BCC Minutes 02/14/2006 Closed Session (#12A-North Naples Fire) MINUTES
North Naples Fire
February 14 , 2006
To: John P. Cardillo From: BoaohRobertr
03/14f08 12:22 PM Page 2 of 5
40
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA
CIVIL ACTION
COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,.a
political subdivision of the State of
Florida, r'
Petitioner, CASE No.: 02-1702-CA o G
PARCEL: 126
vs. 1'
NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL p 0
&RESCUE DISTRICT,et al.,
Respondents.
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court upon Joint Motion made by Petitioner,by
and through its undersigned counsel,and Respondent,NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL&
RESCUE DISTRICT,by and through its undersigned counsel,for entry of a Stipulated Final
Judgment as to Parcel No. 126,and it appearing to the Court that the parties are authorized to
make such Motion,the Court finding that the compensation to be paid by Petitioner is the full
compensation due the Respondent, NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL&RESCUE
DISTRICT, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises thereof;it is thereupon
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent,NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL
&RESCUE DISTRICT,have and recover from Petitioner, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
the sum of Two Hundred Eighty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Twenty-One and No/100
Dollars($283,521.00)for Parcel No. 126 as full payment for the property interests taken and
for damages resulting to the remainder,if less than the entire property was taken,business
damages, and for all other damages in connection with said parcel;it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner is entitled to a credit in the amount of the good faith deposit
of$162,350,which has been withdrawn;it is further
7To: John P. Cardillo From: BoschRobert
03/14/08 12:22 PM Page 3 of 5
ORDERED that Respondent NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL&RESCUE
DISTRICT, shall receive as engineering expert witness fees the sum of Fifteen Thousand and
No/100 Dollars($15,000.00X it is further
ORDERED that Respondent,NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL&RESCUE
DISTRICT, shall receive as architectural consultant expert witness fees the sum of Four
Thousand One Hundred and No/100 Dollars($4,100.00);It is der
ORDERED that Respondent,NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL&RESCUE
DISTRICT,receive from Petitioner as a reasonable attorney's fee the sum of Seventy
Thousand Seven Hundred and Nine and 43/100 Dollars($70,709.43). Except as provided
herein,no further attorney's fees or other costs shall be awarded in connection with the above-
. styled cause of action as it relates to Parcel No. 126;it is further
ORDERED that within thirty(30)days of the date of this Stipulated Final Judgment,
Petitioner shall pay an additional Two Hundred Ten Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty and
43/100 Dollars($210,980.43),made payable to Cardillo,Keith&Bonaquist Trust Account, do
John P.Cardillo,Esquire,3550 E.Tamiami Trail,Naples,FL 34112, for disbursement of
compensation and costs in accordance with this final judgment; it is further
ORDERED that the Court retains jurisdiction to award reasonable expert witness fees,
including Erickson Appraisers,Inc.,and Oen-Can,Inc.,and attorney's litigation it is
further
ORDERED that title to Parcel No. 126,a fee simple interest,being fully described in
Exhibit"A"attached hereto and incorporated herein,which vested in Petitioner pursuant to the
Order of Taking dated September 12,2002,and the deposit of money heretofore made,is
approved,ratified, and confirmed;it is nether
•
To: John P. Cardillo From BoaohRobert
03,14/06 12:23 PM Page 4 of 5
• •
ORDERED that the Notice of Lis Pendens filed in the above-styled cause and recorded
in Official Record Book 3028,Page 1242 of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida be
dismissed as to Parcel No. 126;it is further
ORDERED that the terms of the Mediated Settlement Agreement attached hereto as
Exhibit"B"are incorporated herein;and it is further
ORDERED that this Stipulated Final Judgment is to be recorded in the Official Records
of Collier County,Florida;it is therefore
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Naples,ColligooM �g
day of ,2006. document was signed
MAR 2 8 2006
TED BROU Bror Y
CIRCUIT CO
conformed copies to:
Ellen T.Chadwell,Esquire
John P.Cardillo,Esquire
Brian R.Brattebo,Esquire
Robert D.Pritt,Esquire
Thomas C.Palmer, Esquire—
E.Glenn Tucker,Esquire
Kevin Hendricks,Acquisition MgrJTransp.
Bookkeeping
To: John P. Cardillo From: BoechRobert
03714/06 12:23 PM Page 5 of 5
• •
JOINT MOTION FOR STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
The Parties hereby stipulate and respectfully request this Court to enter the foregoing
Stipulated Final Judgment as to Parcel 126.
Dated: .d 4_.d a , 0 Dated: 3— t- 4 b
i
JOH : 0,ESQ s' LLEN T. WELL,
ESQ q •
Flori' Bar No.146078 Florida Bar No.0966770
` 0,Keith&Bonaquist Assistant County Attorney
0 East Tamiami Trail 3301 East Tamiami Trail,81"Floor
Naples,FL 34112-4999 Naples,Florida 34112
(239)774-2229-Phone (239)774-8400-Phone
(239)774-2494-Facsimile (239)774-0225-Facsimile
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT,NORTH ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
NAPLES FIRE CONTROL&RESCUE DISTRICT
AND:
CRAIG B.WILLIS,ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. =5765-6
Fixel,Maguire&Willis
211 S.Gadsden Street
Tallahassee,FL 32301
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
'� • •
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and comet copy of the foregoing Joint Motion and
Stipulated Final Judgment has been furnished via U.S.mail to the parties listed below on this
28T(4 day of March,2006.
J!z& „
ELLEN T.CHADWELL,ESQUIRE
Florida Power&Light
do Brian R.Brattebo,Esquire
9250 W.Flagler Street
Mami,FL 33174
City of Naples
do Robert D.Pritt,Esq.
Roetzel&Andress
850 Park Shore Drive
Suite 300
Naples,FL 34103
Collier County Water-Sewer District
do Thomas C.Palmer,Esq.
Office of the County Attorney
Harmon Turner Building
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples,FL 34112
Collier County Tax Collector
do E.Glenn Tucker,Esq.
RHODES&TUCKER
P.O.Box 887
Marco Island,FL 34146
PROJECT Na : Pag• I i'""... .."1"7-n.me-n-- -4--.1 PROJECT PAR s Na 1ffi
TAX PARCEL NO. 10°�'4Q1..0,6oe •
•
•
luixasian
ae Ot arzna �r-' Wi OA MINIOSIIII
maws
oar 41 ov<+os�•Ni es�eso�
WIN
1
PINE R1DOE ROAD " ,.
ROM ibu as alp Ne07 'rra`le —ow— ...
"MO' "`''
r+�t— . .
•
pancoPaEONNIMS
•
GRAPHIC SCALE
i mw► - 200 it
. NOTE.Tr
cb 1. SIM!s lair A aua+,ex
2. 11:11D�a 40 NOUN 11 DAHla ON
a
1l!S01IA1 LEO:OT SOi1f0N 10 aIAOH
w0I A aeAx�lo a N.eI '
i ATat
AND RIONR101101111 OF MORD.
b NOT VAUD 1A11WUT SHEET II CP iG
1
•
• 0Q'IIBTT
-.- . [1A4.
PEE SIMPLE INTEREST LBC.OMDs
O.R. INDICATES OFFICIAL RECORDS
P.K. INDICATES PAX/ R—SALON
P.C.P. INDICATES PERMANENT CONTROL POINT
A .
SKETCH AND DESCRIPTION
>,d(r.fyrrins SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, WAGE 25 EAST
tp myay COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA
NM*D'ue'ts triCs JOHNSON.ENGINEERING INC.
Oath south y ::::: namma.Swum ma a00lOSlsli mahout Ind Do ceIgInal rebid %
Not Mot M a Nadia IJ Map/muvgW aid 1loppr. l-Of E31] 10.42-211.
0+1 11 f-70C 1 OF 3
''ti
r
PROJECT P0. t 60134 P�
PROJECT PARCEL N0. s 126
TAX PAROEL NO. f e•o=.41110 o•6 p�Y r,�p�
DESCRIPTION: PARCEL•126
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE
• 25 EAST, COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 40 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COWER COUNTY,
FLORIDA AND RUN NORTH 9832'12' EAST ALONG THE SOUTH L NE OF SAID
SECTION 10, A DISTANCE OF 778.80 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 0027'48"
WEST, A DISTANCE OF 57.80 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING ON THE
NORTHERLY RIGHT—OF—WAY LINE OF' PINE RIDGE ROAD (COUNTY ROAD N0.
898); FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING RUN NORTH 00'48'24" WEST ALONG
THE WEST LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL
RECORDS BOOK 1823, PAGE 818 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 29.07 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH
73'07'24 EAST, A DISTANCE OF 24.62 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 88'55'50'
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 51.54 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 8736'29' EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 93.07 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 87'01'33" EAST, A DISTANCE
•
OF 22.14 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST UNE OF THE PARCEL
OF LAND AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1823, PAGE 818;
THENCE RUN SOUTH 00'48'24" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE
OF 17.47 FEET TO THE SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT—OF—WAY UNE OF PINE
RIDGE ROAD; THENCE RUN NORTH 89'33110" WEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY
RIGHT—OF—WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 190.04 FEET TO THE SAID POINT OF
BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 0.081 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS.
•
•
•
' f
MS SIMPLE INTEREST
SKETCH AND DESCRIPTION
SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
JOHNSON ENGINEERING INC,Mat
_ s 6.01 35313 10-111-01 0 n 9
•
t •
• •
• • IN THE CIRCUIT COUR'?QF THE TwEND F+,TB JUDICIAL=cm
•
•
IN AND FOR COLL=COUNTY,FLORIDA .
•
CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
Page
• EXHIBIT B
•
COLLINR COUNTY,FLORIDA,a �! of 3 .
political shbdiivlsion ate State of Florida,
Petitioner, Case No.: 02-1702-CA
v
•
Parcel No.: 126
•
NORTSNAPLES FIRE CONTROL
8t RESCUE DISTRICT,et al.
Respondents.
1
MEDx&TR •SRTILEME T AGRIKEIVIENT
At the Mediation Conference held on Mardi 2, 2006, the parties reached the
following Settlement Agreement
1. Petitioner will pay to Respondent,North Naples Fun Control and Rescue
District, the sum of$283,521.00 in full settlement of all claim;for compensation from
Petitioner whatsoever,including statutory interest,but excluding attorney's and experts'
fees and costs. Said sum will be subject to claims for apportionment,if any.
2. Petitioner is entitled to a credit in the amount of$162,350.00 which was
previously deposited in the Registry of the Court in this case by Petitioner,and has been
• withdrawn.
3. Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent will jointly submit to the Court for
algninture a mutually approved Stipulated Final Judgment in this matter as soon as
• practical hereafter.
•
•
.
V • , t
• * •
4. Petitioner will pay Respondent the balance due of$121,171.00 within
• thirty days of the actual date of receipt by Petitioner's counsel of a unformed copy of the
aforesaid Stipulated Final Judgment from the Court.
5. Collier County will pay$70,709.43 in full payment of any and all attorney's
fees,including monetary and non-monetary benefits and supplemental attorney's fees,if
any.
, 6. Collier County wi l pay the following experts'costs: David May-$15,000,
for engineering work on this parcel; David Acomb - $4,100, for his architectural
consulting work on this parcel.
7. The Court will retain jurisdiction to determine apportionment issues,if
any, and to determine Erickson Appraisers,Inc.'s fees and attorney litigation costs.
8. This Settlement Agreement is subject to review and approval by the Board
of County Commissioners of Collier County and the North Naples Fire Control and
Rescue District.
9. Collier County and Fire District representatives will meet to discuss the
tearis and conditions of a proposed joint use of the property located at the Southeast
corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Logan Boulevard,and any other potential joint use
locations.
10.The Petitioner,Collier County,agrees as part of the mediated settlement
agreement to amend the lease agreement,dated May 10, 1994,for Fire Station No.44,
known as the Pelican Bay Station, to delete the provision in Article 2 of the lease,
providing for the lease to be terminated upon ninety(90)days written notice.
EXHIBIT__
. Page..=...of j._.
r b %
• 0
11.The Respondent,North Naples lire Control&Rescue District,agrees as
part of the mediated settlement agreement to amend all other existing lease agreements
between the Respondent and the Petitioner for the use of Respondent's facilities for
. CQunty EMS pmposes, to delete the provision in each of said leases that allows the
Respondent to temnate the lease upon ninety(90)days written notice.
1Z This Agreement, dated March 2, 2006, contains all of the agreements of
the parties.
. Oil
. ...,,,;_., -.- .., �°�d Respon•:.nt,NOrtl] troet j /J�
)III"
,,_ Rescue A ';c ��/ / L..
` �r/�_ ,r
'Tr.,- , Petitioner Attorn dent '
ey ,,;
• /
Mediator EXHIBIT "13 ``
Pag �,
•
11 r
COLLIER COUNTY
DAVID C.WEIGEL
COLLIER COUNTY ATI'CiRNEY
3301 East Tmdsnd Trail Heidi F.Ashton
Naples,FL 34112-4902 Jennies A.Belpedie
Telephone:(239)774-8400 Ellen T.Chadwelu
Fvshnile:(239)774.0225 Colleen Oteeoe
Jsffiey A.Rlatdcow
Witham 13.Mountford
Thomas C.Palmer
Michael W.Pettit
September 26,2006 Jacqueline w Hubbard
Marjorie M.Student
Scott Teach
Honorable Cynthia A.Ellis JefB.wrist
Collier County Circuit Court
Hobert N.Zachary
Collier County Courthouse
VIA HAND DELIVERY
RE: Collier County v.North Naples Fire Control&Rescue District et al.;
Case No.: 02-1702-CA;Parcel No.: 126
Dear Judge Ellis:
Enclosed please find an original executed Joint Motion and Agreed Order Awarding
Expert Fees and Costs in the above-captioned matter for your review and signature.
If acceptable to you,please execute and have your judicial assistant or the Cleric's Office
return the conformed copies in the envelopes provided.
Should you have any questions or concerns,please contact the undersigned. Thank you
for your time and attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
(Sb&f.04,-6„,„■•
Ellen T.Chadwell
Assistant County Attorney
ETCIwr
Enclosures
cc: David C.Weigel,County Attorney
Thomas C.Palmer,Assistant County Attorney
John P.Cardillo,Esquire
Brian R.Brattebo,Esquire
Robert D.Pritt,Esquire
E.Glenn Tucker,Esquire
,
S
4 0 IP
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION
COLLIER COUNTY,a political subdivision
of the State of Florida,
Petitioner,
v. Case No.02-1702-CA
NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL& Parcel: 126
RESCUE DISTRICT,et al.,
Respondents.
/
AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES AND COSTS
THIS CAUSE,having come before the Court upon joint motion of the parties,Petitioner,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, by and through its undersigned counsel, and Respondent,
NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT, by and through its undersigned
counsel, for entry of an Agreed Order Awarding Expert Fees and Costs, and the Court, being
fully advised in the premises,it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent,NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL&
RESCUE DISTRICT, receive from Petitioner, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, the total sum
of Twenty-Three Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-Five and No/100 Dollars($23,435.00)for
all expert fees and defense costs recoverable by Respondent, NORTH NAPLES FIRE
CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT in this cause, comprising $16,000.00 for appraisal expert
fees and costs,$3,650.00 for contractor expert fees, and$3,785.00 for attorney's litigation costs
with respect to Parcel 126.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA, shall,
within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, pay the sum of Twenty-Three Thousand
Four Hundred Thirty-Five and No/100 Dollars ($23,435.00) to CARDIL.LO, KEITH &
• .
BONAQUIST TRUST ACCOUNT, do John P. Cardillo, Esq., CARDILLO, KEITH &
BONAQUIST,3550 E.Tamiami Trail,Naples,FL 34112,for proper disbuusement.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that no other costs, including supplemental attorney's
fees, are awarded in this cause and this order is final as to all issues arising out of the taking of
Parcel 126.
DONE AND ORDERED in Naples,Collier County,Florida,this day of
,2006.
Circuit Court Judge
Conformed copies to:
Ellen T.Chadwell,Esquire
John P.Cardillo,Esquire
Brian R.Brattebo,Esquire
Robert D.Pritt,Esquire
Thomas C.Palmer,Esquire
E.Glenn Tucker,Esquire
Kevin Hendricks,Acquisition Mgr/Fransp.
Bookkeeping
JOINT MOTION
The Parties, by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby move for entry of the
foregoing Agreed Order Awarding Expert Fees and Costs.
Dated: tit 200‹ Dated: ?—411-6 "D G
c6eL.
John P.Cardillo,Esq. en T.Chadwell
Florida Bar No.: 146078 Assistant County Attorney
3550 E.Tamiami Trail Florida Bar No.:983860
Naples,FL 34112 3301 East Tamiami Trail,8th Floor
(239)774-2229-Phone Naples,Florida 34112
(239)774-2494- Facsimile (239)774-8400—Phone
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT:NORTH (239)774-0225--Facsimile
NAPLES FIRE CONTROL&RESCUE ATTORNEY FOR Pi:ii iiONER
DISTRICT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Joint Motion and Agreed
O r d e r A , E Fees Costs has been furnished via U.S.mail to the parties listed
below on .►. of 2006.
/-tetet..diV2.14.4AcCte _s_
ELLEN T.CHADWELL
North Naples Fire Control&Rescue
District
do Jolm P.Cardillo,Esq.
Cardillo,Keith&Bonaquist
3550 B.Tamiami Trail East
Naples,FL 34112
Florida Power&Light
do Brian it Brattebo,Esquire
9250 W.Flagler Street
Miami,FL 33174
City of Naples
c/o Robert D.Pritt,Esq.
Roeizel&Andress
850 Park Shore Drive
Suite 300
Naples,FL 34103
Collier County Water-Sewer District
do Thomas C.Palmer,Esq.
Office of the County Attorney
Hannon Turner Building
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples,FL 34112
Collier County Tax Collector
do E.Glenn Tucker,Esq.
RHODES&TUCKER
P.O.Box 887
Marco Island,FL 34146
Printer Friendly Version Page 1 of 7
ACollier County Print Paa@ Close Window
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
Case Information
Style:COLLIER COUNTY FL POtITICA UBDIVISION STATE FL vs NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL S
RESCUt
Uniform Case Number: 112002CA0017020001XX Flied: 04/30/2002
Clerks Case Number:0201702CA
Court Type:CIRCUIT CIVIL Disposition Judge: PIVACEK,CYNTHIA A
Case Type:EMINENT DOMAIN Disposed: 03/29/2006
Judge: PIVACEK,CYNTHIA A Reopen Reason:
Case Status:DISPOSED Reopened:
Next Court Date:00/00/0000 Reopen Closes
Last Docket Date: 10/02/2012 Appealed:
Parties
Name Type DOS City,State,Zip
COLLIER COUNTY FL POLITICAL SU PLAINTIFF
NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL&RE DEFENDANT
FLORIDA POWER&LIGHT DEFENDANT
CITY OF NAPLES DEFENDANT
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DEFENDANT
NATIONAL ROOFING OF COLLIER IN DEFENDANT
COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR DEFENDANT
NAPLES EQUESTRIAN CHALLENGE CE DEFENDANT
NAPLES EQUESTRIAN CHALLENGE IN DEFENDANT
DUFF,RUFUS F DEFENDANT
DUFF,CAROLYN H DEFENDANT
DIAMOND,DAVID DEFENDANT
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE DEFENDANT
WILLIS,CRAIG B PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY TALLAHASSEE,FL 32301
CHADWELL,ELLEN TOLBERT PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY NAPLES,FL 34110
CARDILLO,JOHN POLLARA DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY NAPLES,FL 34112
HOWARD,JEAN G DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY MIAMI,FL 33102
PRITT,ROBERT DWANE DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY NAPLES,FL 34103
FORMAN,CHARLES ROY DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY OCALA,FL 34471
PALMER,THOMAS C DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY NAPLES,FL 34116
TUCKER,E GLENN DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY MARCO ISLAND,FL 34146
JONES,KAIMI LANI DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY CENTENNIAL,CO 80112
PALMER,THOMAS C DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY NAPLES,FL 34116
IACONO,PETER J DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY NAPLES,FL 34103
Dockets
Date Text
02/21/2002 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO SHOW CAUSE TO DAVID DIAMOND
05/09/02 FROM OTINO ENTERPRISES INC
04/30/2002 NOTICE OF US PENDENS
04/30/2002 CIVIL COVER SHEET
04/30/2002 PETITION IN EMINENT DOMAIN TRIAL BY JURY
http://apps.collierclerk.com/public inquiry!Case.aspx?UCN=112002CA0017020001XX&... 4/18/2013
Printer Friendly Version Page 2 of 7
04/30/2002 DECLARATION OF TAKING&ESTEMATE OF VALUE
04/30/2002 MOTION TO REGULATE SERVICE OF PLEADINGS&PAPERS
04/30/2002 AFFIDAVIT OF DILIGENT SEARCH
04/30/2002 MOTION TO APPOINT PROCESS SERVER
05/01/2002 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE WITH MOTION&PROPOSED ORDER TO
APPOINT PROCESS SERVER
05/01/2002 MOTION TO APPOINT PROCESS SERVER VICTOR P ORTINO ET AL
05/01/2002 ORDER APPOINTING SPECIAL PROCESS SERVER VICTOR P ORTINO ET AL
S/BROUSSEAU 05/01/02
05/01/2002 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE WITH MOTION AND PROPOSED ORDER
05/01/2002 MOTION TO REGULATE SERVICE OF PLEADINGS AND PAPERS
05/01/2002 ORDER REGULATING SERVICE OF PLEADINGS AND PAPERS S/BROUSSEAU 5/1/02
05/06/2002 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF INTERROGATORIES(FIRST SET)TO THE RESPONDENT
NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL BY THE PETITIONER
05/06/2002 QUESOTL FBOYR THR DPEUcnx(FIRST)TO THE RESPONDENT NORTH NAPLES FIRE
05/06/2002 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS(FIRST)TO THE RESPONDENT NORTH NAPLES FIRE
CONTROL BY THE PETITIONER
05/06/2002 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION(FIRST)TO THE RESPONDENT DAVID DIAMOND BY THE
PETITIONER
05/06/2002 PREQUESTNEFROR ADMISSIONS(FIRST)TO THE RESPONDENT DAVID DIAMOND BY THE
05/06/2002 LE2UPEST TOR IONS(FIRST)TO THE RESPONDENT NAPLES EQUESTRIAN BY
05/06/2002 REQUEST ON FOER R ADMISSIONS(FIRST)TO THE RESPONDENT THE DUFFS BY THE
PETITI
SUMMONS TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED HEARING 8/27/02® 1:30,FOR NAPLES
05/06/2002 EQUESTRIAN CHALLENGE CENTER,L.C.NATIONAL ROOFING OF COLLIER,INC.,
HANDED TO PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY
SUMMONS TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED HEARING 8/27/02 @ 1:30,FOR WELLS FARGO
05/06/2002 HOME MORTGAGE,RUFUS F.DUFF,GUY CARLTON,COLLIER COUNTY TAX
COLLECTOR,HANDED TO PLAINTIFF'S ATTOR
SUMMONS TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED HEARING 8/27/02 5)1:30,FOR FLORIDA
05/06/2002 POWER&LIGHT COMPANY,BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY HANDED TO PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY
SUMMONS TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED HEARING 8/27/02 Q 1:30,FOR CITY OF
05/06/2002 NAPLES,NORTH NAPLES FIRES CONTROL&RESCUE DISTRICT,DAVID DIAMOND
HANDED TO PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY
05/07/2002 AMENDMENT TO PETITION IN EMINENT DOMAIN BY PLTF
05/07/2002 NOTICE OF ACTION 6/17/02 HEARING ON 8/27/02® 1:30 PM
05/07/2002 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
05/15/2002 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS CITY OF NAPLES 5/9/02
05 15/2002 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS NATL ROOFING OF COLLIER COUNTY INC
5/9/02
05/21/2002 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO SHOW CAUSE TO NORTH NAPLES FIRES
CONTROL&RESCUE DISTICT 05/10/02 FROM ORTINO ENTERPIRSES
05/21/2002 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO SHOW CAUSE NAPLES EQUESTRIAN
CHALLENGE CENTER 1./C 05/09/02
05/21/2002 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO SHOW CAUSE FLORIDA POWER&LIGHT
CO 05/13/02
05/24/2002 ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE&WAIVER OF PROCESS THOMAS C PALMER ACCEPTS FOR
RESPONDANT PARCELS 126/129/130
05/30/2002 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION AU.RESPONDENTS ON ATTACHED SECHEDULE°A°
ANSWER BY 6/17/02
06/04/2002 RESPONSE AND APPLICATION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS BY COLLIER CO TAX
COLLECTOR
http//apps.collierelerk.com/public inquiry/Case.aspx?UCN=112002CA0017020001XX&... 4/18/2013
Printer Friendly Version Page 3 of 7
06/10/2002 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO CLERK
06/10/2002 ANSWER,AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES,DEMAND FOR JURY TRIA BY FLORIDA POWER&
LIGHT CO
05/11/2002 ORIGINAL SUMMONS TO SHOW CAUSE RETURNED ON BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
06/12/2002 ANSWER BY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER CO FLORIDA AS THE
EX-OFFIC GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER CO WATER-SEWER DISTRICT
06/12/2002 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE BROUSSEAU INRE:STIPULATION AND
ORDER DATED 6/12/02
06/12/2002 STIPULATION
06/14/2002 ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT BY RUFUS F DUFF AND CAROLINE H DUFF AS TO
ALL PARCELS
06/14/2002 STIPULATED ORDER TO TAKING AS TO FLORIDA POWER&LIGHT CO"S
EASEMENTS INTERESTS S/HAYES 6/14/02
06/19/2002 ANSWER&AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES BY NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL&RESCUE
DISTRICT
06/19/2002 ANSWER&AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES BY CITY OF NAPLES
06/19/2002 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF NORTH NAPLES FIRE
CONTROL&RESCUE DISTRICT
06/25/2002 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF ANSWERED INTERROGATORIES BY NORTH NAPLES FIRE
CONTROL&RESCUE DISTRICT
06/25/2002 REPLY TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION BY NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL&RESCUE
DISTRICT
07/03/2002 ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE AND WAIVER OF PROCESS BY ATTORNEY E GLENN TUCKER
07/08/2002 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO RUFUS at CAROLYN DUFF PARCEL 130
07/08/ZOOZ
NOTICE OF SERVICE OF INTERROGATORIES FIRST SET TO RUFUS&CAROLYN
DUFF PARCEL 130
07/16/2002 MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLETE ANSWERS BY THE PETITIONER AS TO PARCEL 126
07/18/2002 NOTICE OF HEARING 8/2/02 @ 3:30 PM MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLETE ANSWERS
07/19/2002 ORDER OF REFERAL TO HEARING OFFICER/MAGISTRATE S/BROUSSEAU 7/18/02
07/25/2002 MOTION(AGREED)FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED ORDER SUBSTITUTING RESPONDENT
PROPERTY OWNER
07/25/2002 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE WITH PROPOSED ORDER
07/25/2002 STIPULATED ORDER TO SUBSTITUTING RESPONDENT PROPERTY OWNER AS TO
PARCEL 129 S/BROUSSEAU 7/25/02
07/25/2002
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ELLEN T CHADWELL AS ADDITIONAL COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER AS TO ALL PARCELS
07/25/2002 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF ANSWERED INTERROGATORIES BY NORTH NAPLES FIRE
CONTROL&RESCUE DISTRICT
07/25/2002 RESPONSE BY RESPONDENT NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL TO FIRST REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION PROPOUNDED BY PETITIONER
08/02/2002 PROCEEDING MOTION HEARING ON:08/02/2002 OP 11:30
08/02/2002 PRESIDING JUDGE: GENERAL MASTER
08/02/2002 CASE HEARD ON 3:30 DOCKET
08/02/2002 PROCEEDING MOTION HEARING ON: 08/02/2002®15:30
08/02/2002 PRESIDING JUDGE:GENERAL MASTER
08/02/2002 PLT ATTY PRESENT,DEF ATTY PRESENT BY PHONE/HEARING&MOTION
08/02/2002 CONTINUED UNTIL 08-09-02 @ 10:30
08/09/2002 PROCEEDING MOTION HEARING ON:08/09/2002®►10:30
08/09/2002 PRESIDING JUDGE: GENERAL MASTER
08/09/2002 HEARING CANCELLED
08/13/2002
NOTICE OF HEARING 8/16/02 @ 9:30 EXTENSION OF TIME BEFORE THE GENERAL
MASTER AS TO PARCEL 130
http://apps.collierclerk.com/publi c_inquiry/Case.aspx?UCN=112002CA0017020001 XX&... 4/18/2013
Printer Friendly Version Page 4 of 7
08/13/2002 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PETITIONER'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES&FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION ON BEHALF OF DUFFS
08/14/2002 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE WITH PROPOSED ORDER
08/14/2002 ORDER OF REFERAL TO HEARING OFFICER/MAGISTRATE ALL DISCOVERY MOTIONS
S/HAYES 8/14/02
08/16/2002 PROCEEDING MOTION HEARING ON:08/16/2002 0 09:30
08/16/2002 PRESIDING JUDGE: GENERAL MASTER
08/16/2002 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME CANCELLED
08/16/2002 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF CHIEF JAMES TOBIN 8/22/02
0 4:00 PM AS TO PARCELS 126/129/130
08/16/2002 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF FIRE COMMISSIONER ED
MAGUIRE 8/23/02 0 11:15 AM AS TO PARCEL 126
08/16/2002 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF WILLIAM ERICKSON AND DAVID
MAY 8/23/02 0 2:00 AND 2:45 AS TO PARCEL 126
08/20/2002 ANSWER NAPLES EQUESTRIAN CHALLENGE INC
08/20/2002 NOTICE(CROSS)OF HEARING
08/20/2002 CORRESPONDENCE TO CLERK OF COURT,FROM ATTORNEY
08/21/2002 AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION CHRIS LOMBARDO
08/26/2002 DECLARATION OF TAKING&ESTIMATE OF VALUE AS TO PARCELS 126 129&130
08/26/2002 NOTICE OF HEARING 8/27/02 130PM DEF MOTION TO DISMISS
08/26/2002 MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER&AFFIRFMATIVE DEFENSES/NORTH NAPLES FIRE
CONTROL&RESCUE
08/26/2002 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON ORDER OF TAKING BY THE DEFENDANT
NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AS TO PARCEL 126
08/26/2002 MOTION TO DISMISS BY NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL&RESCUE DISTRICT
08/27/2002 PROCEEDING MOTION HEARING ON:08/27/2002 0 13:31
08/27/2002 PRESIDING JUDGE: HAYES,HUGH D
08/27/2002 DEFS MOTION TO DISMISS-HRG TO BE CONTINUED/MOTION TO AMEND-GRANTED
08/27/2002 (AGREED)/MOTION FOR ORDER OF TAKING-HRG TO BE CONTINUED
08/27/2002 MOTION FOR ORDER OF TAKING-TO BE CONTINUED
08/27/2002 MOTION FOR ORDER OFOTAKING-STIPULATION S/
08/28/2002 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE DATED 8/28/02
08/28/2002 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE DATED 8/28/02
08/28/2002 CORRESPONDENCE FROM TAM PASCOTTO PALUCK TO ATTY JOHN P CARDILLO
DATED 8/23/02
08/28/2002 MEMORANDUM
08/28/2002 NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE MAGISTRATE 9/12/02®9:30 PETITIONER'S
APPLICAITON FOR AN ORDER OF TAKING
08/29/2002 ORDER OF TAKING ON PARCEL 129 S/HAYES 8/28/02
08/29/2002 STIPULATED ORDER TO TAKING AS TO PARCEL 130 RUFUS F DUFF&CAROLYN H
DUFF S/HAYES 8/28/02
08/29/2002 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE WITH PROPOSED ORDER
08/30/2002 AMENDED ANSWER&AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ON BEHALF OF NORTH NAPLES FIRE
CONTROL&RESCUE DISTRICT
09/06/2002 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO CLERK RE: FILINGS
09/06/2002 NOTICE OF HEARING DATED 10/7/2002 RE: RESPONDENTS MOTION&
INCORPORATED MEMO TO WITHDRAW FUNDS FROM THE REGISTRY OF COURT
09/06/2002 MOTION AND INCORPORATED MEMO TO WITHDRAW FUNDS FROM THE REGISTRY OF
COURTS
09/09/2002 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE WITH PROPOSED ORDER
09/09/2002 ORDER ALLOWING AMENDED ANSEWR AND AMENDED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
S/HAYES 9/9/02
http://apps.collierclerk,com/public inquiry/Case.aspx?UCN=112002CA0017020001XX&... 4/18/2013
Printer Friendly Version Page 5 of 7
09/10/2002 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE IN RE AVAILABILITY OF WITNESSES
FIR 9/12/02 HEARING BY CHRISTOPHER MARSALA AS TO PARCEL 126
09/12/2002 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS 080 DEFS NORTH
NAPLES FIRE CONTROL
09/12/2002 PROCEEDING MOTION HEARING ON:09/12/2002 G 09:30
09/12/2002 PRESIDING JUDGE: HAYES,HUGH D
09/12/2002 PLTS ATTYS ELLEN CHADWELL&ATTY HEIDI ASHTON PRESENT/DEFS ATTYS
09/12/2002 JOHN CARDILLO&ATTY CHRIS MARSALA PRESENT/TRACI MOUNTAIN FROM
09/12/2002 GREGORY REPORTING PRESENT/CHRISTOPHER LOMBARDO PRESENT IN THE
09/12/2002 CAPACITY OF COMMISSIONER/REACHED AGREEMENT/ORDER OF TAKING GRANTED/
09/12/2002 PARTIES STIPULATED TO THE GOOD FAITH ESTIMATE VALUE OF$162,350.00/
09/12/2002 RESERVED ON DAMAGES
09/12/2002 ORDER OF TAKING PARCEL#126 S/HAYES 9/12/02
09/12/2002 RESPONSE OF NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESUCE BY THE PETITIONER AS
TO PARCEL 126
09/26/2002 NOTICE OF DEPOSIT$162,350.00 IN COURT REGISTRY ON 9/26/02 FOR PARCEL
126
10/02/2002 MOTION TO RECEIVE DEPOSIT BY THE RESPONDENT NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL
AS TO PARCEL 126
10/04/2002 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE WITH MOTION AND PROPOSED ORDER
10/04/2002 MOTION TO RECEIVE DEPOSIT
10/04/2002 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RECEIVE DEPOSIT FROM PETITIONER S/HAYES
10/3/02
10/07/2002 PROCEEDING MOTION HEARING ON: 10/07/2002 @ 15:30
10/07/2002 PRESIDING JUDGE:SHAFER 3R,ROBERT T
10/07/2002 HEARING CANCELLED
10/08/2002 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE WITH PROPOSED ORDER
10/08/2002 STIPULATED ORDER TO TAKING AS TO PARCEL 130/AMENDED S/HAYES 10/8/02
10/08/2002 MOTION ON AMENDED STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING AS TO PARCEL 130
10/29/2002 NOTICE OF DROPPING PARTY OF WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE AS TO PARCEL
130 ONLY
01/29/2003 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE WITH PROPOSED JUDGMENT
01/29/2003 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO NAPLES EQUESTRIAN CHALLENGE INC ON
PARCEL 129 S/HAYES 1/28/03
02/11/2003 DISCLAIMER OF INTEREST AS TO PARCEL 129
02/11/2003 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO CLERK RE ATTACHED DISCLAIMER
07/11/2003 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM:HUGH D HAYES TO: LAWRENCE D
MARTIN ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 07/03/2003
02/05/2004 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE CRAIG B WIILIS ESQ ON BEHALF OF COLLIER COUNTY
FLORIDA
02/18/2004 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE KAIMI LANI JONES ESQ ON BEHALF OF AGRONOMIC
RESOURCES
02/19/2004 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO CLERK(FAX)REQUESTING COPIES OF
VARIOUS PLEADINGS/COMPLETED FOR PICKUP 02/19/04
02/24/2004 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE(AMENDED)KA'IMI LANI JONES ESQ FOR DUFF
02/26/2004 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION(FIRST)BY PETITIONER
02/27/2004 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION DIRECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA PARCEL 126
02/27/2004 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS DIRECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA PARCEL 126
02/27/2004 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY
FLORIDA PARCEL 126
NOTICE OF P A RTH
04/12/2004 NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICTS BY PETITIONERESPONDENT
PARCEL 126
httpi/apps.collierclerk.com/Public_inquiry/Case.aSpx7UCN=112002CA0017020001 XX&... 4/18/2013
Printer Friendly Version Page 6 of 7
04/12/2004 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS FROM NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND
RESCUE DISTRICT BY PETITIONER
04/12/2004 REPLY TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION(RESPONDENT NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL
&RESUE DISTRICT'S)BY PETITIONER
04/15/2004 REPLY TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION(AMENDED)TO RESPONDENT NORTH NAPLES
FIRE CONTROL&RESCUE DISTRICT BY PETITIONER COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
06/16/2004 MOTION TO RELEASE FUNDS FROM REGISTRY OF THE COURT BY RUFUS F DUFF&
CAROLYN H DUFF PARCELS 126/129&130
06/17/2004 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS RUFUS F&
CAROLYN H DUFF AS TO PARCEL 130
06/30/2004 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM:LAWRENCE D MARTIN TO:DANIEL
R MONACO ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 04/19/2004
08/03/2004 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM: DANIEL R MONACO TO:TED H
BROUSSEAU ORDERED BY CYNTHIA A EL1IS ON 07/21/2004
10/04/2004 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF INTERROGATORIES 2ND SET DIRECTED TO NORTH NAPLES
FIRE CONTROL&RESCUE DISTRICT PARCEL 126
01/13/2005 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE DATED 1/11/05 WITH PROPOSED ORDER
01/13/2005 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO RUFUS F DUFF&CAROLYN H DUFF ONLY ON
PARCEL 1130 S/BROUSSEAU 1/11/05
03/02/2005 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM CHIEF JOHN GERMAN 4/19/05
10:00 AM
REQUEST FOR ENTRY UPON LAND FOR INSPECTION&OTHER PURPOSES DIRECTED
10/17/2005 TO NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL&RESCUE DISTRICT PARCEL 126
10/17/2005 NOTICE FOR JURY TRIAL&REQUEST FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE BY
COLLIER COUNTY PARCEL 126
11/04/2005 NOTICE OF HEARING(TELEPHONIC)11/28/05®13:30 PM CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
11/28/2005 PROCEEDING MOTION HEARING ON: 11/28/2005(0 15:30
11/28/2005 PRESIDING JUDGE: BROUSSEAU,TED
11/28/2005 PLAINTIFFS ATTY WILLIS PRESENT TELEPHONICALLY/DEFENDANT NORTH NAPLES
11/28/2005 FIRE CONTROL'S ATTY CARDILLO&MARSALA PRESENT/CASE MANAGEMENT
11/28/2005 CONFERENCE/THERE IS NO OBJECT TO CASE BEING NOTICED FOR TRIAL/THE
11/28/2005 ATTYS WILL CONTACT JUDGE BROUSSEAU JA OR COURT ADMINISTRATIVE TO
11/28/2005 ARRANGE A TRIAL DATE SOMETIME IN JULY OF 2006/ATTYS WILL WORK OUT
11/28/2005 MEDIATION,REPORT&DISCOVERY CUT OFF DATES/ATTY WILLIS WILL PROVIDE
11/28/2005 WITHIN THE NEXT 30 TO 45 DAYS THE COUNTY EXPERTS REPORT/ATTY CARDILLO
11/28/2005 WILL THEN HAVE 90 DAYS TO HAVE HIS EXPERT ON BOARD TO EXAMINE THE
11/28/2005 REPORT/ATTYS WILL SUBMIT CONFERENCE ORDER
12/05/2005 NOTICE FOR JURY TRIAL S DAYS
12/22/2005 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF INTERROGATORIES(AMENDED SECOND SET)TO NORTH
NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT AS TO PARCEL 126
01/12/2006 DUURRINR SETTING EEK JURY/NON BEGINNING 8/1A/06 S/BROUSSEAU 1/5/06 L
01/23/2006 NOTICE OF MEDIATION 03/02/06 c 9:30(AS TO PARCEL 126)
01/24/2006 NOTICE OF MEDIATION 3/2/06 9:30 AM
NOTICE OF SERVICE OF RESPONDENT NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL&RESCUE
02/14/2006 DISTRICTS ANSWERS TO AMENDED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED
BY PETITIONER
02/15/2006 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF RESPONDENT NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL&RESCUE
DISTRICTS EXPERT INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO PETITIONER
02/15/2006 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF RESPONDENT NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL&RESCUE
DISTRICTS WITNESS AND EXHIBIT INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO PETITIONER
02/15/2006 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF RESPONDENT NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL&RESCUE
DISTRICT UPDATED INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO PETITIONER
http://apps.collierclerk.com/public inquiry/Case.aspx7UCN=112002CA0017020001XX&... 4/18/2013
Printer Friendly Version Page 7 of 7
02/16/2006 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF RESPONDENT NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL&RESCUE
DISTRICTS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO PETITIONER
03/06/2006 MEDIATION REPORT PARTIES SETTLED THE CASE
03/29/2006 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE
03/29/2006 FINAL JUDGMENT STIPULATEDIN FAVOR OF NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL&
RESCUE DISRICT PARCEL 126 S/BROUSSEAU 3/28/06
04/13/2006
MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO PAY EXPERT WITNESS FEES AND
04/28/2006 PETITIONER NOTICE FOR TRIAL AND REQUEST FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
05/01/2006 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM;TED H BROUSSEAU TO:FREDERICK
HARDT ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 04/18/2006
07/01/2006 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM:FREDERICK HARDT TO:CYNTHIA A
ELLIS ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 04/18/2006
08/16/2006 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE PARCEL 126(FILM#0334 PAGE 0601
THRU 0601)
08/16/2006 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE FAX COPY PARCEL 126(FILM#0334
PAGE 0602 THRU 0602)
08/17/2006 NOTICE OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING 10/17/06 al 1:00PM(FILM#0334 PAGE 1168
THRU 1169)
08/28/2006 OBJECTION TO&MOTION TO CONTINUE BY COLLIER COUNTY PARCEL 126
(FILM#0334 PAGE 2246 THRU 2247)
09/12/2006 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF HEARING ON RESPONDENTS MOTION TO PAY EXPERT
WITNESS FEES&COST 10/17/6 AT 1 PM(FILM*0336 PAGE 1634 THRU 1634)
09/27/2006 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE(FILM*0337 PAGE 1070 THRU 1070)
09/27/2006 ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES AND COST/PARCEL 126/ELLIS 09/26/06
(FILM#0337 PAGE 1071 THRU 1073)
10/02/2012 HOLD
Events
Docket Type Judge Court Date Court Time
HEARING 11/28/2005 15:30
HEARING 10/07/2002 15:30
HEARING 09/12/2002 09:30
HEARING 08/27/2002 13:31
HEARING 08/16/2002 09:30
HEARING 08/09/2002 10:30
HEARING 08/02/2002 15:30
HEARING 08/02/2002 11:30
Financials
IThere are no Finandals for this case.
http://apps.collierclerk.com/public inquiry/Case.aspx7UCN=112002CA0017020001XX&... 4/18/2013
February 14, 2006
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
CLOSED SESSION
Item #12A — North Naples Fire Control & Rescue
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 12:12 p.m., in CLOSED
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples,
Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Frank Halas
Jim Coletta
Fred W. Coyle
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Ellen T. Chadwell, Assistant County Attorney
Craig Willis, Outside Counsel
Page 1 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
Item #12A
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 286.011(8), FLA. STAT., IN EXECUTIVE (CLOSED
ATTORNEY-CLIENT) SESSION MET TO DISCUSS
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND/OR STRATEGY IN THE
CASE OF COLLIER COUNTY V. NORTH NAPLES FIRE
CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT, ET. AL., CASE NO. 02-
1702-CA PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FLORIDA. — CLOSED
SESSION
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I think we're about ready to start here.
And for the court reporter, nothing has changed in the way it's
showing in the agenda.
Mr. Craig Willis is here; Ellen Chadwell, Assistant County
Attorney; David Weigel, County Attorney; and Jim Mudd; with the
Board of County Commissioners. And we're here to talk about agenda
item 12A. Jim has identified it earlier.
And Ellen and Craig, you want to go ahead and start with the
discussion?
MS. CHADWELL: Sure.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
MS. CHADWELL: As you all may know, we widened
Goodlette-Frank Road. As part of that project, Goodlette-Frank, we
acquired a number of parcels off the north side of Pine Ridge Road for
the intersection improvements of Pine Ridge and Goodlette-Frank.
The fire station, North Naples Fire Rescue and Control District is
located on Pine Ridge Road. I've got an aerial photo here of the site
prior to the construction. It's an older fire station.
We acquired a strip of land off the front of it in 2002. I have
another photo here that -- I don't know if you all can see from that
Page 2 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
distance. There is one on the table if you want to pass that around and
get a closer view. But this shows the extent.
This heavily dashed black line here, is the property line of the
right-of-way that we've acquired from the fire station. It's a strip of
land. It is irregular. You can see that it's wider here on the west side
of the parcel. It's approximately 17 and a half feet on the eastern
portion, and then as you go towards the western portion of the parcel,
it expands to 29 feet.
Back in 2002, we had that appraised. We have worked -- I will
say that staff worked with the fire district folks well before suit to try
to resolve any concerns that they had with the impact for the -- of the
taking and there was some agreements made regarding the signal --
the signalization for this fire station.
And our appraiser evaluated the impacts. We included in that
valuation some monies to reconstruct the driveway. There was an
issue with the elevation change and getting their truck on and off the
site without bottom -- there's a graphic of the tower truck. There was
some concern about it scraping the bottom.
So the dollars were put -- that was estimated by the engineers and
put in the appraisal report -- and we adopted it in 2002 -- $163,350 in
the core registry, which is what we believed to be fair and full
compensation for the taking of the property.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How much did we say for that strip, that
little strip of land?
MS. CHADWELL: $162,350. So at this point the case has been
set for trial. It's set for the first week in August, the first one on the
docket, so it's a definite go.
We have outside counsel who has been representing the county
on this matter for over a year. And I'm going to turn it over to him to
let you -- to discuss the current offer made by Mr. Cardillo, who
represents the fire district in this matter, and to explain to you some of
the risks in moving forward with the litigation, from his perspective,
Page 3 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
where we stand in litigation. Thanks, Craig.
MR. WILLIS: Thank you very much. I think I've been -- I've
individually introduced myself to each of the commissioners.
Just to flesh out a little bit of what Ellen said about the issues
with regard to the case in terms of the amount of land that was taken
actually. While the width of the taking was about 17 feet here, it was
29 here, but most of that increased width is over in the green part of
the property that doesn't really impact the functioning of the property.
The amount of land was 3,964 square feet, which is a little less
than 10 percent of an acre for the property.
The fire district's position, and in this litigation throughout, has
been that the county's acquisition -- initially it was to benefit another
private property owner in these intersection improvements, but that
has been disapproved by the court through the order of taking
procedure.
And so the issue is whether or not this taking impacts the value of
this property and the ability of the fire station to function on this
property and to what extent should those impacts be recognized.
The district consistently has taken the position that this has wiped
out the safety and the functionality of this site as a fire station.
Now, a reasonable person immediately would say, well, didn't
this taking occur in 2002 and isn't this 2006, and aren't the
improvements for the road already in place and have been in place for
a number of years; and the answer to that is yes, they have been, and
this site has been functioning as a fire station for the four-years period
of time since the taking.
Now, I have hired a consulting engineer to look at some of the
issues that they raised with regard to how the site functions and what
we term in the business as after condition, in other words, after the
property has been taken and the improvements have been put into
place.
Their contentions are, number one, that they are required to pull
Page 4 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
the ladder truck out -- which here's a graphic of it -- and onto the front
apron and conduct inspections and maintenance activities. And that
with the shortened apron in the front, they're no longer able to safely
do that because the ladder truck, number one, hangs out over the
sidewalk, and number two, there's a utility line here that they have to
raise the ladder in order to test and see whether it's functioning
properly before they have an emergency situation.
The logical answer to that and one that has not been adequately
rebutted in my mind, and the engineers have all told me that this could
be done, is merely to back -- instead of pulling the truck out,
inspecting in the front and backing it back into the bay -- they say they
can't do it in the bay because of carbon monoxide concerns -- is to
back the truck into the rear of the property and conduct the
maintenance and inspection activities to the rear. There's been no
reasonable response of why that isn't an appropriate thing to do in this
situation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: They do have enough room back there to
do that?
MR. WILLIS: Right. The other contentions are, number one,
that the access in and out of the property has been rendered extremely
unsafe because of the turn movements.
Previously Pine Ridge was a four-lane road. Now it's a six-lane
road here that they contend, with the foreshortened apron, that they
have to swing out into the third lane of traffic in order to leave the
station in a westbound direction and that they have trouble entering
the station now that it impacts these parking spaces here and that there
is a conflict.
The third contention is, is that when you pull out onto the apron,
the line of sight in terms of leaving the fire station has been
obstructed. Those are the three issues; access, safety, and inspection
activities for the truck.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The parking spots that are located on the
Page 5 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
front, do they have enough parking spots to accommodate those
vehicles in the back?
MR. WILLIS: The answer to that is, yes, they do. This station
was primarily administrative headquarters, which is not used for that
purpose at the current time and at the time of the taking, so there's a
surplusage of parking in here.
This -- the front parking has been primarily for the benefit of the
public visiting there for the convenience of them being immediately in
front of the building.
My engineer tells me that there is a little bit of a conflict for fire
trucks entering the station when there are vehicles in these spaces.
There was -- to answer your question about =- or at least your reaction
to the $162,000 for the good faith deposit, the property was
compensated at an appraised value of$15.25 a square foot. Obviously
property values have increased and are much greater than that now.
A lot of the money was for fixing the things, the little things that
needed to be fixed. Moving the sign, doing some work on the water
retention area, and relocating these parking spaces to the rear. In fact,
one of the tier proposals was to create some new replacement parking
spaces for these parking spaces.
The plans that we had originally was, there was a septic tank and
a drain field here that could have been impacted, but back in the '80s
this site was converted to city -- or county water and sewer.
And so I asked my engineer -- in fact, I've asked him this
morning again, is why can't you just move these parking spaces a little
bit to the west and eliminate that conflict with the trucks entering the
parking lot, which they could do very, very easily, and with very little
expense, and they have not done that. They've allowed this site to
continue to function in this way for whatever reason, and I don't know
what that reason is.
But they claim that a new building would cost them
approximately two million dollars to build big enough -- need to
Page 6 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
relocate, sell this site, and build a new building somewhere, which
would cost them two million dollars to build, and they've put that
estimate on the basis of the fire station that is further out to the east on
the south side of Pine Ridge. Before you get to the interstate, there's
another North Naples Fire Control and Rescue Station at that location.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The property that's the north area, behind
the building there, how far north can they go to the property line?
MR. WILLIS: Their property line is right along here behind the
parking lot. This is a one-acre tract of land.
Their proposal is an unusual one. There are a number of fire
station locations where also county emergency medical services
operates out of, either as a result of having their own facilities or
through a lease agreement with the fire district. There is a station that
-- Ellen, help me here with the other station -- the station name?
MS. CHADWELL: The Pelican Bay one?
MR. WILLIS: The Pelican Bay, okay. The Pelican Bay station
is a station that is -- the district owns or -- built the building, built the
fire station. The county owns the land, and there also is a separate
emergency medical services building there, a county medical services
building there.
That property is a total of about 3.96 acres. What they're
proposing is that we carve out the land that the county owns that the
fire station is constructed on, which is roughly about 60,000 square
feet, which is a little over an acre, 1.35, 1.4 acres, and give them title
to that land so that they own the Pelican Bay land and building, and
they keep this site, they also keep the 164,000 good faith deposit.
And then finally --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Something wrong with this picture.
MR. WILLIS: Finally, the county agreed to amend its contracts
so that all the contracts allow a 90-day notice termination of the lease
in which the emergency medical services is on one of their properties.
I've researched the leases through the county. EMS had --
Page 7 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
indicates that there's only -- and the leases reflect that there's only one
older lease that has -- that doesn't already have a 90-day notice
termination provision.
Most of the modern leases since 1994 all have a mutual 90-day
termination provision that would allow the county to no longer do
emergency medical services out of that fire station facility and,
likewise, would allow the fire district to cancel the lease for the
emergency medical services.
I think -- I've consulted with County Attorney's Office. I think
the county attorney, the recommendation is that it reject this offer. My
recommendation, my feeling is, to the extent that the board would like
to hear it from me, is that it's not a very good offer because of the risk
associated with the litigation.
In order for this to be a viable settlement option, I would think
that there would have to be substantial risk that the jury would
conclude that this site can no longer function as a fire station special
use property, and that the fire station should be awarded two million
dollars in replacement value for these improvements, and then they
would sell the land and ostensibly go and build another site
somewhere else at another location.
The only -- there have been only two realistic issues that have
been identified to my knowledge that I have any concern about from a
litigation point of view in a reasonable jury considering, and first is
the fire trucks re-entering the site. There is a conflict according to our
engineer with the cars, but it's a conflict that the fire district has
control over, can cure, and has allowed to exist for four years and has
allowed the station to continue to operate.
And I'm researching the accident reports, but to my knowledge, I
don't think there have been any accidents reported involving trucks
leaving or entering this fire station under any circumstances, whether
just ordinary departures or emergency departures.
The other issue is the line of sight safety issue there. There is
Page 8 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
some vegetation here and some other trees down here, that due to the
foreshortening of the apron, that creates a little bit of a line of sight
issue.
The county -- and I would recommend to the county and
probably will do so through staff as well, that it get out here and
maintain some of its right-of-way by cutting some of the foliage away
that the county has a right to do. Some of these trees are overhanging
in the right-of-way, the county's right-of-way, which to my
knowledge, the fire district has never requested that be done.
The other issue that addressed the safety concerns for the district
is, there is a signal at the intersection to the immediate east of this
property that -- Ellen, I don't have any current knowledge whether or
not that was transferred to the district's control or not. I know there
was some discussion about controlling the signalization here at the
Goodlette-Frank/Pine Ridge intersection to allow the signal to be
turned on to red for traffic eastbound and westbound to allow the fire
trucks to leave the station under those circumstances.
But, again, the property's been functioning for four years in an
adequate manner, I'm not aware of safety -- or at least accidents that
have been recorded as a result of that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't they just put a signal right
here in front of the station?
MR. WILLIS: That was discussed, and it's really -- unless you
can stop the traffic in advance of the station, it's really of not much
value.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I've seen fire stations where they
have a signal right there, and as soon as they get a call, they
immediately activate the signal.
MR. WILLIS: Right. I mean that is done for additional safety
concerns. It's just something that hasn't been --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's done for the station further
east on Pine Ridge Road.
Page 9 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you have a traffic light
here go red and you have a traffic light here go green, you're going to
stop this traffic, you're going to move this traffic out of your way. But
like the gentleman said, it's functioning now and they haven't
requested it, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, how does their proposed
settlement remove the alleged defects?
MR. WILLIS: It gives -- it gives them, I believe -- I think what
their exit strategy is, is the City of Naples is moving in a northerly
direction in terms of annexation of south of the Pelican Bay station,
and they believe that that station is going to be annexed by the City of
Naples; and according to the City of Naples, would be providing fire
protection for that area.
That property would then be a valuable commercial piece of
property to sell and then give them the money to purchase additional
property. And with selling this property, between the two of them,
they would be able to build new fire stations.
MS. CHADWELL: That's really just our best guess.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Willis, let me help just a little bit. Let's get
into a conversation that Fire Commissioner J.A. Ratio had with Leo
Ochs, okay? And it just so happens that all the stipulations that you
heard today outside of the straight right-of-way condemnation for the
17 feet was addressed in a discussion with Leo, and Leo -- at a lunch
meeting, and Leo basically said, J.A., you've got to be kidding me.
And the issue is, the lease that they have on the Pelican Bay
station, you own the property; they own the building. And in that
agreement, it states that the county unilaterally, with a 90-day notice,
can terminate their arrangement.
MR. WILLIS: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: And, therefore, they would have to leave their fire
station.
MR. WILLIS: Correct.
Page 10 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
MR. MUDD: And when the Pelican Bay annexation issue was
hot in the forefront, that particular clause in that agreement gave them
great consternation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think our response should
be, we just cancel their agreement in the Pelican Bay fire station. Tell
them to get out. You've got 90 days. End of story.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Somebody's been standing too
close to the exhaust pipes and the fire trucks.
MR. MUDD: So that's what it was. And Leo would not go for
that agreement because it wasn't in the best interest of the county.
Wouldn't even consider it. And so then -- the other alternative, voila,
we now have a settlement agreement for this thing that has all of those
particular items in it that was at that discussion.
And so, I -- you know, I just look at that. Was it coincidence?
No, it wasn't. And so --
MR. WILLIS: They were trying to get through litigation what
they couldn't otherwise get through negotiations.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But my point is that if we agree to
whatever it is they're suggesting, it still would not solve their alleged
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Problem.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- defects. It would --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It would go away.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean, the fire trucks will still
have the same problem getting in and out that they allege; the fire
trucks still cannot pull out in front of the garage and be serviced, as
they allege. So it solves none of the problems that they have alleged
exist here because of things we've done.
And I'm just wondering how you think the court is going to
proceed, or will they even hear the alleged -- or the proposed
settlement offer?
Page 11 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
MR. WILLIS: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They will not?
MR. WILLIS: The proposed settlement will not be heard by a
jury.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And can't be introduced as
evidence?
MR. WILLIS: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, that answers my
question.
MR. WILLIS: Their position that there's no cure for this site,
they would sell this property and buy some other property and relocate
this station that could service this geographic area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County Manager, where's our
nearest EMS station from this site?
MR. WILLIS: We have an EMS --
MR. MUDD: EMS is in this site.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, they're in this site?
MR. MUDD: Oh, yes, sir. They're in this site with them.
MR. WILLIS: There's a lease provision that the district could
cancel with 90 days' notice. I mean, there's been -- since 1994 there's
been mutuality on the reciprocal 90-day termination of the relationship
in any lease that's entered into between the county and fire district.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So where's the next nearest
EMS station from this site?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Pine Ridge Road, north of Pine
Ridge Road.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hammond Oaks, I think.
MR. MUDD: The commissioner's answering a question that I
can't, right off, say which is nearest to it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They've only got 500 buildings.
MS. CHADWELL: There's Grey Oaks, the one at Grey Oaks
that has -- that does share a facility. I don't know if that's closer. I
Page 12 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
don't know if there's EMS at the new Pine Ridge station. I'm not sure
that there's EMS stationed there.
MR. MUDD: There's another one down Pine Ridge on the other
side of Livingston, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Livingston.
MS. CHADWELL: Yeah. That's what I'm referring to. I'm not
sure if they're -- if we have EMS stationed there or not.
MR. MUDD: Yes, they do.
MS. CHADWELL: They do, okay.
MR. MUDD: And that is the worst space that EMS has got in all
of them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not implying to accept their
offer. What do we have to do? Just decline it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go to litigation.
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. In good faith, your counsel has to
bring this offer to you and then have the discussion, as we are here
internally, and the board will actually make its decision out on the
floor. I'm not looking for a decision to be made here, just discuss the
strategy and negotiation issues with you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm ready to make a decision.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, can I -- can I throw one thing in,
just as maybe a gesture?
I'm not too sure the 90-day without mutual consent thing is a
good issue on their fire station in Pelican Bay. As Mr. Willis
mentioned, there's only one or two contracts that still have that in
there, and the new ones have a mutual agreement. Help me, Mr.
Willis, if you would.
You might want to offer them -- because they have great angst
about the Pelican Bay site, you might offer them the update clause for
a mutual agreement, like we have in the other -- in the other contracts,
but that's the only --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I wouldn't offer them a thing. I
Page 13 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
mean, I wouldn't. The other commissioners might, but I wouldn't
offer them a blasted thing. I don't think they've negotiated.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're not giving them the land, right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think they're being devious here.
I don't see an obligation to pretend to be good guys with these people.
MR. WILLIS: Could I address their proposal with regard to that?
I think their concern is they have a substantial investment in
improvements in Pelican Bay, probably between a million and two
million dollars worth of site improvements that they've invested the
district money in, and their feeling is, I believe, that the lease, number
one, if it were terminated, they would lose all that value of those
improvements.
And furthermore, I think their concern is not necessarily
precipitated by concerns that the county is going to cancel their lease
because the county obviously needs fire protection and the district is
providing fire protection to the citizens in that geographic area. But
their concern, I think, is with the possible annexation by the City of
Naples, then their charter to provide fire services there would be
terminated, and they'd lose the value of those improvements at that
site.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The county owns the land.
MR. WILLIS: Right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's to say that the county's going to
sell the land? I don't think we'd sell the land. Besides that fire station,
it's -- as you brought out, there's a huge geographical area there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Pelican Bay annexation is a
dead issue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's a dead issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Really -- or I should say the
City of Naples annexation into Pelican Bay is a non-issue at this time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's people that have been
elected into office that killed it.
Page 14 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
MS. CHADWELL: Oh, you think on the council then?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. They had their people lined
up.
MR. WILLIS: There's one other alternative in terms of
addressing their anxiety over the county possibly terminating their
lease at Pelican Bay and, therefore, losing that facility and that ability
to provide fire protection services is that -- an alternative proposal the
county could make that I think would be reasonable in the best interest
of the public is to allow them to eliminate that 90-day termination as
to the fire district's functioning on that site as a fire station unless and
until they discontinue to provide fire protection to that service and
give them that type of assurance that they're going to be able to
continue to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's a moot point. There's no way
on God's earth that we're going to make sure a fire station shuts down
in any part of the county. And it doesn't matter what they do to us,
we're still going to make sure there's a fire station there. There's no
way to walk away from that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, what does it
hurt? I don't see it's going to hurt anything. If we're not saying we're
going to throw them out, then why not give them a better contract?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree, because you know, it's a
matter of--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's a moot point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but it's a matter of saving face
now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They're going to be there
regardless.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah. So in order to save
taxpayers money by going to litigation, if our counsel thinks that that
might resolve this issue, it's not going to hurt us and it's not going to
hurt them.
Page 15 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll just change the contract so that we
won't throw them out in 90 days; is what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, exactly.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. But we still retain ownership of
the land.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think they want ownership of the land.
I think that's the underlying thing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why would they want
ownership of the land if they're assured to be there for as long as they
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we're not going to give it to
them, but we -- by giving them what they already have and knowing
that we would never throw them out, we allow them to save some kind
of face, you know. And I think everybody in any negotiation needs to
save face, so we have to offer them something just to --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you saying six-month -- give them a
six-month notice then instead of a 90-day notice?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Give them a one-year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whatever we offer to all the other
ones.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What did we offer to all the
other ones, County Manager?
MR. MUDD: It's a mutual clause.
MR. WILLIS: Well, see, the other station -- at the other station
sites, the fire district owns the land and the station, and they allow the
county to operate the EMS service out of that station. This is the only
facility that they have a building on that they've invested money in
that they don't own the land.
It was -- well, I guess the Grey Oaks was an interlocal agreement,
too, where there was a partnership between the East Naples, the North
Naples and the county to buy the land and build the facility. But this
Page 16 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
station is unique in the sense that this is the one location where the
county owns the land and the fire district owns the buildings.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the clause basically states that it
has to be a mutual agreement between the county and the fire district
before somebody gets thrown out of the building, okay, as a tenant or
whatever you want to have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's the way that it should
be.
MR. MUDD: And I believe that particular clause being added to
this particular arrangement or to this present contract would allay
some of their fears, give them the ability to say they got something,
and we offer that with the monetary amount that we'd put into the
court in order to settle this particular issue, and I think we have.
I also have at least verbal agreement for the church that's right
around the corner, Pine Ridge going around the corner, that said they
could come into their parking lot at any time and exercise their ladder
truck if they need to in order to do that, and that's a pretty big parking
area, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One of the issues we need to
discuss is our own EMS. I mean, they're not getting the best of
treatment. They've got a substandard facility. Maybe we could come
up with some wording that we recognize the need for emergency
services via fire or EMS and we'd like you to agree to it. This is what
we're going to do. Now on your end, we need you to do this. Is there
some way we might be able to smooth the waters a little bit here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's another matter.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to stay just with
that issue here personally, but if this -- if we can offer them a clause of
mutual agreement on the contract to make this go away, I would think,
let's go there. But maybe you can go to those fire steering committees
and ask them for some consideration on that issue.
Page 17 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Henning, I don't think that the relief to that
clause affecting the Pelican Bay fire station will make this thing go
away. That's just one aspect --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Won't make this --
MR. WEIGEL: I mean, if you're talking about the other site
that's at issue on Pine Ridge, they have a significant monetary demand
there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the issue
relating to the Pelican Bay station has some significance, but it is not
the end-all be-all to resolve this litigation.
MR. MUDD: No, but David, I believe what we're talking about
is giving them the $180,000, or whatever it is, that is the right-of-way
taking price for this particular property, in addition to changing the
clause to the Pelican Bay lease.
MS. CHADWELL: Well, that's their money anyways. They
could have deposited it -- withdrawn it at any time.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, the money's been set aside a long time
ago.
MR. WILLIS: It's been withdrawn.
MS. CHADWELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think the bottom line is, they just want
that property in Pelican Bay. That's the underlying thing. The only
thing we can do is offer them a different agreement and say, we're still
going to hold ownership of that land, and I don't think that's going to
make that go away.
MS. CHADWELL: I don't see there's any harm in --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Offering it.
MS. CHADWELL: -- offering the modification to lease. There's
no downside to it. I think what David says is probably correct; don't
expect it to do away with the litigation.
MR. WILLIS: But it could -- but it could lead to meaningful
discussions that could resolve the litigation at mediation, I believe.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Are there any further questions at this
Page 18 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
point? Then when we get out at the board meeting and the item is
introduced, Craig, I think you can just briefly, briefly, introduce the
issue. Nothing very long needs to go forward. And the
commissioners may ask you some questions and give you some
instruction at that point in time.
MR. WILLIS: Okay.
MS. CHADWELL: As far as the 90-day notice going away,
Craig, you had mentioned qualifying that by, I guess, reserving the
condition that in the event they needed to operated from that station,
that clearly we could then insist that they --
MR. WILLIS: That the lease would be terminated upon that
event.
MS. CHADWELL: -- vacate the premises. I mean, obviously
there's no reason for them to stay there, but you never know, and that
way you have something to fall back on in the event things change.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If we come up with a lease where it's --
both parties have to agree that they're going to vacate that building, if
we come up with another lease saying that, that it's a mutual
agreement vacating that station if so ever -- if it ever comes to that
point in time. A year, okay?
MS. CHADWELL: That to me is meaningless. I mean, you can
agree to modify to do whatever you want in any kind of contractual
situation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we're not going to give them the
land.
MS. CHADWELL: But what it does is it removes the 90-day
notice, which says without -- with or without cause, you can boot
them off that property, and that's their concern.
So I think if you want to remove that, we'd be happy to put in
language that mirrors the language relative to mutual consent or
requiring consent of both parties in there. But understand that that's --
that really is a meaningless provision.
Page 19 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because they take care of Pelican Marsh,
they take care of Naples Park, they take care of Vanderbilt Beach
along with Pelican Bay. There's no way that they're going to be
booted out of there. So I'm not sure where they're coming from on
that issue. I mean, there's a huge area that they take -- that they
encompass.
MR. WEIGEL: I think they were ostensibly thinking that if, in
fact, there were an annexation of Pelican Bay, there's the possibility
that their statutory district may be changed. And we saw that they had
issues with the city that they never resolved in regard to that as well.
And so it appears to be a moot issue in many ways, and their
district responsibilities remain, which includes Pelican Bay,
annexation or no annexation, for this point and for the next several
years. Even if there were annexation, if the city was not to provide the
services, the statute would give them about four to five additional
years of mandatory service anyway, as well as the use of that tax base.
MR. MUDD: That was -- that's up for debate, because their
special district, as it got established, basically says -- it has a clause in
there that talks about, if something gets annexed, they immediately
turn, and Florida statute doesn't take precedent over that. And that
was a debatable item that they were having.
Their fear -- and I want to tell you straight up. Their fear was,
we were going to give them a 90-day boot, and the City of Naples was
going to take over that fire station. That's it. And that was a
negotiating item that this board could have agreed with or sat down
with the City of Naples in order to do.
And with a mutual agreement covenants that they have between
fire districts, the City of Naples would be obliged to have to provide
that fire service outside of the city into that northern part of the
county. And I believe that's, down deep, where you really get down to
the nitty-gritty in what their fear is. And based on that lease
agreement, you could do that without blinking an eye.
Page 20 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)
February 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So you're telling me that if we
did, then the City of Naples would have to take care of all the other
surrounding communities that's tied into that?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't know if they could handle that.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that isn't up for debate. But I'm
telling you what the fear was, because the City of Naples was, through
their manager, was asking me for properties -- I had 12 acres in
between -- if they could lease part of that for a fire station. They were
going through all the different options. I'm just letting you know
when this lease issue became an item between the fire district and the
City of Naples.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hey, we're overworking the
court reporter.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What time are we supposed to
be back?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: One o'clock.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're kidding. It said 1 :30 on
television.
MR. WEIGEL: The meeting is concluded.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:45 p.m.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 21 — Item #12A (North Naples Fire)