City Council Chamber - Naples, Florida

City Council Chamber 735 Eighth Street South Naples, Florida 34102

City Council Regular Meeting – December 15, 2010 – 8:29 a.m. Mayor Barnett called the meeting to order and presided.

ROLL CALL........................................................................................................................ ITEM 1 Present: Council Members: Bill Barnett, Mayor Douglas Finlay John Sorey, III, Vice Mayor Teresa Heitmann Gary Price, II Samuel Saad, III Margaret Sulick Also Present: William Moss, City Manager Gene Scott Robert Pritt, City Attorney Lois Bolin Tara Norman, City Clerk Larry Schultz Roger Reinke, Assistant City Manager Jim Smith Vicki Smith, Technical Writing Specialist Charlie Thomas Jessica Rosenberg, Deputy City Clerk Sue Smith David Lykins, Community Services Director Amir Shirvanipour Robert Middleton, Utilities Director Penny Taylor Stephen McInerny, Fire Chief Willie Anthony Robin Singer, Planning Director Homer Scofield George Archibald, Traffic Engineer Lucy Finch Michael Leslie, Asst. Comm. Ser. Director Edward Morton Linda Drogue Jeffrey Clapper Virginia Condello Gary Bogan David Bayer Beth Ressler Jane Elliott Kerry McCauley Val Prince Skip Quillen Rod Castan Lou Vlasho Maria Furetta Howard Hussa Michael Wynn Russ Weyer Gloria Kovacs Ed Barsamian John Passidomo Media: Jim Hollars Tara McLaughlin, Naples Daily News Wafaa Assaad Shamir Shirvanipour Other interested citizens and visitors INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE............................................................... ITEM 2 Pastor Gene Scott, Celebration Community Church.

City Council Regular Meeting – December 15, 2010 – 8:29 a.m.

2

Roll call votes by Council Members are recorded in random order, pursuant to City Council policy.

ANNOUNCEMENTS........................................................................................................... ITEM 3 Mayor Barnett and Lois Bolin were presenters of the annual Christmas Parade awards. SET AGENDA (add or remove items) .............................................................................. ITEM 4

MOTION by Sorey to SET THE AGENDA continuing Item 7-a (November 15, 2010 Workshop minutes), removing Item 7-b (Open Air Farmer’s Market) from the Consent Agenda for separate discussions; and adding the following: Item 15 (Land Use / Subdivision Regulations), Item 16 (Five-year General Fund Sustainability Analysis), and Item 17 (Five-year CRA/Community Redevelopment Agency sustainability Analysis). This motion was seconded by Sulick and unanimously carried, all members present and voting (Finlay-yes, Heitmann-yes, Price-yes, Saad-yes, Sorey-yes, Sulick-yes, Barnett-yes).

PUBLIC COMMENT ........................................................................................................... ITEM 5 (8:46 a.m.) Larry Schultz, Aqualane Shores, thanked Council for time it had devoted during that week’s workshop to issues surrounding the NAA (Naples Airport Authority).

CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES (see Item 4 above).............................................................. ITEM 7-a November 3, 2010 Regular, November 17, 2010 Regular, and December 1, 2010 Special Workshop Meeting minutes; as submitted. (November 15, 2010 Workshop continued to 01/119/11 / see Item 4 above). SPECIAL EVENTS (separate discussion / see Item 4 above) .................................... ITEM 7-b “Open Air” Farmers Market – Third Street South Merchants Association – Third Street South Merchants Association – Third Street South (between Broad Avenue South and 13th Avenue South) – 01/01/11, 01/15/11, 02/05/11, 02/19/11, 03/05/11, 03/19/11, 04/02/11 and 04/16/11.

MOTION by Price to APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA including Item 7-b; seconded by Sorey and unanimously carried, all members present and voting (Finlay-yes, Heitmann-yes, Price-yes, Saad-yes, Sorey-yes, Sulick-yes, Barnett-yes). (It is noted for the record that Sulick dissented with regard to Item 7-b.)

END CONSENT AGENDA CLERK’S TRACKING #10-00040 ...................................................................................... ITEM 8 AWARDING A CONTRACT TO DELL, INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF COMPUTERS UNDER THE FLORIDA STATE TERM CONTRACT, NUMBER 250-040-08-01, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $120,000. (8:54 A.M.) Technology Services Director Steve Weeks said that although he had investigated two other vendors, Dell had consistently provided reasonable pricing. In response to Council Member Price, Mr. Weeks confirmed that the intent was to more aggressively replace the older desktop and laptop computers at that time as Council had authorized a return to the usual replacement program, unobserved in recent years due to limited funding. He then explained that the State contract provides for enhancements such as a four-year warranty, premium customer service support, and next day onsite replacement parts, useful features for a limited staff. In further discussion, Mr. Weeks explained that the replaced computers are retained for parts, offered to non-profit organizations or sent to City auction; the hard drives are erased. Public Comment: (9:01 a.m.) None.

MOTION by Sorey to APPROVE THIS ITEM as submitted; seconded by Sulick and unanimously carried, all members present and voting (Finlay-yes, Heitmann-yes, Price-yes, Saad-yes, Sorey-yes, Sulick-yes, Barnett-yes).


3


CLERK’S TRACKING #10-00041 ...................................................................................... ITEM 9 AWARDING A TWO-YEAR CONTRACT WITH ONE ONE-YEAR RENEWAL FOR THE PURCHASE OF TIRES AND ASSOCIATED REPAIR SERVICES UNDER THE FLORIDA STATE TERM CONTRACT, NUMBER 863-000-10-1: VENDOR: COLLIER TIRE AND AUTO REPAIR, NAPLES, FLORIDA \ COST: $135,000 (ANNUALLY) \ FUNDING: EQUIPMENT SERVICES – TIRES. (9:01 a.m.) Utilities Director Robert Middleton said that this is the annual tire purchase and repair service contract for the City’s fleet. He explained that although there were three responses to the bid, only the recommended vendor had met all the specifications, one of whom being a Goodyear tire certified dealer. Mr. Middleton also confirmed that the State contract provides the lowest cost option, despite the fact that Goodyear can often recap and certify large truck tires. He recommended that City staff perform tire repair services for light trucks, automobiles, and small equipment within the City’s fleet. Council Member Price expressed appreciation to Mr. Middleton for identifying an alternative which is estimated to achieve an annual savings of $30,000 to $40,000. Council Member Saad said this may be a good area to benchmark; namely, to ascertain information on fuel and tire usage. Public Comment: (9:08 a.m.) None.

MOTION by Saad to APPROVE THIS ITEM as submitted; seconded by Sulick and unanimously carried, all members present and voting (Finlay-yes, Heitmann-yes, Price-yes, Saad-yes, Sorey-yes, Sulick-yes, Barnett-yes).

CLERK’S TRACKING #10-00042 .................................................................................... ITEM 10 AWARDING A ONE-YEAR CONTRACT WITH TWO ONE-YEAR RENEWALS FOR CATIONIC POLYMER: \ VENDOR: BASF CORPORATION, SUFFOLK, VIRGINIA \ COST: $113,400 (ANNUALLY) \ FUNDING: WATER / SEWER FUND – WATER PLANT CHEMICALS. (9:08 a.m.) Public Comment: (9:08 a.m.) None.

MOTION by Saad to APPROVE THIS ITEM as submitted; seconded by Barnett and unanimously carried, all members present and voting (Finlay-yes, Heitmann-yes, Price-yes, Saad-yes, Sorey-yes, Sulick-yes, Barnett-yes).

RESOLUTION 10-12819 .................................................................................................. ITEM 11 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A CANDIDATE TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF NAPLES ON THE PUBLIC SCHOOL CONCURRENCY PROGRAM CITIZENS ADVISORY GROUP FOR A FOUR-YEAR TERM COMMENCING DECEMBER 15, 2010, AND EXPIRING DECEMBER 14, 2014; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Title read by City Attorney Robert Pritt (9:09 a.m.) Public Comment: (9:09 a.m.) None.

MOTION by Price to APPROVE RESOLUTION 10-12819 APPOINTING MICHELLE ARNOLD; seconded by Saad and unanimously carried, all members present and voting (Finlay-yes, Heitmann-yes, Price-yes, Saad-yes, Sorey-yes, Sulick-yes, Barnett-yes).

It is noted for the record that Items 12-a and 12-b were read concurrently although Item 12-b could not be considered for action until adoption of 12-a at a later date. ORDINANCE (First Reading)....................................................................................... ITEM 12-a AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 40-32 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES, PERTAINING TO COMMERCIAL AND SIGHTSEEING BUSES, ESTABLISHING A REQUIREMENT FOR FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS AND FRANCHISE FEES, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, A REPEALER PROVISION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. RESOLUTION (discussion only)................................................................................. ITEM 12-b


4


A RESOLUTION ADDING SECTION 40-32(b) TO APPENDIX A, FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A FRANCHISE FEE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Title read by City Attorney Robert Pritt (9:09 a.m.). He then explained that Item 12-b was for discussion only at that time and could not be adopted until Second Reading of the ordinance. He explained that for some time, staff had attempted to place all fees into one fee schedule in the Code of Ordinances for greater clarity. Public Comment: (9:11 a.m.) None.

MOTION by Price to APPROVE THIS ORDINANCE at First Reading; seconded by Finlay and unanimously carried, all members present and voting (Finlay-yes, Heitmann-yes, Price-yes, Saad-yes, Sorey-yes, Sulick-yes, Barnett-yes). No action taken with regard to Item 12-b (see above).

CLERK’S TRACKING #10-00043 .................................................................................... ITEM 13 AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A 75-FOOT AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS: \ VENDOR: GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT, LLC, A DIVISION OF ROSENBAUER OF AMERICA OF COCONUT CREEK, FLORIDA \ COST: $615,027 / FUNDING: ACCOUNT NO. 340-0810-522-6070 \ CIP 10E10 \ FIRE TRUCK REPLACEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $675,000. (9:11 a.m.) Fire Chief Steven McInerny stated that $675,000 had been budgeted for the fire truck and equipment, and that staff recommended awarding the contract for the truck to General Safety Equipment, the lowest bidder meeting all specifications, at a cost of $615,027. Although noting it would entail more work, staff is bidding the fire apparatus equipment separately in order to avoid truck manufacturer markup costs. He then estimated that the equipment would cost $100,000, explaining that there are available funds in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to make up the difference between the amount budgeted and the eventual actual cost. In response to Council Member Saad, he explained that he had initially failed to budget for additional environmental controls on the engine, which is more costly. He also confirmed that, prior to auction, staff would determine whether the truck being replaced, estimated in value at between $25,000 and $35,000, could be used in a reserve capacity. Public Comment: (9:19 a.m.) None.

MOTION by Heitmann to APPROVE THIS ITEM as submitted seconded by Sulick and unanimously carried, all members present and voting (Finlay-yes, Heitmann-yes, Price-yes, Saad-yes, Sorey-yes, Sulick-yes, Barnett-yes).

RIVER PARK POOL UPDATE......................................................................................... ITEM 14 DISCUSSION OF A PROGRESS REPORT RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE RIVER PARK POOL AND DETERMINE OPTION TO PROCEED. (9:20 a.m.) (It is noted for the record that a printed copy of the electronic presentation is contained in the file for this meeting in the City Clerk’s Office.) Community Services Director David Lykins stated that staff has worked with the architect, Borelli and Partners, and the construction manager at risk, Kraft Construction, in order to build the most cost-effective project possible. He however said he has found that many products such as polymers, plastics, and lumber are more costly than had been anticipated, and that the project is continuing to exceed the budgeted funding. In providing a brief background, Mr. Lykins explained that in November 2009, Council had considered three options, the least costly of which was a basic renovation totaling $500,000. Council had initially selected Option 1 estimated at $1.3-million, which entailed a full replacement, although later directing staff to modify Option 1 to a concept possible within a


5


budget of $700,000 to $1-million.. In September 2010, Council supported a proposed design for a recreational facility, with six swim lanes, a play area and structure, a slide and a swimming instruction area. Noting a breakdown of the construction costs and detailed elements, Mr. Lykins explained that the site work, pool and equipment, bath house, pump house, office, and other fees and charges would accrue to a base bid price of $1.3-million. What this does not include, he added, was the current facility demolition, the play area, slide, a required handicap lift chair, and geo-thermal heating element; the additional cost would accrue to $225,231 for a revised total estimated cost of $1.6-million. Noting the $1-million in funding already identified, he indicated that the contract for design fees is $124,900 leaving a funded project balance of $875,000. This, he said, therefore produces a shortfall of between $502,000 and $727,000, depending on various options within the design concept. Options being considered at that time included allocating additional funds to complete the design drawings and proceed with construction, substantially redesigning for a smaller facility keeping the current facility in operation for one more year, or simply determining whether the current building can be enhanced to meet current building codes and ADA compliance, replacing just the pool, splash area and mechanical and filtration system. In closing, Mr. Lykins stated that each option would present different impacts on aspects such as level of programming, staffing, and funding needed for operational cost. Vice Mayor Sorey recommended keeping the current pool in operation for another year. Noting the $16,000 already committed, he also noted the possibility of securing a larger Sample Foundation grant in the coming year. Council Member Sulick expressed dismay that Borelli would prepare a design that would surpass the $1-million budget and thereby create unrealistic expectations within the community. After receiving confirmation from Kraft Construction representative Amir Shirvanipour that a flat roof design option would not accrue to a significant difference in price, she urged that the Council proceed with a more realistic project, perhaps with only four swim lanes or other alternatives. Former Vice Mayor Penny Taylor, representing a group that had solicited funding last summer for the pool, stated that she found that the Sample Foundation generally awards grants to children and playgrounds. Therefore, Miss Taylor urged meeting with Sample representatives in the spring when they are usually available. She then recommended developing an operational business plan, noting that although the pool would not produce a positive revenue stream, well-run programs would offset costs. Miss Taylor also strongly recommended fencing the three separate areas to enhance safety and thereby eliminating the need for three lifeguards. In response to Council, Miss Taylor recommended retaining the current facility for another year, noting the importance of continuing the summer camps, and keeping the pool open year-round if possible. Mr. Shirvanipour predicted a one-year delay would cause a minor cost increase as some material prices may rise. With regard to implementing membership fees, City Attorney Robert Pritt said it may be possible to charge residents from other neighborhoods such as Lake Park or the Moorings for using the pool although due to deed restrictions, no fee would be charged for River Park residents.

Consensus to delay demolition of existing pool, maintaining its operational status for coming year while continuing to research sources for funding, including fundraisers, for construction of approved design; and staff to also develop business plan for operation of pool.

Although Miss Taylor said her group would work with staff, Council Member Price urged that Council control the process and the project. Vice Mayor Sorey suggested using the recently


6


established Naples Dog Park as a fund-raising model, and asking for that group’s assistance in fund-raising. Council Member Saad recommended retaining the selected design, and identifying additional funding sources. City Manager William Moss said the business plan would be presented to Council in February. Public Comment: (10:13 a.m.) Willie Anthony, 599 14th Street North, expressed concurrence with the delay, although saying he had not yet discussed this with his community. 10:14 a.m. It is noted for the record that while consideration of Item 15 began prior to Item 6, discussion was suspended to allow Item 6 to begin at its scheduled time of 11:00 a.m. Item 15 is reflected in its entirety beginning on Page __ below. Recess: 10:47 a.m. to 11:02 a.m. It is noted for the record that the same Council Members were present when the meeting reconvened and consideration of Item 6 commenced. It is also noted Items 6-a and 6-b were read and considered concurrently. RESOLUTION 10-12820 ................................................................................................. ITEM 6-a A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPLES, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNDING OF THE FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT AREA; RATIFYING AND CONFIRMING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION; DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WILL BE SPECIALLY BENEFITED BY THE FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; ESTABLISHING THE METHOD OF ASSESSING THE COSTS OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST THE REAL PROPERTY THAT WILL BE SPECIALLY BENEFITED THEREBY; ESTABLISHING OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ASSESSMENTS; APPROVING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL; PROVIDING THE METHOD OF COLLECTION; DIRECTING THE PROVISION OF NOTICE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CLERK’S TRACKING #10-00044 ................................................................................... ITEM 6-b APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION TO ADMINISTER THE FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID). Title to the resolution under Item 6-a was read by City Attorney Robert Pritt who also introduced Item 6-b, an administrative agreement to be acted on by motion (11:02 a.m.). City Manager William Moss then explained that while business improvement and coordination activities had been discussed over approximately two years, this particular action dates back to a workshop meeting on October 18 when the Council authorized an initial assessment resolution which was adopted on November 3 to create the Fifth Avenue South Business Improvement District Assessment Area. Affected property owners were notified by mail of that day’s consideration of the final assessment resolution and of the opportunity for them to comment; in addition, two separate notifications were published in the Naples Daily News, he said. The initiative for this action by Council originated when a majority of property owners in the applicable district submitted a petition expressing support for creation of an assessment area in order for City government to raise funds to be administered by a not-for-profit corporation for the purposes of promoting and marketing and other similar activities within the special assessment area. Mr. Moss said that any member of the public with an interest in this action is entitled to address the Council in that regard. Mayor Barnett noted that several individuals had already registered to speak, pointing out the extent to which the Council had to date reviewed the proposal under consideration and indicating that extensive public input had already been received in writing, by phone and electronically. Nevertheless, he said, misinformation does exist within the public, expressing the hope that clarifications/corrections could be made so that a decision would be forthcoming. Council Member Heitmann said that due to her concern with regard to the methods used to enumerate properties, she wished to be given an opportunity to, along with another individual,


7


make a presentation to Council on that point. (It is noted for the record that photographs of the static display introduced in conjunction with this presentation, as well as supplemental documentation, are contained in the file for this meeting in the City Clerk’s Office.) Mrs. Heitmann introduced Lucy Pulling Finch, a tenant on Park Street (off Fifth Avenue South). Ms. Finch said she had expressed concern at a recent Planning Advisory Board (PAB) meeting that five individuals would be controlling the use of assessment district funds; however, she said she subsequently learned that it is in reality one property owner in control. She said that she had used governmental GIS (geographic information systems) maps to depict properties on the static display with individual folio numbers represented by pins of various colors. She said that ten properties (represented by a blue stripe) had been acquired by Granite Corporation from Jack Antaramian on June 27, 2007, for $71-million and represent 135 separate folio numbers in the 625 Building and therefore 135 votes. Another structure, the 780 Building, represents 235 folios/votes and, she asserted, controls all of Fifth Avenue South with regard to the business improvement district. At this point the Council discussed whether to allow this presentation to go forward beyond the three-minute time limit for public speakers. Mrs. Heitmann said that, despite extensive communications to date, she had determined that this display and presentation was the only means available to her to address with the Council issues of fairness in the petition process. Although Mrs. Heitmann indicated that she had worked on assembly of the information being conveyed, Council Member Saad expressed the opinion that a public presenter should be limited to the three minutes afforded others, and Mayor Barnett said that Council Member Heitmann herself should then be making the presentation. City Attorney Pritt opined that in instances such as this, the Mayor as presiding officer should make a determination, subject to being overruled by a majority of the Council. Mayor Barnett said that he would allow the presentation to go forward as long as no more than ten minutes had elapsed; however, he commented that City Council Members normally represent their own positions and do not use other individuals to do so. In the future, he added, he would not be inclined to allow it. Ms. Finch then continued her presentation by questioning that a majority of property owners had been achieved in October when a petition was presented to Council since the survey had been based on folio numbers, not numbers of individual properties or numbers of property owners which would have had the opposite result. She again referred to the 780 Building, stating that each folio number represented a portion thereof smaller than 100 square feet, each also representing a commercial condominium unit; Ms. Finch suggested that this might have been done by design to facilitate future control of Fifth Avenue South. She said that the aforementioned Granite Corporation owns 85% of the folios voting in favor of the assessment district while 9.5% of the folio number shown were against and 5.5% of the other folio numbers voted in favor. Therefore, Granite Corporation will retain control, regardless of the perspective of others in the district, she added. Ms. Finch further noted that Rod Castan (Courtelis Corporation), a member of the steering committee which had approached the City to establish the district, also serves as a marketer of Granite Corporation’s Fifth Avenue South properties; she asserted that he and other members of the committee had expressed the view that Fifth Avenue South is in need of being marketed as a unified brand. While there is a promotional need on Fifth, Ms. Finch questioned whether this would be the most effective way to approach it. She further stated that during the development process, no communication was disseminated beyond the steering committee. Further, Ms. Finch enumerated various other local projects being marketed by Courtelis and


8


questioned whether in some way the revenue generated by the proposed Fifth Avenue South assessment district might also benefit those properties. At this point City Attorney Pritt announced that, despite the legislative nature of this matter, the applicable statute refers to testimony and therefore an oath must be taken by those addressing Council. An oath was therefore administered with Ms. Finch affirming the truthfulness of both the testimony she had provided to that point and her future testimony. Council Member Finlay pointed out that money from the assessment could however be leveraged by group promotion and achieve an impact beyond that which could be achieved by a single advertiser. Ms. Finch however took the position that neither the articles of incorporation nor the bylaws of the proposed not-for-profit entity had to date provided assurances that the various businesses on Fifth Avenue South would be able to influence marketing decisions in any way. Vice Mayor Sorey however pointed out the extent of materials in the public record and the meeting hours which had already been devoted to the matter; he therefore asked Ms. Finch whether she was in need of further information. She said she questioned the benefit to individual merchants of any promotional program that was controlled by real estate, condominium interests and non-retail entities; in her estimation, therefore, this could affect the mix of businesses that would be found on Fifth Avenue South. Mr. Sorey however expressed the view that the group making the decision on promotional expenditures would nevertheless be diverse, in fact containing seven members. Ms. Finch nevertheless noted that there is a provision in the by-laws that allows this number to be reduced to three. If this were to occur, however, Council approval must be sought, Mr. Sorey noted. Council Member Heitmann then pointed out her continuing concern that a requirement for Council approval would be precluded by the fact that the articles of incorporation and bylaws are not included as exhibits to the not-for-profit entity’s agreement with the City. In response to Mayor Barnett, Mrs. Heitmann then said that while the staff had provided prompt answers to her questions, she did not deem the responses adequate for her purposes and reiterated that she had chosen to make a presentation as her only means of conveying information to her colleagues on Council. In response to Council Member Price, Mrs. Heitmann also indicated her disapproval of the process used to ascertain a majority of favorable votes and said that Charles Thomas, representing the steering committee, had told her that this was nevertheless the only means available, The City government rather than the steering committee, she said, should have been the source of information to property owners so as to confirm their concurrence with the process. Non-payment of an assessment could result in liens being filed or even loss of property, she pointed out. In response to Council Member Price, she confirmed that her preferred method of ascertaining a majority would be by a vote based on property ownership rather than folio number. Council Member Sulick observed that the concept of the business improvement district (BID) had been presented two years before by then-CRA Director Russ Adams to address issues of competition and an economic downturn. She said she believed the concept of branding was not to identify an area with a particular type of business but to project a sense of place as had been done by various large retail centers in the area. She said that Messrs. Quillen and Vlasho had then taken the concept to each tenant and landlord to explain positive benefits, including information from other cities such as Coral Gables; she therefore disputed any inference that the intent was a take-over of Fifth Avenue South but indicated that it was an effort merely to create a sense of place.


9


Vice Mayor Sorey asked City Attorney Pritt to confirm whether the method used of determining a majority of property owners in favor of the assessment district had, in fact, been legally sufficient. Mr. Pritt further recommended that the process of ascertaining a majority should be identified on the record, pointing out that the methodology utilized in this instance calls for a majority of property owners but does not define the term majority. He cited 170.07, Florida Statutes, which calls for the notice transmitted to property owners via mail to be based either on the records of the Property Appraiser or from other reliable sources. However, he stressed that it is a Council determination of policy as to the method used that can be certified as fair when all testimony is heard. Assistant City Manager Roger Reinke outlined the process as follows:

The process commenced over two years before with discussions between property owners, merchants, staff and City Council;

Enabling legislation was enacted by City Council to allow for neighborhood improvement districts to be formed under various State Statutes;

In October 2010 a group identified as a steering committee representing certain merchants and property owners on Fifth Avenue South approached the City in accordance with the concept of creating a business improvement district under Chapter 170, Florida Statutes;

The aforementioned steering committee presented petitions signed by a number of Fifth Avenue South property owners, those petitions representing 335 folio numbers (considered parcels) out of 445 folio numbers in the district, or 75.2%;

It was determined that each folio number is assigned to a property owner (Granite Naples, LLC, 780 is one property owner owning many folio numbers) and pays a separate tax bill;

An initial assessment resolution was approved by the City Council, and included in its discussions was the eventuality of an agreement for the management of the funds derived from the special assessment district through a not-for-profit corporation;

Council directed staff to dispatch a notice to property owners on Fifth Avenue South regarding a special workshop on November 15 dealing with the matter of the aforementioned agreement with the not-for-profit;

Subsequently staff contracted with a separate firm to supply a public notice to the owner of every folio number in the assessment district using the Property Appraiser data base; and

In addition, required public notice was published twice in the newspaper. (12:02 p.m.) It is noted for the record that a recess was called from 12:45 p.m. to 1:06 p.m. during the course of public comment; the same Council Members were present when the meeting reconvened except Council Member Heitmann who returned at 1:10 p.m. Public Comment: (12:02 p.m.) The following individuals spoke in favor of establishing the assessment district as proposed: Jeffrey Clapper, 303 Fifth Avenue South, representing Courtelis Corporation, asserted that, while his company supported the proposal, it was not involved in the origination thereof. Beth Ressler, 793 Fifth Avenue South, a member of the steering committee, said she believed that merchants would be receiving extensive value for the cost of the assessment. Rod Castan, 703 Waterford Way, Suite 800, Miami, Florida, Vice President of Courtelis Corporation, said that while his company managed properties for Granite Naples, LLC, the other properties represented in the area have different ownership. Michael Wynn 711-747 Fifth Avenue South, a member of the steering committee, characterized the proposed assessment as both a wise and necessary investment because


10


overall marketing power will greatly exceed that for which individual businesses could invest. Notification of the proposal was in fact thorough and proper, he said, and in response to Vice Mayor Sorey, expressed the belief that the assessment district can be dissolved at the behest of the property owners or the City. In response to Council Member Price, Mr. Wynn indicated that the method to establish the majority of property owners had been fair. Gloria Kovacs, 720 Fifth Avenue South, a business owner on Fifth Avenue South for 13 years, said that branding allows continuity of promotion of the various shops, as well as for businesses and entertainment on the street, and that development of the proposed assessment district had been thorough and collaborative. Skip Quillen, 837 Fifth Avenue South, expressed appreciation to City Council and also thanked those who served on and assisted with the steering committee, stressing that they are people of honor, and noting that the majority of business improvement districts are extended beyond their initial authorizations. Lou Vlasho, 700 Fifth Avenue South, expressed appreciation to other supporters with interests on Fifth Avenue South who could not be present; namely, Ed Morton, Don York, Jim Rideoutte, Frank Nappa, Joel Kessler, and Phil McCabe. He also apologized to supporters of BlackRock, Granite, and Courtelis who had been criticized, and stressed the extent of efforts undertaken to keep all informed. He recognized steering committee employee Charles Thomas for his contributions. Council Member Saad received confirmation from Mr. Vlasho that there is no authority given to the not-for-profit entity to dictate to businesses on Fifth Avenue South but only to coordinate promotions and activities. Charles Thomas, steering committee representative, clarified that since properties are defined by folio number, the steering committee did in fact obtain a majority of signatures representing folio numbers, or approximately 76% approval; however, testing that percentage based on assessed value of properties, regardless of size of property, resulted in a 71% approval. Mr. Thomas further explained that voting in the organization is however based on assessed value which reflects property owners’ financial participation. He said that he had been involved several years ago in the condominium projects which had been divided into multiple folio numbers intended to allow flexibility in aggregating various areas of the buildings. In further dialog, Council Member Saad said that he believed Mr. Thomas’ integrity had been attacked and asked him to provide a brief description of his background. Mr. Thomas said that he is trained as an urban planner and has lived in Naples 25 years. He said he could not confirm that a BID had been part of the recommendations of planning consultant Andres Duany with regard to Fifth Avenue South; however, planning consultant Robert Gibbs had later made that recommendation. Mr. Thomas also confirmed that he neither owns nor leases property on Fifth Avenue South but had been retained by the steering committee to coordinate the approval process. He also said he had represented his prior employer, Jack Antaramian, on the board of the voluntary association that encompassed Fifth Avenue South but this entity had had little success or formal organization. However, the proposed structure could go beyond hosting special events to determining what activities would benefit the street, he added, and suggested that the current Downtown Naples Association (DNA) might be a vehicle to encourage other commercial districts to look into business improvement organizations of their own. He then confirmed that prior bylaws and articles of incorporation had been substantially changed since the matter was first considered and that the current versions are more comparable to those used by the Coral Gables BID. Mr. Thomas also assured Council Member Saad that, as constructed, the proposed not-for-profit entity would not be able to dictate the operation of Fifth Avenue South businesses, including hours. Mr. Thomas then explained that a budget would be developed to fund administrative costs which had been estimated at approximately $287,000 per year based on the current level of assessments; he also stressed the need for a street management function, saying he did not have aspirations to fill that role.


11


Council Member Saad again asked Mr. Thomas to verify that the not-for-profit entity would have no control over the operation of businesses on Fifth Avenue South. Mr. Thomas said that the purview of the organization is limited to its purposes and funding, being unable to dictate the manner in which individual property owners handle their own funds and resources. (See also dialog with Council Member Heitmann below.) Other speakers making general comments were: Lois Bolin, 2826 Aintree Lane, urged that, in the interest of continuity, a standardized branding be used for all the commercial neighborhoods; however, she also recommended that research be conducted as to whether marketing, branding, etc., is actually the correct topic for the district under review. She further requested a determination of whether foreigners may serve on the board of the not-for-profit entity. Howard Hussa, attorney with Cummings & Lockwood, explained that he had prepared the corporate documents and pointed out that a non-for-profit corporation can be one of three types; namely, a 501(c)(3) which allows receipt of tax deductible contributions and qualifies the entity for grants as a charity, and two others less desirable types. The charitable nature of a 501(c)(3) in this instance resides in the entities ability to address community deterioration. He said that most BID’s which are not-for-profits are of the 501(c)(3) type. He responded to Vice Mayor Sorey to the effect that the steering committee believes that the application for 501(c)(3) status will be successful. Council Member Heitmann questioned the advisability of the City entering into an agreement with a not-for-profit entity that has not been established under the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) code. Mr. Hussa clarified that there are however two separate actions: entering into an agreement with the entity which would be established upon filing of corporate documents with the State of Florida, and the entity applying for 501(c)(3) status. In response to Council Member Saad, he said it would be more desirable that the aforementioned agreement contain a clause that allowed the corporation to achieve another IRS designation, such as a 501(c)(6), should the 501(c)(3) not be forthcoming. Mr. Saad acknowledged that this had been his drafting error and Sections 3.1 and 4.4 should both state “as a Not For Profit Corporation under the laws of the State of Florida and the rules and regulations of the Internal Revenue Service” (see motion below in conjunction with Item 6-b). City Attorney Pritt received confirmation from Mr. Hussa that the articles of incorporation could be filed immediately. Individuals speaking in opposition to the formation of an assessment district are: Gary Bogan, 663 Fifth Avenue South, asked why the tenants, to whom the cost of the assessment will be passed, had neither been involved nor notified in this process and predicted that businesses would leave Fifth as a result. Val Prince, 1485 Osprey Avenue, was critical of requiring property owners on Fifth Avenue South to be part of the not-for-profit entity and recommended that further reflection occur prior to establishing the assessment district such as determining whether properties included actually receive a special benefit, and recognizing that liens on properties can result from nonpayment of assessments. Jane Elliott, 640 Fifth Avenue South, characterized the steering committee’s proposal as too broad even though some type of overall marketing program is desirable. Virginia Condello, 6461 Sandalwood Lane, Fifth Avenue South property owner, claimed that she had not been formally notified of the special assessment district proposal. Also since the proposed assessment could come due in December, she would neither have an opportunity to budget for the expenditure nor had she discussed it with tenants. Linda Drogue, Comptroller of Reinco, Inc., building owner on Fifth Avenue South, expressed concern that the proposed structure of the not-for-profit entity is vague and could allow such things as high salaries to be paid from the revenues even though at the same time rents are being reduced to assist tenants who are struggling. Maria Furetta, Bellini Restaurant, opposed the proposal on the grounds that the structure of the assessment district is complex and costly and that the assessment must be paid for a period of ten years with no indication as to whether the amount will be subsequently raised. Kerry McCauley, 307 Goodlette Road South, said that as a long-time resident, she had struggled to understand the proposal even though she had attended meetings and researched the matter. She also


12


expressed concern about the questions which have arisen with regard to the petition process and warned that, once established, dissolution of the assessment district is not as uncomplicated as represented. Edward Morton, 600 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 210; David Bayer, 460-466 Fifth Avenue South; and Jim Hollars, 837 Fifth Avenue South; were not present when called. Following comments by the members of the public who had registered, Council Member Heitmann addressed Charles Thomas of the steering committee in clarification of her prior comment regarding the methodology for determining whether a majority of property owners are in favor of the assessment. There may have been one method favored by the steering committee, she said, although determination of the method rests with the City Council. Mr. Thomas reiterated the methodology which had been based on folio numbers; however, he again remarked that voting within the not-for-profit entity would be according to assessed value which is the same basis on which cost is assessed. However, he said that the City Council had agreed on November 3rd, coincident with the initial assessment resolution, to accept the folio-based methodology. In further dialog with Council Member Heitmann, Mr. Thomas said that the larger the assessment against a property, the greater the number of votes granted to that entity; he gave Phillip McCabe (Inn on Fifth) as the largest vote holder. Mrs. Heitmann said that this method is not necessarily appropriate to assure that all property owners have a voice. She further said that there had been no intent to impugn Mr. Thomas’ character in her earlier presentation by making reference to the holders of multiple folio numbers. Mrs. Heitmann further stated that the Fifth Avenue South property owners with whom she had communicated were not opposed to a business improvement district but were concerned with the structure being proposed and with the manner in which information had been conveyed by the steering committee, asking whether the committee could document the instances when property owners were contacted. Mr. Thomas pointed out however that the legal notice requirements are within the purview of the City, although at the origin of the process, meetings were held on the block level, leaflets distributed, and then follow-up contact by mail based on the Property Appraiser’s records to those who may not have attended a meeting. Mrs. Heitmann said that the City was in fact at fault in not making information available to the property owners. Mrs. Heitmann then raised the issue of the actual total amount of assessments which could be expected to be passed on to local tenants based on national figures presented for other business improvement districts. Mr. Thomas, however, pointed out that landlord-tenant relations differ, so assessments may or may not be passed on. Council Member Price then clarified that the approvals from the owners of the five Reinco, Inc., and M-P Realty properties, now in opposition, had been initially included in the total of approving votes. Mr. Thomas pointed out that this owner, Dr. Michael Meftah, continues to support the concept of a business improvement district but is opposed to the form presently under consideration; he also pointed out that neither had the aforementioned total been adjusted upward for affirmative votes received subsequently to the results being submitted to the City. Mr. Price said that his concern rests with a narrowing of the ratio of approval to disapproval. Additional registered speakers were then called upon. G. Russell Weyer, Fishkind & Associates, also a City resident, referred to a letter he had written on October 26 which dealt with the use of property values as a method for determining assessments in a business


13


improvement district. (It is noted for the record that this correspondence is contained in the file for this meeting in the City Clerk’s Office.) Mr. Weyer pointed out that the structure in Naples differs from the traditional business improvement district (BID) in that others are generally established for physical improvements. Therefore, he said that the form chosen locally is the best to fit the needs of the affected area, confirming that such a structure had been researched by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) of which he is a member. He further said that basing the benefit derived by individual properties on their assessed value comports with the level of income generated by those properties and accrues to a long term benefit to property owners. This method is reflected in the bylaws of the proposed not-for-profit entity. He further distinguished residential rentals, which would in fact derive a benefit from marketing, from those which are owner-occupied. In conclusion, he indicated that the boundaries established for the district reflect the area generally known as the Fifth Avenue South district; however, changes could be effected should it be determined that the benefit had changed. Council Member Heitmann ascertained that Mr. Weyer’s professional opinion had been solicited by the steering committee on a voluntary basis. However, Mrs. Heitmann said that the City should have engaged the services of a consultant to provide information on forms of organization other than merely reviewing the form proposed by the steering committee. Jim Smith, 791 Fifth Avenue South, expressed appreciation to the Council for the time devoted to this and other issues. He said that the cost of the assessment amounts to 3.5 cents per month per square foot; therefore, a 1,000 square foot unit would be required to pay $35 per month; this he characterized as a bargain. He said that the intent of the assessment district was to allow Fifth Avenue South to complete with other centers while retaining its own identity and restoring lost retail sales. The services that will be provided however would be valued at approximately $125 to $600 per month for individual merchants who would pay the aforementioned $35. As chair of the steering committee, he assured Council that no business or property owner had approached him for special treatment. He verified prior statements by Charles Thomas that, despite some changes among those voting for or against, the percentage given to the City remains static. Sue Smith, Fifth Avenue South property owner, commented that various economists do not believe the country will recover from current economic recession in the near future and cited the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as another factor in difficulties for businesses on Fifth. Now, she said, an additional tax will be imposed on property owners and tenants, despite issues that remain with regard to a vagueness in the structure of how the funds will be administered. She said that the local version does not comport with the traditional BID and expressed the view that information provided to the public on this type of structure had not been adequate. Mrs. Smith also said that while some individuals had been accused of generating misinformation, this could be attributed to the lack of factual information that had been forthcoming from the City. She further took issue with the ten-year time frame over which the assessment district will be imposed on property owners on Fifth Avenue South, as well as the potential for a ten-year renewal. In conclusion, Mrs. Smith said that imposing a structure on businesses in this manner infringes on their freedom to conduct their activities in the way they see fit. Ed Barsamian, Café Luna, asked the Council to convey its approval on the assessment district and related items, pointing out that his establishment would pay only $10 per week for the benefits to be derived from the marketing and management proposed which would amount to a $300,000 per year annual marketing program. He cited the newly installed lighting and landscaping and noted that promotion is not needed to attract customers to the area. John Passidomo, 821 Fifth Avenue South, indicated that while he had served as volunteer, pro-bono attorney to the steering committee, his comments were generated from his position as an office tenant on Fifth Avenue South, having recently extended his least to 2021. He said his firm supports the assessment district as a means of ensuring the overall health of the City’s downtown. This represents a collective effort by the private sector which is impossible for businesses to accomplish individually, he said, nor


14


should the City of Naples be expected to accomplish the branding needed for Fifth Avenue South. He urged support for the action as proposed. In response to Council Member Saad, Mr. Passidomo said that he did not feel that the not-for-profit entity would exercise undue control over the operation of individual businesses, pointing out that it was expressly proscribed under the proposed agreement with the City and the corporate documents. Furthermore, he noted, the property owners become members of the not-for-profit corporation, governed by a seven-member board, four members who are land owners and three of whom are to be merchants. He also confirmed that the members would elect a board of directors which would engage the services of an executive director. Council Member Heitmann further received assurances that should the not-for-profit entity not conduct itself in accordance with the covenants of the agreement between it and the City, the entity no longer enjoys the authority so delegated. Mrs. Heitmann asked how the City would be advised should the number of directors on the board be changed by the entity, and Mr. Passidomo said that every year the entity is to certify that it has abided by its agreement with the City. Mr. Passidomo also clarified for Mrs. Heitmann that his being identified as the sole incorporator in the application for incorporation was merely for filing purposes and that management of the entity would be immediately turned over to the board of directors. Attorney Hussa also noted that Section 8 of the revised bylaws of the not-for-profit entity establishes that the method of amendment of the bylaws and articles of incorporation requires City Council approval when the powers to amend are exercised as they relate to the composition of the board of directors. City Manager Moss confirmed that the bylaws, as amended, and articles of incorporation are in the City records and had been provided to the Council. (It is noted for the record that these items are however not contained in the file for this meeting.) Mr. Hussa also confirmed that there are federal and state requirements that not-for-profit entities like the one under consideration make their articles of incorporation and bylaws available to their members and directors. Attorney Passidomo said that the steering committee would agree to post these items on the entity’s web site. Wafaa Assaad, 649 Fifth Avenue South, spoke about the average square footage represented by folio numbers. He said that he had first opposed the concept of a business improvement district, but with a 40% decline in his income, he had reconsidered and now supports the proposal. Property owners and tenants, he said, share in the results of decision making and need the further professional assistance that will be provided. He urged Council’s support. Recess: 2:28 p.m. to 2:42 p.m. It is noted for the record that the same Council Members were present when the meeting reconvened and consideration of Item 6 continued. Council Member Saad moved approval of the final assessment resolution (Item 6-a), seconded by Council Member Sulick, after which Council engaged in additional discussion. Council Member Price expressed his support for the concept of business improvement districts, and pointed out that the action contemplated had resulted from a petition by property owners in 2009 when the Council enacted general enabling legislation. He expressed confidence that Fifth Avenue South and the redevelopment district in its transition would both be benefitted. He said that he however did not concur with establishing an approval majority through the use of folio numbers and cited recent communications from property owners calling this majority into doubt. He therefore recommended reconfirming the position of those property owners who had voted in favor. Vice Mayor Sorey received clarification from City Attorney Pritt that the City can select the date on which an assessment begins and could dispatch bills to property owners accordingly, either in full or for whatever portion of the year the district was in effect. Vice Mayor Sorey observed that often members of the public who are initially opposed to an action later find it to be beneficial, citing the extensive effort that had already been devoted to the proposal and predicting that if it proves unsuccessful, the larger property owners who are


15


also the largest investors will the first to abolish it. Nevertheless, it is critical that there be wide participation from all sectors of Fifth Avenue South, he said, and indicated his support in the hope that concerns can be proven unfounded. He expressed appreciation to the steering committee members for their efforts and clarified for Val Prince, a prior public speaker, that he had ascertained that Mr. Prince’s tenant is in favor of the business improvement initiative. In response to Council Member Price, Mr. Sorey said that, based on assertions by City Attorney Pritt, the folio method of ascertaining a majority is a reasonable one, although there had also been testimony that basing the majority on appraised value would also substantiate a favorable result. Messrs. Sorey and Price then engaged in a dialog with regard to the merits of decision making in the assessment district based either on one vote per property or numbers of votes based on the valuation of the property. Assistant City Manager Roger Reinke pointed out that buildings containing condominiums could either be counted based on the building or the number of owners therein, stating that this is the type of question that had prevailed throughout the process. Council Member Finlay said that, regardless of the computation method, it had been demonstrated that a majority of property owners favor the proposed initiative, pointing out that some larger cities have multiple BID’s. This he said would alleviate pressure from interests who may look to the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) for marketing costs, leaving CRA (tax increment financing/TIF) to be used for capital expenditures. He also cited the potential for small businesses to leverage marketing expenditures to which the larger properties had made a greater contribution. He also however acknowledged the contributions to the dialog on the part of the opposition, but also thanked the members of the steering committee for their work. If successful, this model may generate others within the community, he said, confirming his support. Council Member Heitmann said that while there is nearly unanimous support for a business improvement district, concerns on her part and on the part of others is that the process has been flawed through utilization of folio numbers to compute support. Doubt with regard to future governance of the assessment district is also a concern, she said, and noted what she described as a failure to devote sufficient energy to allay the concerns of many who have testified that they had not been included in the process. The City, she said, had also not undertaken the necessary due diligence in this matter, both to assure fairness and thoroughness of background research and to prevent the process from being flawed. Council Member Sulick said she had been involved in this effort for over two years and expressed confidence that the agreement between the City and the not-for-profit entity provided sufficient safeguards to assure proper City oversight. The property owners on Fifth Avenue South will be given a greater latitude in their own destinies without government interference, she added, citing the length of time required for the CRA to accomplish the Fifth Avenue South lighting project as symptomatic of government involvement. Business, conversely, must be agile to react quickly, and the proposal under consideration is a response to the need for business to gain ownership of its destiny, Mrs. Sulick said. Regardless of the value of the properties, all will benefit from the effort. In conclusion, she said that she supported both the goal and the method used to ascertain approval of a majority. Council Member Saad expressed the view that, even as a citizen initiative, the process had been fully open and investigated, including the number of hearings held by the City such as a special workshop apart over and above the regular approval process.


16


City Manager Moss then noted for the record that all affected property owners had been mailed a notice; even the one public speaker who had indicated that no notice had been sent had subsequently confirmed that a letter had in fact been received. This, he said, is the official notification required for adoption of the final assessment resolution as opposed to other notifications earlier in the process. There also had been no testimony to the effect that the method of assessment was inequitable, most testimony instead reflecting on the fairness of the petition process. In conclusion, Mr. Moss said that no testimony was received that there had been any errors in the folio numbers or the identification of properties being assessed. Council Member Heitmann asked Mr. Moss to estimate the number of occasions on which he had met with the steering committee during the course of this process. He said that he had attended approximately three meetings prior to receipt of the petitions after which there were numerous meetings. He also confirmed for Mrs. Heitmann that he had not however met with a group consisting of property owners or tenants. Council Member Price said that, as a tenant on Fifth Avenue South, he had observed the process whereby members of the steering committee had exerted considerable effort to contact businesses and undertake research into the establishment of a business improvement district. He stressed that the process had been fair, even though he had challenged the calculation of the percentages of those in favor. He indicated his support.

MOTION by Saad to APPROVE RESOLUTION 10-12820 as submitted; seconded by Sulick and carried 6-1, all members present and voting (Finlay-yes, Heitmann-no, Price-yes, Saad-yes, Sorey-yes, Sulick-yes, Barnett-yes).

Council Member Saad noted the need to make a non-substantive change in the agreement. He recommended that Article 1.3 under “Term” should be removed to Article 9, “Default and Termination.” He also recommended that Article 3.1 be amended as follows: “The Fifth Avenue BID Corporation herein covenants that it has been established as a Not-For-Profit Corporation, validly formed under Section 501(c)(3) of the laws of the State of Florida or the statutes, rules and regulations of the United States Internal Revenue Service and that it shall maintain such status during the life of the Agreement.”. This change, Mr. Saad indicated, should result in Article 3.1 mirroring the language already in Article 4.4. Council Member Price referred to Article 3.2 and expressed the desire that one of the four property owner representatives on the board of directors be selected from the minority rather than the larger, majority property owners. Vice Mayor Sorey concurred and Council Member Sulick also recommended that the three tenants on the board represent small, medium and large entities. In further dialog with Charles Thomas, representing the steering committee, Mr. Price read the following language on which he said he and Mr. Thomas had conferred: “A majority property shall be defined as a property included in the group of properties having the largest special assessment and in the aggregate constituting 50% of the total special assessment amount. At all times at least one of the directors must be an affected property owner who is not the owner of a majority property.” It was determined that this text would be undergo legal review and then be inserted in Article 3.2 immediately before the last sentence, “Changes to this structure shall be subject to City Council approval.” City Attorney Pritt concurred and noted the assent of the other attorneys present who were acting on behalf of the steering committee. Mr. Thomas said that the definition of majority owner should also be inserted in the applicable section of the bylaws.


17


In further discussion, City Attorney Pritt asked whether Council wished to consider a concern raised by Council Member Heitmann with regard to division of assets should the not-for-profit entity be dissolved; in particular, he cited instances where assets may have claims against them due to long-term debt. Mrs. Heitmann further noted that clarifications were needed to address an instance when public and private funds may be comingled, particularly it is related to long-term debt. Attorney Howard Hussa, representing the steering committee, noted that any debt must be satisfied prior to distribution of any moneys to either private of public entities upon liquidation of the not-for-profit entity. He also pointed out that public funds received are to be to used for specific purposes and, should the not-for-profit go out of existence, those funds must nevertheless be expended for the purposes identified.

MOTION by Saad to APPROVE THIS ITEM amending as discussed above; seconded by Finlay and carried 6-1, all members present and voting (Finlay-yes, Heitmann-no, Price-yes, Saad-yes, Sorey-yes, Sulick-yes, Barnett-yes).

Following the vote, Council Member Sulick noted that in Article 4.4 it is stated that the City Council is the determining body when it comes to the rate at which people in the district will be assessed, as included in an annual assessment resolution. Recess: 3:44 p.m. to 3:53 p.m. It is noted for the record that the same Council Members were present when the meeting reconvened and discussion of Item 15 resumed. Although discussion began prior to Item 6 above and continued (see consensus below), its consideration is reflected in its entirety below. LAND USE / SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (continued/see below) ........................... ITEM 15 DISCUSSION OF LAND USE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF AMENDMENT. (10:14 a.m.) City Attorney Robert Pritt explained that State requirements for subdivisions and the need for clarity in the City’s requirements had prompted this review; any amendments would be reviewed by the Planning Advisory Board (PAB) prior to actual adoption, he added. Therefore, he said that a draft ordinance had been provided which included amendments regarding definitions and those outlined in the memorandum dated October 28 by Planning Director Robin Singer (Attachment 1), highlighting the proposed administrative process for a minor subdivision, and recommending that the application process regarding plats be removed from the Code of Ordinances and perhaps draft a resolution to address the requirements stated therein. Additionally, he noted modern platting which delineates between the ground and structures on the ground, which may be platted differently, such as zero lot lines, air rights, and ground leasing, as contained in Chapter 177, Florida Statutes. Ms. Singer then provided a brief overview of these amendments. In response to Council Member Price, Ms. Singer confirmed that some of the administrative approval amendments had been driven by repeated requests from petitioners, especially with regard to zero lot lines and fee simple ownership for townhouse owners wishing to avoid the condominium process. Some had merely wished a means of selling a unit within an already developed parcel but would need to seek a PD Planned Development or variance to do so, she added. Mr. Price indicated that he could not support administrative approvals as he believed such considerations should be made by Council in a public meeting. Public Comment: (10:44 a.m.) Homer Scofield, 215 fifth Street South, explained that he lives in a two-family duplex of which he owns an undivided one/half. The property is three year old and built as a duplex, divided by a wall dividing it into the two halves; formerly it was three separate lots, he added. Should he and the other owner be allowed to divide it into two separate fee simple titles (as the draft ordinance would allow), each could have a clear title to their property, enabling mortgages to be obtained and increase marketability, he said. The proposal (a copy of the site plan is contained in the file for this meeting in the City Clerk’s Office)


18


would not increase density nor the footprint of the structures and the City would benefit more from fee simple ownership rather than condominium ownership, he said, urging that Council support the proposed amendments. (3:53 p.m.) Council then discussed the origin of its direction to staff to examine possible revisions in the subdivision regulations. Council Member Sulick expressed a desire to strengthen the requirements to avoid results which may change the character and complexion of neighborhoods. Vice Mayor Sorey also referred to the discussion of Item 15 earlier in the meeting during which a resident had cited a need to make provision for fee simple ownership of a unit in a small condominium. Mrs. Sulick nevertheless spoke against refining the Code of Ordinances to deal with individual cases. Mr. Sorey said that his intent had however been to assist citizens who might be responding to changing conditions in the real estate market. Council Member Price took the position that it continues to be the responsibility of the Council to hear individual subdivision proposals in an open, public forum rather than amending the Code to instead allow for further administrative review. Planning Director Robin Singer pointed out that there is no provision at the present time that would allow petitioners to request a lot split for existing condominium type units unless it is via a variance request with regard to setbacks, or a PD (Planned Development) rezone as had occurred in the recent past. City Attorney Robert Pritt noted that the current variance procedure would allow for petitions to be processed through Council in this manner. Planning Director Singer, however, maintained that an amendment may be desirable that would allow minor lot splits or minor subdivisions to come directly to the Council without requiring the full-blown Planning Advisory Board (PAB) process. Ms. Singer also reviewed with Council the new proposed Section 54-4(b)(6) which would require that a new perimeter plat encompass approvals granted in the subdivision process. She also recommended review of existing language for consistency with state law. Public Comment: (4:15 p.m.) None.

Consensus to continue discussion of Item 15 to January 18, 2011 workshop.

FIVE-YEAR GENERAL FUND SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS (continued/see below). ITEM 16 DISCUSSION OF THE FIVE-YEAR GENERAL FUND SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS. (4:15 p.m.) Vice Mayor Sorey asked that staff provide suggestions for addressing the projected $3-million shortfall in 2011-12 in order to maintain the current millage rate. Council concurred. Public Comment: (4:40 p.m.) None.

Consensus to continue this item to January 18, 2011 workshop. FIVE-YEAR CRA SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS (continued/see below) ..................... ITEM 17 DISCUSSION OF THE FIVE-YEAR CRA / COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS. (4:21 p.m.) Public Comment: (4:21 p.m.) None.

Consensus to continue this item to January 18, 2011 workshop. PUBLIC COMMENT ....................................................................................................................... 4:21 p.m.) None. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS......................................................................... (4:21 p.m.)


19


ADJOURN ...................................................................................................................................... 4:42 p.m. ______________________________

Bill Barnett, Mayor Minutes prepared by: ______________________________ Tara A. Norman, City Clerk _______________________________ Jessica Rosenberg, Deputy City Clerk __________________________________ Vicki L. Smith, Technical Writing Specialist Minutes Approved: 01/19/11

City Council Regular Meeting – December 15, 2010 – 8:29 a.m. Attachment 1 / Page 1 of 1

20


City Council Chamber - Naples, Florida

Documents

Transcript of City Council Chamber - Naples, Florida