanted to know what personnel you were talking about. MR. PRITT: But it seems to me that what you're saying is -- what you seem to be saying, and I apologize if I'm not saying it the way you mean it, but it seemed like you're saying you pay us for the personnel cost, and, oh, by the way, we want ad valorem -- the amount of the ad valorem taxes also. That is a windfall to the fire control district. And, so, if we can all focus. I'm not sure that I've captured it, but I really -- I really think that if we can just kind of focus on how to make it revenue neutral. I hate to use that word. But -- but for the benefit of the taxpayers so they're not paying extra for services -- unnecessarily extra for services to simply transfer it from one agency to the other that -- that that would be a good thing. MS. DONALDSON: And I think the easy solution to that would be deleting that you're going to reimburse us for that person. And-- and -- and then -- but, I mean, I understand the windfall, but, you know, we're looking at it from the statute gives us -- you have this payment for four years. And I understand the windfall. I just -- I think dealing with the trainer issue could be addressed differently to Page 31 June 7, 2007 avoid a windfall based on the trainer. My other-- MR. PRITT: We thought you might want the money up front for the trainer. That -- I mean, that -- I say "we." That's -- that's what my thinking was at the time that that's probably something you would want to have right away and that would be fair for you to want that. MS. DONALDSON: Because if under the theory that we had hired someone from the outside so we'd be paying them. MR. PRITT: Well, yeah. I don't know if it makes any difference whether you did or didn't. But -- but if you're paying for somebody to -- to help in the transition of training, then the thought was you probably would want to get that money up front as opposed to as it trickles in over the 4.6 years or four and a half year period. So that was the thought, basically. MR. SALVATORI: Could these personnel costs, though, also be if you -- if the City hires any -- I'm not using the right term probably -- "surplus firefighters." If you find that the district doesn't need it and you hired the East Naples Firefighters under the City, wouldn't that be MR. PRITT: Yes. MR. SALVATORI: -- personnel cost-- MR. PRITT: Yes. MR. SALVATORI: -- listed as well? MS. DONALDSON: (Inaudible) as well. (Multiple voices.) MR. SALVATORI: I'm just guessing. MR. PRITT: I don't know if there -- MR. SAL VA TORI: I don't know if there will be after that. MR. PRITT: -- it will be necessary for a single one or not, but -- MR. SALVATORI: I would just guess that would be part of that same thing. DR. LEE: If we could define that better, I think it does need Page 32 June 7, 2007 further -- and if you -- if you have kind of a general concept, Laura, perhaps you could come back with it. MS. DONALDSON: I wish I did. I'll have to think about this because this -- this is very different. And then my next question, any -- what does any other expenses incurred by the City under this paragraph or otherwise as a result of this agreement? What -- what expenses? I mean -- I mean, it seems, you know, I mean, I see what you're getting -- you -- you're trying to take away a service that we provide. So then you're saying, Well, we want -- since we're not providing the service, we're not going -- we want to offset what we're paying you by the cost of that service. And what ifthere's a dispute about how much we think that is? I mean, basically we have no control over -- MR. PRITT: That's where G -- MS. DONALDSON: -- that we're -- okay, where G comes in. And then the -- I want to jump back. So you're going to pay us equal installments within 30 -- payable in equal installments of 30 at the end of each fiscal year -- quarter. Technically, each year is a different amount because it's based on what we would have received. I hate -- I'm sorry to be jumping backwards. DR. LEE: Which one? Which item are you on? MS. DONALDSON: At the bottom of3 and F it says, Over a four year and six month period, payable in equal installments within 30 days with this formula. MR. PRITT: After the end of each fiscal quarter. MS. DONALDSON: So basically it's equal installments for each fiscal quarter. MR. PRITT: If you want to change that, we're open to that. DR. LEE: Yeah. MR. PRITT: I know that the amount of money doesn't come in at a steady basis. It probably would favor us to have it not be that way, but we try -- we figured that we need to have something in there Page 33 June 7, 2007 that says how you're going to be paid. And that's not unreasonable for us to come up with some kind of an agreement as to how it might be paid. MS. DONALDSON: I mean, recognizing a majority of the payments come in November, December and January then it trickles February, March and April. But -- but that -- I was just wondering about when I read equal. MR. PRITT: What accounting are you referring to? MS. DONALDSON: That's actually talking to the fire districts here when they get paid. Most people like to pay in November because of the discounts especially related to a commerce park. Generally businesses pay -- MR. SALVATORI: November 30th or March 31st and nothing in between. MR. PRITT: But the money doesn't come over until quite a bit later, I don't think. Maybe -- maybe your commissioner knows or is there anybody here from the district that knows when they -- MS. DAVIS: I'm not sure when the money comes in. MS. DONALDSON: I think it comes in really quickly since this was an issue that we looked on for -- but that that's -- that's something that's -- that's not a big deal. DR. LEE: Your concern about equal -- your concern about equal is it does change from year to year -- MS. DONALDSON: Correct. DR. LEE: -- is what you're saying. MS. DONALDSON: It is based on what the district would have received if the property had remained within their boundaries. And so each year our ad valorem -- obviously, you know, with property taxes, things are going to change, but -- DR. LEE: Right. MS. DONALDSON: -- districts will be less hit ifhit at all. DR. LEE: May I suggest that -- that's language that you could -- Page 34 June 7, 2007 MS. DONALDSON: Yeah. DR. LEE: -- work on. MS. DONALDSON: I think that's an easy -- MR. PRITT: Okay. And we might want to work on it, too, because -- DR. LEE: Yeah. MR. PRITT: Yeah. DR. LEE: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: And I guess those are all my questions. And I'll -- you know, I'll have a response back depending on when the meeting is, a week -- a week or two before the next meeting. I can say conceptually we -- we're not going to agree to this. I mean, the Fire Chief kind of said we're not going to agree to giving up our permitting and inspection unless we receive some benefit. In looking at this, we are definitely better off under the statute than we are under this proposal. So I think what might be is let us have an opportunity to come up with a counteroffer and get it back to you so you can review it and I have a chance to talk to my Fire Chief. And I do understand, Mr. Pritt, that you and I disagree on some of the provisions and ambiguities and whether or not they are or aren't. But I just think that you've given us something to look at. We'll finally be able to discuss it and try to come up with something that might be more acceptable to us than what's in front of us. MR. MUDD: Bob, just -- just interject just to make sure because you weren't here last time. DR. LEE: Right. MR. MUDD: As the meeting was ended and we were into the fire services piece and -- and Chief Schank was there, sitting there, basically talked about the East Naples Fire District service provider per 171.095 until 1 October 2008. And they -- and he basically did state the full -- full service plans and first responder. Okay. DR. LEE: Right. Page 35 June 7, 2007 MR. MUDD: So I just -- I just want to make sure that what she just said right now, last meeting was pretty much said when Chief Schank was sitting there. That's all I'll say about this. I'm sorry. DR. LEE: I appreciate that. I think there is -- we have a difference on that. But from a time -- from the standpoint of the next meeting and having something productive, as you point out, if you could get something a week ahead of time, would that be sufficient for you two to incorporate into an agreement or -- MR. PETTIT: Bob, yeah, Mr. Lee, I -- I just don't want to have another meeting unless there's a unified document. If there's language that's in dispute or alternative clauses, we've got the technology to have one of them in red and one of them in blue and one of them in green. And say this is the fire district. This is the County. But let's not come here with this again. DR. LEE: Right. MR. PETTIT: We got this at 3:30. And it's got lots of substantive stuff written out. DR. LEE: Right. MR. PETTIT: I plead guilty. You got this at 11 :30, but you actually -- actually had 80 percent of this three weeks ago. Okay. So it's -- it's really incumbent on the lawyers, okay, to develop one document. And ifthere's -- if we recognize there's client disagreement that the clients need to negotiate here and around this table, let's bring the document and let's figure out a way technologically to identify alternative clauses and disagreements. MR. PRITT: I'm sure that we can have a coherent discussion. DR. LEE: I agree 100 percent. So there's one document and it's -- you can color code the differences what's in dispute, that would be great. I think that -- that would enable us all to be working on the same document, working on the same notes and seeing what everyone's -- the differences are, as you say, on the one -- one document. I agree. Page 36 June 7, 2007 MR. PETTIT: I think the differences between the City and the County are less than between the City and the fire district, I think. I will undertake -- I'm going to leave paragraph 2 blank. I'm going to create a document and send it to Bob and Laura and everything else. I will try to capture all the agreements that we had today. And then there's going to be some places where I think we're going to have some alternative language. The two that come to mind are in paragraph 8 and paragraph 9 as added by you, Bob, to the agreement, that second sentence. And if we can -- if we can create, then get some comments back, I can keep the master. And I can do the color coding. And then I think it's up to you and Laura to figure out what you want to do in paragraph -- MR. PRITT: Somebody remind me whether or not these have to be one agreement or is there any reason why they can't be two agreements? Because what we're dealing with is two entities. You're really dealing with one, each of you. Is there anything to keep us from having two interlocal service boundary agreements? MR. PETTIT: I don't know the answer to that. MR. PRITT: That way you can stop worrying about what color documents are coming to you. MR. PETTIT: I'm not worried about that. What I'm worried about is coming in here and trying to read two -- two documents at one time. And some are underlined and some aren't. I mean, we really -- we can -- we can cut -- cut those issues down immensely if we have a document. I think you and I, for example, are going to agree on all this language except in a couple places, perhaps. And then we'll come back and then -- then with the County Manager and the City Manager and everybody else here we can debate that and see if we can resolve it right there and it'll be a lot easier. MR. PRITT: Well, if you're going to do that, I want my Page 37 June 7, 2007 paragraph 2 in there. I don't want to -- I don't want to have my drafts disrespected either. So put paragraph 2 in there. We'll circulate it around to all the attorneys and I'll make the changes. MR. PETTIT: I don't care. I don't care. I can do it either way. DR. LEE: Let me suggest this. Let me suggest this. I think I like the approach you're taking where there -- there has been a couple things that there's -- that there's been agreement upon today. MR. PETTIT: Right. DR. LEE: And if you could incorporate that. And then I think the -- if Laura submits her -- she said she would do it a week or two ahead of time. If you can get that. MR. PRITT: And, Bob, I want one document between the three attorneys. Ifwe can agree on that, let's have one document and circulate it around. DR. LEE: Bob, this is not working the way we're doing it. What I'm suggesting is if we get this from them, that will give us an opportunity to take that language and there may be something we can agree upon that she has. So that we get to you what she has submitted and what we have submitted. I think what you're suggesting is we have a document. We'll color code what is different. MR. PETTIT: Or call it, you know, two would be City's language and there would be another two fire district's language or something so we can distinguish. And we can do the same with ours. And, in fact, on the transportation issues, after our transportation folks speak again, maybe you and I ought to be there to try to capture what it is if they can come to some kind of agreement. I don't know. And then bring them back. MR. PRITT: Well, if we have a document master that thinks that he or she is able to get all the color coding down and all the documents and have it come out the same color on everybody else's machine, I'd like to talk to them. Because we have an IT department. And we send something -- as a matter of fact, you see in here we have Page 38 June 7, 2007 things that are faded colors. That came from you, I think. And came from me. I know what color they were when they left your computer, but mine were a certain color. MR. PETTIT: Well, color coding is one way to do it. Another way to do it is to just simply show that there are alternative clauses. MR. PRITT: All right. Or highlight it. MS. DONALDSON: I think highlighting comes out on everyone's computer as the exact same color. MR. PETTIT: So we can -- we can try to minimize what's left to debate and then come back. DR. LEE: I think we can do that. I'm sure we can figure out a way to show City, County, fire district. And then City, County, then City fire district and work off the same document with the current date. And if we could get that all maybe before the meeting. You know, like you said not at 3:30 or 11 :30 of the meeting or 3:30 even a day before. Would that work. MR. WEIGEL: You know, part of the discussion was, though, if it's a week before, it's good because it allows the attorneys to interact with their client ahead of time, as opposed to the day before, you may not have enough time. DR. LEE: Uh-huh. MR. WEIGEL: So obviously time -- earlier time is better time. DR. LEE: Let's plan on trying to get a draft a week ahead of time. MR. PRITT: Sure. DR. LEE: Would that work? MR. PETTIT: Yeah. What I'm going to do and maybe. I don't know if you can e-mail this in Word. MR. PRITT: Yes. MR. PETTIT: Do you have your draft in Word? MR. PRITT: Yes. Page 39 June 7, 2007 MR. PETTIT: If you want to e-mail it to me, I'll get -- for example, in paragraph 2, obviously we don't have any dog in that fight, per se. We'll put paragraph 2 in there as you have it. And then I'll be waiting for your paragraph. MS. DONALDSON: Right. And I'll just come up with alternative paragraph 2 and that will be the counteroffer rather than a letter. I'll use this language. DR. LEE: Yeah. I'd rather do it that way. MR. PRITT: I'd like to get back to -- we spent a lot oftime talking about how to type. I'd like to get back to a substantive issue. Why is it, Laura, that you say that you don't think that the -- that -- that you think that this is going to be rejected out of hand. I don't understand what the concept is or what's so bad about the concept. I really think we ought to talk substantively so that we're not sending drafts around that are really going to be a waste of time. What -- what's wrong with the concept of having no extra taxes, no -- that having the agencies respond in good faith to the choice of a property owner who wishes to annex to a municipality as opposed to being in the County? I can understand the County maybe being a little upset, but I don't understand with the district. What's wrong with all this -- with all of this. MS. DONALDSON: I -- I think, and it's just like with the property tax discussion, I mean, when you pick up terms save -- you know, saving taxes and transition. I mean, in concept we don't have an issue with that. I think all along we have stated, even going back to the January 12th meeting I believe, that the statute allows a process. And I agree that we can change that process. We can negotiate other things. But my client has all along stated that they're not going to give up what's in the statute unless there's something in return. And I know Dr. Lee and I had this discussion back in January. He said, Well, Page 40 June 7, 2007 yeah, we can't do more than four years because there's a difference between ad valorem. And my comment back was there were other issues out there that could be offered that might make a more willingness to give up permitting and inspections which is something that we do for all of our residents in our district. And that was my comment is there are things. And -- and we've all along been consistent that from the very beginning we're going to be the -- either we're the service provider under 179.093 or we come up with some other agreement. Recognizing the City's position on the different milage rates and not be able to go, you know, somebody has to be the service provider for five, six, seven years. And so that's kind of where we are conceptually. And I know before Chief Schank left and my only conversation with Chief Schank before he left was not to give up permitting inspection unless we received some benefit in return. And based on this -- MR. PRITT: Weare giving -- we are -- we are offering something. MS. DONALDSON: What? MR. PRITT: Well, you got a half year extra. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. Sorry. A half a year extra. So we actually -- that's technically not true. MR. PRITT: (Inaudible). MS. DONALDSON: That's technically not true because we collect revenues for this upcoming fiscal year. Our boundaries change October 1, 2008. And then it's four years. If I add that up, we're -- technically that's, what, five years, five years and two months, five years and four months. So not four years and six months. I mean, if you go under -- and it's a clear reading of the statute under the schedule of the statute. So I don't -- it never even dawned on me that four years and six months was a benefit because -- Page 41 June 7, 2007 DR. LEE: Yeah. This is intended to be an extra six months of what was intended. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. DR. LEE: Whatever that-- MS. DONALDSON: So it is. Well, that's good to know. So technically it would be -- DR. LEE: I think what we were looking to do is try to respond to just what you said. Because I think your position has been -- has been clear in the past, I think, about wanting to provide all services during that period of time. And our position was that first responder fire services, but we wanted to take over the inspections and plan reviews, et cetera. So I think that -- that was my understanding as to kind of where we are in dispute. I don't want to use dispute, but had -- had different points of VIew on. And so, you know, ifthere's something we can do to satisfy what -- what you're asking for, we'd be receptive to a proposal to look at. Otherwise, as you say, we're going to just follow what the statute provides. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. So depending on when we have the meeting scheduled, I'll give a response. I'll get language out to both of you, both the City and the County on this. DR. LEE: This is kind of a difficult season for most people in terms of schedules, but I still would like to do this within 30 days, if we could. I think, you know, you know what the key issues are. I think it won't take much to read it. Just go back and address that. It's just getting -- getting something over to the County and we will as well. MS. DONALDSON: And I agree with that. I know at the last meeting I said that we were more than fine to meet before 30 days. Actually, it would be preferable to meet more than -- you know, quicker than 30 days. Page 42 June 7, 2007 DR. LEE: Okay. MR. MUDD: Can we meet the first week of July? MS. DONALDSON: I'm fine with that. DR. LEE: I'm fine with that. MR. MUDD: Does that mess up anybody's Fourth of July weekend? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Because if you do 30 days from today, I won't be here. DR. LEE: Good. No, not good that you won't be here. Good that we'll meet in 30 days. We need you here, Jim. MR. MUDD: Okay. Thank you. MS. DONALDSON: We can always set it on your birthday. DR. LEE: But, seriously, I think that -- so which means we're looking at about three weeks and maybe -- if you get something within a week and we get something in a week, Bob, let's say the end of next week, would that be -- I guess Bob and somebody else. MR. PETTIT: You're going to -- you're going to e-mail me your draft in Word. I'm going to create a document with these two drafts where I think we've got agreement between the City and County. I'm also going to add Bob's paragraph 2. And I'm going to have two and I'm going to put brackets and say "fire district." And if -- if Bob and Laura and I can agree that that's where we have an agreement on, then I guess we're going to have to also try to capture whether there may still be some disagreement. I'll do my best to do that within a week because I think I feel like we need to move. MR. MUDD: When you -- just so you know -- well, I need to know what your time period, when your last council meeting is? DR. LEE: Next week. MR. MUDD: Next week. So -- and I have another one after that meeting on the 24th of July. So I was hoping that if we had it that first week of July and if we came here and -- and -- and we couldn't find Page 43 June 7, 2007 something where we needed a day or so in order to get it resolved, then I could get something drafted and at least get it to my board. Now, your first meeting after -- DR. LEE: August 15th. MR. MUDD: Okay. And, see, we don't come back until September. So at least we could keep it moving. DR. LEE: Right. MR. MUDD: Because if we start missing those kinds of dates, then we're into September. DR. LEE: Yeah. MR. PETTIT: The other thought I would have is if we can, we probably ought to try to schedule it a little earlier in the day so if we need a few hours, we can get it done. MR. MUDD: I'll get with Mike and we'll try to get something locked in. Now, do you prefer to have it the first part of the week of the fourth? The fourth is on Wednesday. So do you want it before the fourth or do you want it after the fourth of that week? Give me an idea. DR. LEE: It doesn't matter to me. MS. DONALDSON: We have no preference. I don't know. DR. LEE: It's your call. MR. MUDD: Okay. That's good for everybody. I just want to-- I don't want to mess somebody up. You know, somebody traditionally spends the third of July doing something. And I mess it up with a meeting that takes all day long, you can blame yourself. Hold your peace. And I know, Eric, you want to be here all day. MR. PETTIT: It was the second. We could do the second. MS. DONALDSON: But my one comment is just with the fun of special session starting -- if we schedule it the first week of July, then you'll get the offer probably June 25th. I mean, potentially, it just Page 44 June 7, 2007 depends on what happens in Tallahassee. I mean, if it's eight hours a day dealing with property tax for two weeks, it's going to be difficult to come up with something, because that's what everyone's focus is going to be. But that still gives you the language a week before any meeting is scheduled. I just didn't want to -- MR. MUDD: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: -- think that you're going to get something from me. MR. PRITT: Well, are we going to spend the next meeting bashing me, then? Am I supposed to give you something back before July 2nd or 3rd or 4th or -- MR. MUDD: What I'm going to try to do based on what I'm hearing right now, we're looking for the fifth and sixth. Okay? I'm just letting you know right now. It is not going to be that Monday or Tuesday based on what I just heard. All I'm going to tell you is look it, I almost -- I almost feel like -- this is my last shot. I almost feel like the last meeting we were farther ahead than we are today. Okay. That's just my opinion. And you weren't here. And I'm not trying to bash anybody. But I -- but I will tell you, if we come to this next meeting and we are where we are today, okay, I got to tell you what, I'm not going to be a happy camper. Okay? I'm not -- you're not -- you're not here to please me and I understand that. But I'm -- I'm always easier to deal with when I'm halfway smiling. Okay. I'm just -- I got -- I got to tell you. DR. LEE: Well, Jim-- MR. MUDD: Bob, you and I, I don't want to be here doing this crap in November. Okay? And -- and -- DR. LEE: Jim, we could have settled this six months ago. I mean, the City's not the one -- this is -- there's some legislation that caused us to be here. You know, if the City -- you know-- MR. MUDD: Bob-- Page 45 June 7, 2007 DR. LEE: -- bowing to the request to be here. MR. MUDD: -- Bob -- this is -- this is -- this has everything to do with -- with, hey, different drafts, different times, all at one time, got time, 30 days before the meetings. And we are where we are. Okay. I'm just -- I will tell you I felt very positive the last meeting we had as we were leaving that meeting that we would be a whole lot closer than we are right now and that's just my frustration. And I -- and I shared it with you, just so you know. Okay. Because I don't want you to be sitting there next time being as frustrated as I am right now. DR. LEE: Well, and I'm never frustrated anyway because I understand the process. But, again, we're here because you-all. If you want to follow what our urban service report is, we could have had this done six months ago. But having said that, I think we're on the right track of at least having one report that -- that we could work off of. I think that will ease the frustration, Jim. And I -- and I think from my standpoint, I think we're very close with the County. MR. PETTIT: I think we are. DR. LEE: And -- and I think with the fire district if it's laid out like that, if we do agree that we can take some caucus if it's something that can be dealt with rather quickly, then we may be able to make a lot of headway next -- next meeting. And maybe just -- just a final-- some final fire issues that may involve more and sit down. Hopefully not. Any other information for the group? You'll -- you'll have Mike work out the schedule? MR. MUDD: Oh, absolutely. DR. LEE: Okay. Well, thank you all for attending. And we'll see you on either the fifth or the sixth, then. Page 46 June 7, 2007 (Proceedings concluded at 5:03 p.m.) TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD Page 47