Executive Session
ATTORNEY/CLIENT SESSION
DUNNELLON CITY COUNCIL
RE:
Pending Appeal of the Department of
Community Affairs Notice of
Non-Compliance of the City of
Dunnellon Comprehensive Plan
Amendment according to the
Rainbow River Ranch property,
DATE: JUNE 26, 2006
TIME: 6:40 P.M.
PLACE: DUNNELLON CITY HALL
BEFORE: MARLA DIEFFENWIERTH, COURT REPORTER
APPEARANCES: J. THEODORE SCHATT, ESQUIRE
MATEER & HARBERT
7 EAST SILVER SPRINGS BLVD., 2ND FLOOR
OCALA, FL 34470
and STEVEN R. BECHTEL, ESQUIRE
MATEER & HARBERT
P. O. BOX 2854
ORLANDO, FL 32802
ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: MAYOR JOHN TAYLOR
VICE-MAYOR PEARLIE LANGFORD
COUNCILMAN CHARLES GRANT
COUNCILWOMAN MARY ANN HILTON
COUNCILMAN JIM PATTERSON
CITY MANAGER ED ERICSON
MR. SCHATT: The reason for calling this
closed session tonight is DCA and Rainbow River Ranch
appear to be coming close to terms that they can both
live with.
MR. BECHTEL: And FDEP.
MR. SCHATT: And FDEP. As we discussed in the
last meeting the issue between FDEP and DCA which
brings them together objecting to the comp plan appears
to be the dock issue and not wanting to section off a
number of pieces of property and give the individual
owners who buy those pieces riparian rights and then
essentially greenlighting docks for all of those
parcels.
Again that's me reading the tea leaves and what we
seem to be hearing. However, they're all coming
together at this point to potentially get together on
some language. We need to ask you some questions about
that language to make sure that we can be comfortable
with what they're doing.
Now would be the time to tell them that that's
not something we're interested in if that's the case.
So with that in mind I will turn over to Steve the
substance of that language.
MR. BECHTEL: Okay. The document that you have
in front of you, which is titled Comprehensive Plan
Text Amendments Draft 5/1/06, I know it seems like a
long time ago but this was the last draft I have been
provided. As late as Friday I spoke to Leslie Bryson
who is the attorney for the Department of Community
Affairs. She told me that the DCA was satisfied with
the language.
They were still waiting for final okay from FDEP
and maybe some fine tuning of the edit to this
language. This morning I received a copy of an E-mail
from Bob Bradshaw I believe who's the lobbyist at
Rainbow River Ranch hired on their behalf to work with
the DCA and DEP. I'll just read it to you. A few
minutes ago I met with Colleen Casteel, DEP secretary
and Dina Repen and Sally Mann.
They have added language to the Comp. Plan
Amendment that if we accept will settle this case.
Colleen asserted this would conclusively resolve DCA's
concerns and allow you to apply for permits for up to
37 boat slips including the desired number along the
river. The most significant change is that it would
require for you to apply for permit simultaneously and
receive the permit prior to conveying the lots.
Upon employing, the rationale for this provision
is that it will not create in future individual owners,
the expectation that they will receive a dock permit in
precisely the configuration they desire including the
seawall or retaining wall. Colleen seems content with
allowing the docks to be permitted so long as the
native vegetation is preserved to the maximum extent
feasible.
She said this project will become a de facto
template for new development along the river and she
wants to get it right. Mark, I'm faxing revised
drafts applied by FDEP. I need to let DEP know if
these changes are acceptable.
I tried to get that fax and I didn't get it today
but I think the gist of it is probably in the very last
paragraph of the last page here on this document we
handed out to you.
It's kind of difficult to follow. Not familiar
with the strike-throughs and the underlines but it
refers to the fact that there may be allowed a maximum
number of 37 boat slips and one boat ramp. They will
be for the exclusive use of the residents and the
significant part is the very last part.
The developer understands that this land use
amendment does not authorize or otherwise guarantee the
number and location of boat slips or boat ramps or
other in-water structures and that the approval of
permits and sovereignty of submerged lands or
authorizations for these activities, these structures
are subject to and it refers to the statute and the
regulations so what they're saying is they might get
37, 12 or fifteen.
But they have a chance to apply for them.
There's no guarantee they'll get them. I think the
change I read you from the E-mail this morning is
saying that the DEP wants the developer to get those
permits so when they sell a lot the permit will go with
the sale and buyer will already have the permit and it
wouldn't be unreasonable expectation that the buyer
might be able to get which I think certainly will be
favorable to you all probably.
So that's the paragraph I wanted to focus on.
The way I see this, if we can reach a settlement
agreement, which you would still have to approve but if
we could reach one that's basically what's in here
tonight and plus this additional language before the
mediation then we could cancel mediation and not have
that expense or we could reschedule and not have that
expense of going through the mediation.
Then we could come back here to get your
approval for settlement agreement. If we're not that
close we'll have to go ahead with the mediation because
it's coming right up on July thirteenth.
In any event I wanted to have this meeting so
you could authorize the Mayor or give the Mayor some
direction if you do have to go to mediation on what you
think you might want to approve.
We have to bring it back to you for final
approval anyway. We can't bind you until you have
mediation. So that's the paragraph I think we have to
focus on.
MR. ERICSON: And mediation I'm sure that this
paragraph is going to come up to begin with.
MR. BECHTEL: It will --
MR. ERICSON: So that putting it aside is not
going to make it go away.
MR. BECHTEL: No.
MR. ERICSON: Or bring it to another point of
focus? This evidently is the point of focus and I
guess what we've been saying all along is that the city
never has had the right to authorize dock facilities
out there. It has always been the purview of DCA and I
think this language certainly brings out the point
where the city still, nor the developer would have any
guarantee and it would seem to me that if the developer
has no guarantee, nor does -- or the city doesn't have
a guarantee to begin with, then it's right where it
belongs, back in the hands of this organization who can
see what, if any, are going to be the destructive, what
destruction would do or overcrowding of ramp facilities
on that. I mean to me this looks like it's -- it's
pretty close to what we started with.
MR. BECHTEL: I think there would be some very
stringent review in light of the fact the E-mail says
they are going to make this the test case so they're
going to be very, very careful on what they permit --
they really are.
Now another thing I need to say, I'm sure you
know we had three petitions to intervene in this case.
One from the Rainbow River Conservation, Inc. One from
Nicolette St. Clair and one from a Margaret McLaughlin
-- sorry, Longhill -- Longhill.
Those petitions were dismissed by the
administrative law judge. He said that they did not
legally show their right to intervene. He gave them
until Friday to file amended petitions.
The sticky point is in order to have the right to
intervene in a proceeding like this you have to have
appeared at your transmittal hearing and made yourself
-- asserted your right to have an interest in the
proceeding.
I don't think any of them did that so they can't
really establish the legal standing anyway but in his
order the judge also said that if they wanted to file
their amended petition they had to ask counsel, Ted and
I and Clark Stillwell and Leslie Bryson of the DCA if
we oppose or would not oppose their amended petition,
so you have to make that decision so I can give some
direction.
Doctor or Mr. Eno, whichever it is, called me
about three o'clock this afternoon before I left the
office and wanted to know if I was going to oppose the
amended petition.
I said, well, I'll let you know as soon as the
City Council tells me. Frankly at this late stage in
these negotiations we don't need any additional
parties.
MS HILTON: I would beg to comment on that. We
have an intervenor in the form of someone who has a
great deal to benefit financially from and we have gone
out of our way as a city, it would appear to me, to
prevent the citizens of this city from intervening.
I understand that we were asked, either we were
asked to or we asked of the gentleman, or the
organization that is listed as an intervenor that we
cooperated with writing that draft and presenting it.
I think that all of us that sit on the City
Council have a moral, and I thought a legal obligation
to represent the people of this city. And while having
more than -- more people intervening is an
inconvenience, the people that live in the city and are
very much affected by what happens to that river should
be recognized at that and contrary to what the -- I
can never remember the website, DCOAH said on its
website, these people have appeared before this Council
numerous times.
They have taken an active interest in what is
going on. They have done a great deal of research and
they have a very important part in this process and for
the city to work at denying them access to be
intervenors I would find to be contrary to what our
city code of ethics and conduct called for, not to
mention we are supposed to represent the citizens.
We are supposed to give them input into what goes
on and that may not be popular at this particular point
but it is still an expectation of the citizens and I do
not for one feel that the city should be denying them
the right to intervene. It is important to them, they
do have a material interest in it.
They've always taken that part of the citizenship
very seriously. They have appeared. They have done a
great deal of research.
I do not think it is a good idea to take that
away from our citizens and anybody that wants to be
reelected -- no, that's out of line. It would appear
to me to be a very counterproductive move.
MR. BECHTEL: One another alternative. First
of all, if they have the legal right under the statute
to intervene the judge will allow them to intervene so
they can assert in their amended petition that they
were -- did speak in the process, then they'll be
entitled to intervene. One alternative is just to tell
Ted and I not to take any position. Not to oppose or
favor. We can do that.
MS HILTON: Actually I'd prefer you took the
position of favoring.
MR. BECHTEL: That's for y'all to tell me what to
do but I could tell them you take no position.
MS HILTON: Because I believe they have a right
both -- a moral right to be allowed to do that.
MR. GRANT: What would be the effect, let's say
that we do allow them, then how would that affect the
process?
MR. BECHTEL: It would be the Judge's decision
whether they can intervene or not but they would just
be additional parties at the table to negotiate this
document. For instance, they could come to the
mediation and participate in the mediation if his order
was entered before mediation occurred.
So we'd have at least three more, if all three of
them file amended petitions. We could have who knows
how many more try to file petitions so it would be
more people at the table, more voices to be heard.
MR. SCHATT: And when those voices are heard if a
concensus is not reached at mediation we will proceed
on through the process. You cannot have the three
parties that are in there now agreeing to something
with additional parties in saying no and come out of it
with a mediated settlement agreement.
MR. BECHTEL: Actually Ted, we could -- while
they would be intervenors, they aren't primary parties.
They can't block the ultimate decision that might be
made between the DCA and the city.
They can't block it. But they can certainly
participate in the process. They have to take the
proceedings as they find them as intervenors.
MS HILTON: That was my point. It gives them the
right to be heard.
MR. BECHTEL: It does.
MS HILTON: And I believe as citizens of the city
and residents in this immediate area who are affected
by what happens to that river, I believe that they
should have that right.
MR. GRANT: But on the other hand it doesn't give
them any authority over any other citizens. I mean,
just because they're there because they've gone through
and filed the paperwork and they're speaking, the
decision is still being made by the same individuals
whether they're there or not.
MR. BECHTEL: That's correct.
MR. GRANT: Okay.
MR. ERICSON: I guess one of the questions I would
ask would they be speaking on behalf of themselves,
would they be speaking on behalf of whom?
MR. BECHTEL: Well, there are two individuals.
Longhill and St. Clair and then there's this
organization, corporation, Rainbow River Conservetion,
I'm sure you know it better than I do. And --
MS HILTON: I don't know if I need at this point
because it's a legal proceeding to disclose that I'm a
member of that organization and have been for a number
of years.
MR. TAYLOR: I think you also need to disclose
the petition that was circulated around that you
assisted in.
MS HILTON: I did not assist in any petition.
MR. TAYLOR: You weren't at the Boomtown Days
circulating --
MS HILTON: I was there as a representative of
that organization giving information about that
organization. I did not touch, speak to or in any way,
shape or form have anything to do with that petition --
MR. PATTERSON: I would like to ask at this time
if any money has been given to that organization by
Councilwoman Hilton.
MS HILTON: I pay ten dollars a year dues to it
and have since before I moved to Dunnellon.
MR. TAYLOR: I think we all need to air out what
our positions are on this and I think Councilwoman
Hilton stated hers. I feel that all of these parties
have been at all of our public hearings. They have
expressed their concerns, their displeasure on certain
items.
We had several public hearings, we put them all
up on a bulletin board and on a board. We found out
what was really important to everybody.
Everybody come to a conclusion and then they come
to an agreement. Then after that agreement's reached
then all of a sudden they're not satisfied with this
agreement, they want more. They want more.
Next thing was wood duck houses. One time
it's the docks. Next time it's gopher tortoises. It's
a constant, constant I'm calling it a bitch session but
all they're doing is -- their agenda is to stop the
development, period.
MS HILTON: I would disagree with you there.
MR. TAYLOR: Wait a minute now.
MS HILTON: It's not to stop development.
MR. TAYLOR: It's my opinion that it is their
interest to stop the development. Now I think through
all the public hearings they've had their say. We on
the Council have listened to them.
Now if Council decides as a whole to go ahead and
let the three parties act as intervenors, so be it but
I don't think that they have a standing and I think we
ought to continue on with our -- I want to discuss
some of the items in this amendment here.
But as far as the intervenors I don't think they
should have a standing.
MR. SCHATT: Do we want to table the intervenors
until we get discussion on the substance or do we want
to continue on talking about the intervenors?
MR. GRANT: Let's go through this.
MR. BECHTEL: Want to take it page by page, Mayor?
MS HILTON: There's one problem in doing that that
I see right quick and that is that we do not have with
us or at least I don't and I don't see anybody else
with it with the DCA's notice of intent so that we can
review this in relation to the notice of intent so that
we know what the objections were and whether or not
this is likely to meet the objections that the DCA
listed. Do we have one out there or should we go
get our copy --
MR. BECHTEL: Certainly welcome to do that but
I'll represent to you that this came to me from the DCA
lawyer with representation that this was satisfactory
to DCA. The only thing she was not sure about was was
it satisfactory with DEP.
That's who we've been waiting to hear from and
that's why I got this E-mail this morning, I think DEP
is now probably going to add some fine tuning to the
language but I think the substance of everything has
been addressed. That's what's being represented to me.
This came from the DCA lawyer, I didn't --
MS HILTON: I have not the world's best memory
but this particular piece of property has been through
a great -- in conjunction with the city has been
through a great deal and the last time a stipulated
agreement was reached at least two of the people that
sat on the Council felt that they had been misdirected
to put it in its most polite terms and I have just --
I would be more comfortable if I can be excused long
enough to go out and get that. Thank you.
MR. PATTERSON: I'd like to get excused to get my
copy. I thought I had it with me.
MR. BECHTEL: I apologize for not bringing them.
You might want to wait until they get back.
MR. TAYLOR: You need to go to the bathroom? Go
ahead. Let's go off the record.
MS LANGFORD: Thank you.
MR. SCHATT: Ms Langford stepped out for a moment
so we're off the record. Oh, you know what, we're not
allowed to go off the record.
MR. BECHTEL: Well, in a sense it's like you're
suspending questioning in a deposition, that's
allright.
MR. PATTERSON: I'm glad I didn't start swearing.
MS HILTON: Could I borrow yours to make a copy of
it?
MR. PATTERSON: I didn't have my --
MR. SCHATT: I think actually we should be taking
all this to be honest with you, especially with
tensions the way they are.
MR. BECHTEL: That's probably true. Don't have
any gaps.
MR. LANGFORD: It's okay now to go ahead.
MR. TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. GRANT: Let me ask just a question real quick.
So you're saying that this document that you received
supersedes any previous report from DCA?
MR. BECHTEL: Well, it addresses the notice that
Councilwoman is referring to.
MS HILTON: I don't have the notice of intent
with me.
MR. BECHTEL: So that it meets, addresses the
objections that the DCA had.
MR. GRANT: So in other words, this is the most
current position of DCA.
MR. BECHTEL: Yes, sir.
MR. GRANT: So previous positions are really
of no consequence at this point -- they've addressed
it in this document.
MR. BECHTEL: Yes, that's correct.
MS HILTON: They've addressed them but I would
doubt that they are of no consequence.
MR. GRANT: Well, it certainly is of no
consequence to DCA, they have addressed it and this is
their position.
MR. BECHTEL: That's my understanding.
MR. TAYLOR: I can if you want me to,
Councilwoman Hilton, go into my desk drawer and
pull out the information that you're looking for.
MS HILTON: I would appreciate that very much.
(The Mayor is now gone from the room and returns).
MR. BECHTEL: Just to help you, strike-throughs
are language being deleted and the bold or underlined
language is being added, if that helps you read it. It
gets probably difficult to read, so much of that in one
paragraph.
MS HILTON: I'm looking at the number of docks
that they can apply for which they can apply for any
number they want under the law. When this whole thing
was discussed in front of Council we were hearing a
number somewhere in the order of a third of what is on
this sheet of paper now. They were talking about 22 to
24 homes with one dock for every other home shared
dockage.
(The Mayor is now present).
MR. SCHATT: And that is in large part the reason
why we are here is to be able to carry a message back
to these negotiations as to what --
MR. PATTERSON: I'm looking for the Comprehensive
Plan.
MR. SCHATT: As we were here --
MS HILTON: I would find this abominable. The idea
the city started out with was to decrease or hold to an
extreme minimum the number of docks and this increases
it by three times.
MR. ERICSON: I think the language I see here is
that 37 boat slips may be requested rather than
permitted.
MR. BECHTEL: That's correct.
MR. ERICSON: I think there's a difference.
MS HILTON: They can request anything, they're
saying they're not going to request more than 37 but if
they're requesting it and the DCA gives it to them is
that what the city wants and I believe that's what the
lawyer's asking us.
We made an extreme point in the Council meetings
of saying that we did not want a string of docks
particularly in the narrows on the river.
We also made a point of saying we did not want
the -- what is conservation area which is now
considered -- they've changed its name, but the area
down near that cove, that's all wetland area.
And when this was advertised, the wetlands
weren't in it. And then when it came out in this the
wetlands -- I pulled -- all this stuff I pulled up off
my computer because I wanted to be at least somewhere
near informed on what was going on.
This is a copy of the advertisement and I took
my little magnifying glass out to look at it because
when this was advertised 11/3 of '05, this was not on
it. So the citizens, many of whom are in that group
that want to intervene were not informed of this by
this ad that was in the River Land News.
MR. ERICSON: You want this to go around?
MS HILTON: Sure.
MR. ERICSON: Why don't we start that way.
MS HILTON: The problem being in addition to that
I'm sure there are people that moved into the area
since then that were not familiar with what was going
on and so even if some of the people that would like to
intervene were aware that there was a change in the
plan to make that recreation area down the riverfront
it wasn't in the advertisement that we -- that went out
to the general public.
I consider that a problem in that it may end up
getting this city sued. If people sue because we did
not notice properly we can be in a great deal of
discomforture to put it mildly.
MR. PATTERSON: What are we referring to lack of
knowledge? Are you talking about this area here?
MS HILTON: This area here, this is what was in
the newspaper advertising this here. This area labeled
for recreation was not in the ad that appeared in the
paper.
We need to go back and do it right. We need to
make sure our i's are dotted and our t's are crossed
because otherwise we're going to end up in the same
mess we were in that first stipulated agreement and
it's not something I would care to be a party to.
MR. ERICSON: Let me see.
MR. PATTERSON: That area shown right here.
MS HILTON: No, it's not. Get a magnifying glass,
it doesn't show. I looked. This has been added on.
In my old original that was what was sent into the
paper for this ad, this is not in it.
MR. ERICSON: Which is the --
MS HILTON: Here. That's what we sent out. And
this is what we advertised -- I find that, you know,
I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the law but it would
seem to me that if we put out an ad that had one thing
in it and passed a resolution or request that had
something else in it, that we are --our standing
legally would not be real good.
MR. PATTERSON: Would you like to take a look at
that?
MR. BECHTEL: Sure, I mean --
MR. PATTERSON: It shows a barrier at 484 there
to me, encompassing that area. I'm not sure of the
legalities of it but --
MS HILTON: I just want to do this right. I want
a safe, smart development, not something that creates a
greater problem for us down the line.
MS LANGFORD: Who would have the records just to
say how many docks have been built -- have been placed
on that -- on the Rainbow River since the developer
purchased this property? Or the first developer? Who
would know how many docks have been added?
MR. PATTERSON: Legally?
MS LANGFORD: Uh-huh.
MR. PATTERSON: Legally?
MS LANGFORD: I think if they're going to be there
they should be legal. How many, do you know? Who
would I talk to who would know how many docks have been
added to the Rainbow River since we've been discussing
this issue with the developer?
MR. SCHAAT: I think Mr. Patterson raises a good
point. If you assume they are all legal you ought to
be able to get with DEP and see how many permits were
issued but if they were not all legal you would not
know.
The only thing I would add into this discussion
at this point is -- and I'm not sure it's a big issue.
When you look at paragraph ten it uses the word
both dock and boat slip. So I'm not sure when it says
37 boat slips that that equates to 37 docks.
MS HILTON: If it doesn't it equates to dredge
and fill which is something you are not supposed to be
doing in that kind of area. I think it's messy. I
think it would behoove the city to start at the
beginning and do it right.
At this point in time we've pretty well got it
down what the DCA wants, what
the EPA wants, what the impacts are on the roads.
Instead of trying to tweak something that was a bad
document three years ago, which is essentially what
we've done, we've taken the first one that was sent up.
We tweaked it, we sent it up again.
We tweaked it and sent it up again and then
Rainbow River Ranch withdrew and then wanted to go
forward again and instead of writing a new document at
that point, we sent the same document from the year
before.
It doesn't make good sense. It's not a good way
to handle it. You need to go through the process from
the beginning to the end and do it right. I'm not
objecting to the building and I don't think most of
those people are either. They simply want it done in a
way that will protect our city, to protect our citizens
and to protect our businesses.
If we kill off that river, we ruin that river, we
have ruined everything that's important to the wellbeing of the city. That river is 99 percent of why
most people move here -- those rivers.
MR. TAYLOR: Where do you find out that you
believe that this particular development is going to
kill that river? What is there in there --
MS HILTON: When you read -- with a very
jaundiced eye the way they're going to do things and
you put it back with the things we've had them say at
the meeting when they talked about a window to see the
river, the gentleman from Audubon International which
as we all know by now has nothing to do with the
Audubon Society.
MR. TAYLOR: And they never did say they did.
MS HILTON: What they said was --
MR. TAYLOR: They never claimed to --
MS HILTON: When I asked them what they could do
or would do with that window I was told by the
gentleman from Audubon they could clear cut that window
ten foot and to the ground.
MR. TAYLOR: You were saying just before
they didn't have anything to do with the
other Audubon and they never claimed that.
MS HILTON: I didn't say they did. I said the
way it was presented first there was a tie in. They
never said we're part of it. The language was such
that a great number of people assumed that they were
related because of the name. We all know now that
there is no relationship.
That was not anything other than exactly what I
said. We all know now that they're not related. I'm
not picking on them.
MR. TAYLOR: Well, you still haven't told me
why you think that this particular development the way
it is, what we have in front of us right now is going
to ruin or degrade the Rainbow River.
MS HILTON: I don't think there's enough -- it
will degrade the river because there is not enough
protection in heavy, heavy rain. Because while they
said that Audubon International will oversee the care
and feeding of the lawns and the other flora, there
have been numerous articles published indicating in
their care of golf courses that they have a tendency to
dump a fair amount of fertilizer on the soil.
There have been a number of articles indicating
that they may not be the best source for protection for
any river because what they are are -- is an
organization that will sponsor primarily golf courses
and help them get a voice so that they can be built in
places where they otherwise would be denied.
I'm not saying they're a bad organization. I'm
saying I don't think that we have enough protection for
our river.
MR. PATTERSON: My question if I may, are you
finished? If I may, in a stipulated agreement wouldn't
it be possible to have a seven-degree grade away from
the west buffer to the east side?
MS HILTON: I don't know. I'm not sitting there
with a piece of paper to read it so I don't know but I
can tell you that with a stipulated agreement there
will be no more than fifteen homes on that river which
is much better than what you can have -- than what
looks like they're talking about 37 homes on the river.
MR. TAYLOR: That's not what they're saying.
MS HILTON: They're saying apply up to 27 docks.
MR. TAYLOR: 37.
MS HILTON: 37. There was an article in the
Chronicle the other day indicating that that was a part
of their intent. But I don't think that's what we were
supposed to be arguing here.
I got the impression we were talking about the
financial aspects of this as well as anything else. I
truly believe that if we put this through this way we
are putting -- without going back and making sure that
we've done things properly that we are putting
ourselves in the position to end up in a very nasty
lawsuit and I as both a Council person and a resident
of the city do not want to be in that position.
MR. TAYLOR: Who's bringing the lawsuit?
MS HILTON: There are any number of people that
are very interested in this. I'm not telling you there
is a particular person or group that will. I'm telling
you there a number of interested people and that would
put ourselves -- that I believe we're putting ourselves
in that kind of danger.
MR. TAYLOR: And you feel that the advertising
that was done in the paper was wrong?
MS HILTON: You have a picture that we sent up
that shows a parcel of land that's labeled that is not
in the ad. And I think that that is a fairly serious
mistake. But you've got two lawyers here and they are
better able to deal with that question than I am.
MR. ERICSON: I have a question. If there's a
variance between two pictures, and it was explained at
an open hearing, which one did they use to explain it
in open hearing?
MR. PATTERSON: Metes and bounds, isn't it? But
I guess my question is --
MR. ERICSON: You got this one that came along
and then the one in the -- in the advertisement. When
they had the open -- the open hearing on it which one
did they use? I don't know.
MR. BECHTEL: Ted received this notice, I hadn't
seen it. He told me about it before the meeting but we
will certainly look and if we think there's some
material defect we'll certainly advise you because we
don't want you to get involved in some legal situation
you shouldn't be involved in either but we're not
really prepared to discuss that right at the moment.
We'll be glad to look at it. And like I say Ted
did get the notice. We'd do that immediately.
MR. TAYLOR: What notice?
MR. SCHATT: A copy of the filing.
MR. BECHTEL: There was --
MR. SCHATT: Ed faxed it to me this afternoon. As
I understand this, and correct me if I'm wrong, Ms
Hilton, that the point of it is that the four-acre
recreational area is not designated on the map that's
in the notice.
MS HILTON: That's correct.
MR. SCHATT: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: Designated as recreation,
advertised --
MR. SCHATT: Designated at all is what I
understand the contention to be.
MS HILTON: It's not designated at all.
MR. PATTERSON: This isn't simply because of its
size of the document compared to a blownup view here or
metes and bounds because I saw something about 484
they're showing --
MR. BECHTEL: I don't know if it needed to be
depicted if it's elsewhere in the plan.
MR. SCHATT: But that's something as Steve says
we'll take a look at it, decide what a proper response
to that document will be and then we'll advise but at
this point the issue that we're trying to get to here
today is dealing with these, this comprehensive
language. I understand your concerns, one that can be
addressed because nothing's going to be decided here
tonight other than how you want Steve and I to proceed.
Do we tell the opposing counsels that are
starting to come together that not so fast, there may
be other changes that need to be made and if so, what
message do we take to them and then the second issue
that we do need to come back to at some point is that
of the intervenors, how are we going to handle those.
MR. ERICSON: I guess one of the things that I'm
thinking of is if we're going through all this
researching, et cetera, at what point do we -- do we
reach a consensus or a decision where we feel as though
there's not, that there is enough unanimity and where
all the organization's coming from where we would say
we don't need or we would apply for, we're not having
the formal mediation hearing or would these be just
stepping stones to a mediation hearing? I don't know.
MR. BECHTEL: Well, as I said at the beginning,
if you all direct us that this is something you want us
to pursue in a settlement agreement, whatever
modifications we get from the FDEP tomorrow morning
probably then we'll do that and we'll advise you of it
before the mediation.
The clock is ticking on that obviously and if you
tell us to reschedule the mediation that would probably
be the wisest thing to do from a cost of litigation
viewpoint.
MR. PATTERSON: Back up a little bit. We were
going to go over this particular document and if there
were any issues that we saw as we went over it now
would be the time to bring it forward.
MR. SCHATT: That's correct.
MR. TAYLOR: Let's proceed with that.
MR. PATTERSON: I appreciate it.
MR. TAYLOR: Anybody have any overall concern with
the overall development plan, A, B and C?
MR. PATTERSON: I do not. The only thing I can
mention personally are the ones that have always struck
a chord with me and that would be on two, I don't mean
to be a skipper but you know, I'd just rather go with
the ones I do know.
The other ones have not seemed to really cause a
ruckus but under item two, storm water management and
site infrastructure I have got a problem with the best
management practices for water.
To be perfectly honest our own charter
states which is 98 216 A & B in reference to curbs and
gutters, storm waters, treatment of such before it ever
goes anywhere near the Rainbow River. One thing not
mentioned in here is something I mentioned earlier
which is a seven-degree grade from the west buffer to
the east side of property, keeping it away from any
fertilizers, anything thereof running into the Rainbow
River itself.
Having said that on charter 98 216 A & B quite
simply it just means what it says, curbs and gutters,
that is in our charter. It would be a little bit
closer to the comprehensive plan as opposed to the best
practice. One thing they have this 272 cubic feet per
second which can be tested on a 24 hour storm event at
one and a half inches which allows them to create
swales in front of the property, I do object to that
strongly and would like to see them go ahead and
utilize our comprehensive plan of the stated charter.
MR. TAYLOR: You want them to have gutters?
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, yes, sir, I think that would
be one of the wisest things they could possibly do.
Fertilizer mitigation, a lot of things could really --
I understand the monetary, you know, involving a
development. But I have seen it not used in many
developments over the years in my particular trade and
it just doesn't work as well.
They are allowed -- obviously the State allows a
certain -- the storm event, I'll use that, one and a
half inches in a 24 hour period allows the absorption
rate and do it that way but if you take a combination
of the seven-degree grade from the west to east side
and use the gutters and storm water runoff they can
mitigate a lot of the problems that a lot of people are
really concerned about and that would be fertilizers
going in the river and so on and so forth and process
it through that venue.
Other than that I have basically read over
this and with the exception of what else is in our
charter, gopher tortoises and the archeological digs is
in our charter as well for protection because they're
going to have to keep a buffer as they already
mentioned.
MR. BECHTEL: Back on the storm water retention
site infrastructure, this here.
MR. PATTERSON: It says best management practices
but not limited to --
MR. BECHTEL: I'm looking at B, storm water
management plan shall be submitted for city approval.
MR. PATTERSON: Right.
MR. BECHTEL: So there's the first chance
you get to apply your --
MR. PATTERSON: Stipulated developer agreement.
MR. BECHTEL: Your code provisions that you want
to apply.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay. I'm not sure how much
detail I would have personally on the actual
developer's agreement, as a Councilman as opposed to
that becoming an administrative thing or department of
-- or coordinator.
MR. BECHTEL: We can put as much detail in there
as you like because you're going to have to approve it.
We can put as much detail in there as you'd like.
MS HILTON: I'm not sure I'm understanding what
you're saying. You're saying that there would be a
seven-degree grade with a higher end on the side
closest to the river and down the hill into the
subdivision as opposed to the other way around?
MR. PATTERSON: Correct.
MS HILTON: I wanted to make sure I was clear on
what you said. And seven degrees, is that adequate to
-- I don't deal in water hydrology. So seven degrees
is not a whole lot.
MR. PATTERSON: Doesn't seem like a lot but when
you're talking about waterfront property and square
footage involved it would not be a fast run off but it
would be a very, you know -- the amount that actually
dissipates into the ground versus what runs off into
the storm water would be considerable because if you
took the impervious areas that they have going off in
those storm waters, not just the ground or anything
else, would be considerable.
MS HILTON: With a seventy percent ground
coverage and --
MR. PATTERSON: 65.
MS HILTON: 65 and thirty to 35 percent permeable.
MR. PATTERSON: I think it's a little different
on the residential side. They use
different mathematics for a fire.
MS HILTON: Understood but when I was reading the
agreement they guaranteed no more than seventy percent
coverage of the ground, does that -- does that include
the roads? Ed? Oh, I didn't think you heard me.
MR. ERICSON: Yeah, I heard you.
MS HILTON: When they said seventy percent or
thirty percent open areas does that include the
roadways in that open area?
MR. ERICSON: I don't know what --I really
can't tell you right now. What -- what you're talking
about here when you say thirty percent land -- I would
assume that these are lands that would be outside of
platted but I haven't seen anything that's been platted
and submitted to the city. All -- that's what I'm
saying. We haven't seen any of it.
MR. GRANT: Are we still going to have to have a
developer's agreement?
MR. ERICSON: Oh, yes, plus utilities agreement
and everything else.
MR. BECHTEL: That's right.
MR. ERICSON: Right now we're in the --
MR. PATTERSON: I understand that and forgive me
for not understanding. I do know that it comes back as
a stipulated agreement or a developer's agreement but
what level does Council have on that say and I thought
it very important this be mentioned in reference to
those two.
MR. ERICSON: I would think it's something that
as much discussion as this had that I would guarantee
you whatever staff would recommend that's where it
would stay.
It would be a recommendation because I think
really with as much attention as this has got over the
past year and a half, two years -- I picked it up when
I was on the planning commission that there's no way.
There's no way that we would not keep you totally
informed and if there were any objections to any
portion of it that you certainly would be given the
option to object or say that you would like this to go
in a different direction. Staff will review it, staff
will come up with recommendations. But all these are
are recommendations.
I definitely would never think that we would do
anything but keep it in a Council mainstream, with the
amount of interest and the amount of attention that
this has been given the whole process.
MR. PATTERSON: I guess the biggest question I
have is how much it lays in the lap, excuse me for the
irrelevance, gentlemen, of the community development
coordinator that we have as opposed to City Council. A
lot of this --
MR. ERICSON: Well, she would -- she would, or
the person that's in there would have the opportunity
to make suggestions and to give their opinions. But I
think normally things of this nature, there are things
that she could do or whoever sits behind that desk. On
the other hand, to be reiterative there's no way,
there's no way that I think staff should make any
decisions on this without putting --
MR. PATTERSON: Without Council--even if we
have to call a special meeting, we can --
MR. BECHTEL: We can put that right in
the development agreement.
MR. PATTERSON: I guess that's what I'm getting
at. Make sure.
MS HILTON: What I'm looking at when I read this
which is the one you presented us with tonight and the
one that was sent 2/16 of '05, I don't see a great deal
of difference in the language. It addresses -- page
thirteen in what he gave us tonight and on the Comp
Plan Amendment Text of 2/16/05, page eleven.
MS HILTON: And on the NOI I'm looking at page
two where it says the site is not suitable for the
adopted land use designation; that increased
residential densities and other development along the
river that may degrade the environmental, recreational
and economic value of the river -- and when I compare
there is a little bit of difference between C on this
one and storm water criteria number one on that one.
MR. TAYLOR: I think if you look at G on page
fourteen, they address storm water, the property will
be treated nearest the point at which it is produced
and that means the storm water from the cluster type
homes be treated in one of the green way corridors and
a home on greater than point five acres will be treated
on site where possible and appropriate B & P treatment
trains before being discharged to the
greenway corridor.
MS HILTON: Which paragraph?
MR. TAYLOR: Page four g.
MS HILTON: Page four g.
MR. TAYLOR: Fourteen.
MS HILTON: Okay, fourteen g.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes. And they specifically refer
to the cluster type homes. And trying to mitigate in
the developer's agreement.
MR. TAYLOR: And homes on greater than point five
acres.
MS HILTON: Well, essentially that's what
I'm saying. What we have here in this new
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Draft of 5/01/06 does
not appear to me to be any more comprehensive than what
we had before we started.
MR. PATTERSON: All right, well --
MS HILTON: And before we started the NOI said
that they felt that this would be less than beneficial
to the river. This is not suitable for adopted land
use designations, that increasedresidential densities
and other development on the river may degrade the
environmental, recreational and economic value of the
river.
MR. ERICSON: I would assume and this is just
an assumption, tell me if I'm wrong. I would assume
that this document is a bi-product of a complete review
of what we have submitted to them, plus what their
legal counsel and their staff believes would be
applicable to this particular development and there may
be similarities but I'msure there are many
dissimilarities.
This is the final document. This is one that was
submitted up. Since the ball is in their court at this
particular point to come back with something that
everyone can live with, you're not going to have a
complete total unanimity in one page of
another document and this page.
MR. BECHTEL: And again my approach was to DCA
and correctly the DCA lawyer and staff and the Rainbow
River representatives was, you all get together, you
all come up with a document and I'll look at it and if
I see anything really glaring I'll let you know but
then I'll present it to the City Council and there's
where we are so again they represented to me that this
is their document with the changes we're going to get
tomorrow from DEP which I don't think they're going to
be that significant but I'll give this to you since I
have them.
MR. TAYLOR: If it's anything significant --
(Interruption).
MR. PATTERSON: Do we need to go ahead?
MR. TAYLOR: Let's wait until she gets back.
MR. PATTERSON: I'd just like to make a copy, if I
may.
MR. ERICSON: This ten seems to be -- that seems
to be the crux of everything I have heard in my tenure
here. And they have addressed it. Everything else
there was give and take in conversations, et cetera.
But this is the one where no one could seem to get
total agreement on it and a capsulization came just
related to the fact that I think in the last area that
I heard was the fact that, that anything on the river
was the purview of the DCA, and you know, I don't know
what -- if this group agrees or disagrees or what we
do, whether that's going to have a marked, a marked
bearing on changing any portion of this, I don't know.
MS HILTON: And do we need to do this with two
members of us missing?
MR. BECHTEL: Here she comes. Are you okay?
MR. LANGFORD: Yes, sir.
MR. PATTERSON: You need some water?
MR. TAYLOR: Okay. What I do have a problem with
is the verbage in here about future boat ramp, boat
slips and dock permittings.
They're coming and I know that we are not in the
business of permitting docks but the developer has said
numerous times in the public that they would agree to
eleven boat docks along the river.
And there was a mention in the -- there wasn't a
mention in the cove area where the boat ramp was that
they were going to have some dockage in there but there
was never discussed how many they were going to have in
there but I do have a problem with it says 37 boat
slips, and I know that they all had to be permitted but
I think we need to -- if you're going to correspond or
talk to the developer's attorney, I think they're going
to have to remember those conversations they had with
the public.
MS HILTON: And I believe that the number bandied
about for in the cove area was two to three and the
number on the river was eleven and I am with you, I
would be much more comfortable with those numbers in
that piece of paper than I am with the 37.
MR. ERICSON: It started off with 34 if my memory
is correct then went to eleven in one of the
conversations. And now it's back up to --
MR. TAYLOR: They said 37 boat slips.
MR. SCHATT: I want to make that distinction.
There does appear from the language here to be a
distinction between docks and boat slips and the reason
I draw that distinction is when you look at the last
line it says developer understands that this -- well,
last section, this land use amendment does not
authorize or otherwise guarantee the number and
location of boat slips, boat ramp or other in-water
structures.
The other in-water structures would be in my mind
the dock which is referenced earlier on. So they may
still be talking about eleven or twelve docks and
planning to tie, if they can, three boats up to each
dock. I don't know.
MS HILTON: They don't need a -- that's a, I
would not think that the legal description of a place
to tie a boat up to a dock would be called a slip,
because a slip by definition -- anywhere I have ever
been a boat slip is a defined area with either land on
each side of it or a divot which means that they would
have to go into the ground underneath the river and
dredge and fill and they did talk about divots and
those would be extremely harmful along that bank
because you would be taking out cypress trees and you'd
be taking out the cypress knees and you'd be destroying
the bottom.
That's what I mean when I say I want it to be
a smart development. I don't want the cypress knees
destroyed. I don't want the bottom of the land under
the river, that area of the river, that side of the
river, the east side of the river is so pristine.
We've messed up the west side.
I live on the river. I live in a house that under
today's standard would not have what it has in front of
it.
If I could afford it I'd put it back to what it
should be but because we've made the mistake once
doesn't mean, you know, we should do it again. The
definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over
and over again and expecting a different result and I
would like to think that we are not stupid enough to
make the same mistake again and expect a different
result.
MR. TAYLOR: As I said, I know we don't have the
say and license in permitting boat docks but --
MS HILTON: But this is saying that this is all
right with the city and I don't think from what you
said and from what other members of this Council have
said in the past that it is all right.
I think that we want them held to the number that
they discussed with us at their lowest number and if we
change that language to reflect that, I think that
would be a much healthier way of approaching it.
MR. TAYLOR: I would really like to know what
they are construing as what they meant by a boat slip.
MS HILTON: That is a part of the problem. We
don't even know what they're saying but they want to
put 37 something's there. The original was a dock --
dock what they pointed out, what you could put a boat
on each side of it.
There's 22 boat slips if that's what they're
calling boat slips there and they already can do that
if we give them eleven docks on property lines.
You don't have to add the other language.
The same is true of divots as you do construction
but I don't know if you do construction around water
but if you're putting in a divot you're putting in
something that goes down in the thing and you have to
clear out what's underneath it and generally the boats
sit parallel to the shore rather than perpendicular, so
if you've got a 21 foot boat you've cleared out 21 foot
of your shore line or 23 or 25 foot of your shore line
to accommodate that 21 foot boat.
I would -- and I would think that the Council
would be more comfortable with if they're going to have
a dock, doing what I do and park alongside the dock,
and like my neighbor does park on the other side of our
shared dock. And that would -- is less damaging to
the river than the divots. It's less damaging to the
river than cutting a hole into the bottom to make a
slip. And I'm with you.
I don't know exactly what they're saying here.
But not knowing what somebody's saying and agreeing to
it is exceedingly dangerous.
MR. ERICSON: The way you were talking I heard
you refer to that we had eleven docks that we talked
about last time and you were talking about a relation
of approximately two boat slips to a dock, right?
MS HILTON: No.
MR. TAYLOR: They were talking about shared docks.
One dock on --
MR. PATTERSON: Would be north, one south.
MR. TAYLOR: That would be actually 22 slips right
there.
MS HILTON: Or possibly more. If you could put
two boats on each side we'd have 44 slips.
MR. ERICSON: I guess maybe, with that as a basic
criteria, would we still be comfortable saying 37 boat
slips or would we be more comfortable saying not more
than twenty-two?
MS HILTON: You've got to define what they mean
by boat slip and is there anybody in this room that
does actually know what they mean by that?
MR. TAYLOR: I don't know what they mean by it.
MS HILTON: Do we really want to agree with
something we don't know what it means?
MR. BECHTEL: I'd be willing to bet that the
refined language I didn't get before I left the office
the FDEP probably addresses that --
MR. GRANT: The other issue is the narrowness of
the river just west of the -- west of the cubbage farm
house, the dock that is on the river now. One of the
things that I was thinking that we could do to decrease
the potential there if -- if they can build docks out
that we limit them to not penetrating the river any
further than the existing tree line.
In other words, if you've got multiple cypress
along there, that you not put your dock out beyond that
cypress. That would not impede boat traffic because
you're not over there anyways.
MS HILTON: But it would infringe on the wet land
area that you're building on. You can't pull a boat up
into the cypress -- maybe I'm misunderstanding you and
it would be --
MR. GRANT: What I'm saying if you've got a tree
here --
MS HILTON: Draw.
MR. GRANT: Okay. Here's the edge of
the river and there's trees out here. Don't put a dock
out like that. The dock can go no further than this
line.
MS HILTON: Then what's going to happen to these
trees?
MR. GRANT: They can't be taken out, they're
cypress trees.
MR. TAYLOR: That's we're getting into
permitting. That's where the experts have to come down
and say, okay, that river's too narrow to put a dock
in. You can't have a dock there but that's up to them.
MR. GRANT: Maybe they will but what I'm saying I
wanted language in there they couldn't impede traffic
in the river, that they could not put docks out into
the river beyond the tree line.
MR. PATTERSON: I see what you're saying now.
MR. GRANT: All I'm trying to do is say that
distance it's already narrow, we know it's a dangerous
situation and that could help alleviate some of that.
MR. BECHTEL: I don't have the provision
memorized but it's either in 1820 or 1821 that's
referred to in the very last sentence there of the
statement.
There's a provision that addresses just what
you're saying, about how far you can go into a water
body. It addressed that specific thing. I
read it yesterday, I know it's there.
MS LANGFORD: I would like to make a statement.
Whatever happened to the marina that they talked about?
MS HILTON: That's what they're trying to do.
MR. TAYLOR: They're talking about the recreation
area.
MS LANGFORD: At one point in the discussion it
was talked -- the marina was discussed. Then I think
something about ten boat ramps or something like that
being placed on the, you know, on the river --
MR. TAYLOR: On number five here. Section five,
on page sixteen. Says private waterfront recreational
area.
MS LANGFORD: You remember it?
MS HILTON: Absolutely.
MS LANGFORD: It was a marina we talked about.
MR. TAYLOR: A marina indicates gas and all that
stuff and that's not what's going to be there. They
were talking about a private water front, spelled it
out on here. On page sixteen.
MS LANGFORD: Okay.
MS HILTON: Limited to a boat ramp, boat slips for
boats, canoes and kayaks, fish cleaning stations,
located in the uplands connected to the sewer system,
parking, gazebo with bathrooms set back from the river
at least a hundred foot. Canoe, kayak, storage racks,
informational kiosk and native landscaping, no managed
turf within a hundred feet of the river.
That is the area they were discussing that I
believe Pearlie Langford is referring to. And at the
time that we ended the discussions as best my memory
serves, it was determined that we didn't want motorized
craft in there and that we didn't want a boat.
We were willing to go along with a few docks, and
that the number that got bandied about last through
DCA, I can't remember whether it was DCA or DEP because
they sort of overlapped the jurisdiction there, was
three.
And at one point in time this developer agreed to
that. It would appear to me this developer is going
after a great deal more than was presented to the
Council and agreed upon in verbal form in the Council
which is one of the reasons that I know Mr. Patterson
has frequently said we're supposed to have a developer
agreement and we don't have one.
What we have here is if my lawyer cannot tell me
what somebody exactly means I certainly don't want to
try and guess. But I'm looking at 37 something's into
the water and when I don't know what they are they make
me very nervous. I don't think we need to approve
something we don't understand.
MR. PATTERSON: Read that.
MR. BECHTEL: I was going to point that out to
you.
MR. PATTERSON: I was encouraged by that.
MR. BECHTEL: We can't do a development agreement
until we know what's going to go into it. What we're
doing here.
MR. PATTERSON: Exactly, that's all we're doing.
MR. TAYLOR: We did not agree as a Council that I
can ever recall to prevent them from having motorized
boats in there.
MS HILTON: No, we did not. We discussed it and
it was like it sort of -- folks were not really sure if
they were talking about four stroke motors which
enviromental Mary Ann said if you're going to have
boats there I would much prefer a four stroke than what
most people on the river had.
But we did talk about numbers and when they start
talking about a number that's three times what they
gave us, and we don't have definitions, it makes me
exceedingly uncomfortable. I think if we at least
change that language --
MR. TAYLOR: But if you think about it, a boat
dock, a boat dock could have fifteen boat slips. If
you built a boat dock and I've seen them that up in
Cumberland Lake they have a very large dock and they
have about twenty or thirty boat slips on one boat
dock.
MS HILTON: That's correct and is that what you
want to see?
MR. TAYLOR: No, but I'm saying when we're
talking about docks or boat slips, or if they're
talking about eleven docks around the river, if they
were to agree to that, that's twenty-two boat slips.
That means they've only got thirteen boat slips left or
-- how many did they say, 37? So that means they've
only got sixteen left.
MS HILTON: If they had it in there it would be
different than supposing that is what they may mean.
In that legal document it needs to say very expressly
exactly what it means.
MR. TAYLOR: We need to instruct our attorney to
clear that particular issue up.
MR. ERICSON: Clear it up.
MS HILTON: And I did not see anything in here
that addressed the burial grounds on the property,
which had been --
MR. TAYLOR: It's on there.
MS HILTON: It may be. I didn't -- didn't say
it's not here. I said I didn't see it.
MR. SCHATT: Number seven.
MR. BECHTEL: Page sixteen.
MS HILTON: Yes, I do.
MR. PATTERSON: And our city charter does
recognize that.
MS HILTON: Okay. And of course I am the
environmentalist always bringing up the gopher
tortoises, that doesn't come from anybody but me.
MR. TAYLOR: And that's on number eight.
MR. PATTERSON: Addressed that one.
MS HILTON: And I still have a problem with this
because this allows taking. This agreement they're
willing to sign still allows taking, which is a polite
thing for gathering up all the tortoises and killing
them and paying the state to do so.
MR. TAYLOR: It will be managed as required under
the rules and regulations established by the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
MS HILTON: Which means they can pay fifteen
hundred dollars to go for a gopher turtle and kill them
and there are an awful lot of people that are not aware
of that.
MR. PATTERSON: You get paid to kill them, is
that what you're telling me?
MS HILTON: That's what I'm telling you, that's
called taking.
MR. PATTERSON: That's not protected by the State
of Florida.
MS HILTON: Not if you're a developer and you
want to get rid of them -- you can take them and you're
fined for each one you take but this is an argument
that was presented at multiple meetings by yours truly,
there are three ways they can handle it. They can
change the habitat which would not be terribly
difficult to do so that there's an area the gopher
turtles would be likely not to invade from and it would
be near the -- the greenway and trails area, back in
that corner.
It could be rolled and buffered and they'd
pretty well stay there or you can pick them up and move
them someplace else or you can kill them.
MR. TAYLOR: But you're assuming though that
they're going to kill them?
MR. PATTERSON: I wasn't aware they could do that.
MS HILTON: Every meeting I asked that question
and every meeting are you going to kill them, are you
going to move them or are you going to build a habitat.
Every meeting I asked that question and got this
answer, that they will do it under the law which if
they were going to move them, or if they were going to
build a habitat for them, I would think they probably
would have been more than thrilled to tell somebody
that so they would be making points.
MR. TAYLOR: I did hear them tell Jack Dennis
they were going to build a buffer for the gopher
tortoises, they said that right out here in the public
meeting. You can ask Jack Dennis. That's exactly what
he told that man.
MS HILTON: Jack Dennis told them it could be
done and how it could be done and they said we will do
what the law requires.
MR. TAYLOR: And they also said that they would
build a buffer for the gopher tortoises, I sat here and
listened to them.
MR. PATTERSON: That was my understanding of that.
MS HILTON: How about if that gets added to the
language.
MR. PATTERSON: Both of those are covered again
in the city charter, both of those.
MS HILTON: The gopher tortoise?
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, ma'am.
MS HILTON: State law prevails.
MR. PATTERSON: I'm not an attorney.
MR. BECHTEL: That's true.
MS HILTON: It's a relatively simple matter to
change that, would it not?
MR. BECHTEL: It would.
MS HILTON: If that's what they're planning on
doing. I can't imagine they'd object --
MR. ERICSON: I'd say putting a word in as
stating that one of FFWCCs --
MS HILTON: Saying change this to say they will
build a buffer for them as opposed to --
MR. TAYLOR: Or will not destroy them. How about
will not destroy them.
MR. BECHTEL: Yeah, exclude taking, could say
that.
MS HILTON: You just said going to build a buffer.
MR. TAYLOR: If you don't want them destroyed that
would be a good thing to put on there.
MS HILTON: If they build a buffer they're not
going to destroy them. I would like to see both parts
put in. We're running out of places to put gopher
turtles.
MR. ERICSON: One of the things that came up
early is they are looking to adopt this language for
other types of communities that will be coming on the
river. We still have a number of lots on the far side
and so I don't know -- if we come up with something
that is in the best interests not only of the gopher
but in the best interests of the natural boundaries for
these people, then it would be establishing it all the
way down and you know, are they willing to do that, if
they are --
MR. TAYLOR: What's the exact verbage of our
charter?
MR. PATTERSON: I don't know the exact, the
specific. I just know that it's our requirement to
actually maintain and take care of both archeological
and gopher turtles. It's our responsibility, that
would be public works. It just says it in there.
MS HILTON: I don't recall it particularly
mentioning the turtles but it mentions species and I
don't recall the exact language either.
MR. PATTERSON: We can grab a charter book and
look at it but I do remember gopher turtles being in it
but regardless of that --
MR. TAYLOR: We want to seek protection for the
gopher tortoises and if they're allowed to as Mary Ann
Hilton says, if they're allowed to pay a fine and kill
the tortoises we object to that.
MR. BECHTEL: Okay. And it might be -- might
solve it by saying, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission and code of city of Dunnellon.
MR. PATTERSON: But our code can't supersede
state, then state -- it's in the wording.
MR. BECHTEL: Yeah, it's in the wording here, it
becomes part of the settlement.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay.
MR. ERICSON: It mentions both entities.
MR. BECHTEL: Sure.
MR. TAYLOR: Okay. I think that would work.
MR. PATTERSON: Did you get anywhere with the
slips or docks or --
MR. TAYLOR: Well, we're going to have to have
them define what they mean by slips.
MS HILTON: Or just change the number to eleven
docks and strike the rest of it. If they have a dock
they can put a boat next to it and call it a boat slip
if they want. Once you have a dock you can put a boat
next to it.
MR. PATTERSON: It says along with one boat ramp.
MS HILTON: Which was also something the DCA had
complained about at one point in time.
MR. TAYLOR: The only thing I can say here is
that we have said all along that we're not responsible
for permitting boat docks. But then we turn right
around and say maybe we are, because now we want to say
-- I mean, we're turned aroundsaying that we don't want
the developer to have more than eleven boat docks. And
this, a boat ramp into the cove.
MS HILTON: We're not responsible for them but if
they're at a point of reaching some sort of agreement
and saying if I'm understanding correctly, that they're
willing to abide by this, then they are giving us the
opportunity to do something which the law does not --
and they are bound to abide by which the law does not
provide for, is that -- law does not provide for us to
make that decision, of how many boat docks they can put
in or where they can put them. But this document if it
is agreed to by the developer does give us the right to
do that because they are agreeing to it, is that a
correct interpretation?
MR. BECHTEL: Yes, it is. If the Council
approves this language as written, then you're saying
they may request up to 37. And they have to go through
all these regulatory criteria of FDEP to obtain any
permit even for one, so I'm saying that --
MS HILTON: And a conflict does not agree with
that language and wants it changed to eleven docks
rather than that whole thing that we're not sure we
understand and they agree to it they are still giving
us permission to make that decision if they agree with
it, is that not correct?
MR. ERICSON: We make the decision on where the
docks go?
MR. BECHTEL: No, no.
MR. ERICSON: She's talking eleven docks.
MR. SCHATT: I think I understand where you're
going and the answer is you are making no decision, the
developer is making a decision whether to consent to
what you're asking them to consent to.
MS HILTON: All right. The developer is asking
us to consent to this and if we do not, and we suggest
to our lawyers that we might be more willing to accept
the term eleven docks, and the developer then consents
to that, then that would be a legal ban on them from
putting more than eleven docks in, is that correct?
MR. SCHATT: Developer binds himself, the city
has no right to tell them yes or no.
MS HILTON: That's what I meant. The developer
then would bind himself to that agreement.
MR. ERICSON: So this is where we were a number
of months ago and now we're here and then we're going
back to that.
MR. PATTERSON: We're a lot closer.
MR. ERICSON: Here again it's fine. I just want
to make sure that my memory isn't failing. That eleven
docks were discussed as one reconciliation in the
process of mediating this. And then they're coming
back with 37. We're saying no, we want -- we
want eleven docks.
MS HILTON: And --
MR. ERICSON: Same thing.
MS HILTON: Any of you that have read the
Chronicle I'm sure understand where my discomfort comes
from because of that lovely article saying they were
going to put, I can't remember, thirty something docks
in the river and 17 in the cove. That made me exceedly
uncomfortable.
MR. ERICSON: Just wonder how accurate it is --
not everything you read unfortunately in the paper is
that accurate.
MS HILTON: My point is somebody said that,
somebody with enough authority to get it printed in the
paper and the article indicated it was the developer
they were talking to, you know, we're going to do this,
and I realize as everyone at this table does that the
developer's going to ask for a great deal more than
they expect to get. But the city has the obligation to
not allow them to get a great deal more than they
should.
MR. TAYLOR: We can go with eleven boat docks but
I want you to understand a boat slip may be different
than a boat dock.
MS HILTON: I do understand that.
MR. TAYLOR: Now one boat dock can have five or
six boat slips to it.
MS HILTON: Then we need to define it in terms
that doesn't allow that. That is an excellent point.
MR. ERICSON: Okay, then how many --
MR. TAYLOR: A boat dock with no more than --
MS HILTON: Will accommodate no more than two
boats.
MR. ERICSON: Something I mentioned about an hour
ago --
MR. PATTERSON: Basically --
MR. ERICSON: Basically now we're down to 22 and I
wonder if you get the same thing by just limiting it to
22, I don't know, I have no idea.
MR. SCHATT: Just to interject we're talking
about eleven boat docks on the river, 22 boat slips,
and then I believe there's been discussion around the
table that they also said there would be boat docks in
the cove somewhere around two or three, is that --
MS HILTON: At one point in time DCA verbalized
to a person who's no longer on the Council and another
time they verbalized to me that the number of boat
slips they would be happy -- well, less than fumingly
unhappy with in that cove area. They told the other
gentlemen three, and he stated that in an open meeting
while he was still on Council and they told me two and
I stated that in -- after I was elected to Council.
MR. BECHTEL: If you look at this language that's
stricken I think it might give us a clue because it
refers to eleven slips on the north shoreline and 26 on
the cove and that was stricken out by DCA and DEP I
believe. So -- and that's how they got the total
number of 37 but that tells me that the regulatory
agencies are not going to allow any large number of
slips in the cove.
MR. TAYLOR: However, if we can put it into --
if we could insert that language into this, and return
it to them, and if they are still willing to accept it,
that gives us a little firmer warranty of what they
will or will not do. I feel like I'm on a collective
bargaining table.
MR. ERICSON: Then -- you tell me all this
dialogue we've got and it still goes all the way back,
subject to review under the relevant provisions of
403FS.
MR. BECHTEL: Right.
MR. ERICSON: And I don't know the gist of what it
MR. BECHTEL: Maybe they only get ten when the day
is done, we don't know.
MS LANGFORD: The difference in the boat slips
and boat ramps, I'm still hung up on that. The boat
slips of the area where -- what I've seen now it's --
it's not the boat slips. You put a boat in there.
It's like a cement thing that I have seen where they
drive back up to it, you know, this area and they slide
their boat down this ramp thing into the water. No
place to tie. But the ramp is where you can tie a boat
in.
MS HILTON: A ramp is where you back a boat in.
That's what we have out here next to the city hall.
You have a ramp and that will provide you with access
to the water. A slip is where you can pull a boat into
and tie it up and Johns's point was that if you build a
walkway, a dock, whatever you want to call it and you
can line slips up this way, and at roughly eight foot
intervals and on a 24 foot dock you could put six boats
on each side so you can put twelve boats on that dock.
And I would like to see the language so that they
cannot put more than two boats on a dock, and I would
like to see the language where they cannot have more
than eleven docks on the river, and the language that
they cannot have more than, you guys take your pick,
two or three.
MR. TAYLOR: Four.
MR. ERICSON: Four.
MR. PATTERSON: Three and a half.
MS LANGFORD: In that cove area.
MS HILTON: Let's try for three, that's halfway
between my two and your four and that would -- and
those were originally agreed -- the ones in the cove
area were originally agreed not to be tie up or slip
areas but only a place to tie to get in and out of, to
board and disembark from the craft and that was the
original agreement that they made with us at the
meeting. That was their verbal, yes, we'll do that.
MR. TAYLOR: But it also -- they were at one time
going to put all the boat docks in that cove and not
have any on the Rainbow River because of all the --
because of all the controversy over that so there's
been a lot of things going back and forth.
MR. ERICSON: I guess I'm deferring to the legal
counsel. If we, if we stipulate some of the things
that we're talking about this evening and DCA says, we
don't agree with you, then at that juncture we go to
total mediation.
MR. BECHTEL: We talk about it at mediation,
exactly right and as I read this paragraph, the DCA and
again I presume the DEP are trying to give themselves
the maximum ability to apply their own codes as to
number and location and they're probably not going to
-- well, I don't know how they got the number 37.
MR. PATTERSON: My understanding is whenever
you're discussing anything with DEP or DCA, they always
go with worst case scenario, every time.
MR. BECHTEL: Yes, they do. It's true -- but
here, from their viewpoint they've written this so they
don't have to approve any.
MS HILTON: But so that they can approve a very
large number.
MR. BECHTEL: Yes, that's right, zero to 37 --
MR. ERICSON: 37, we're back to that.
MR. BECHTEL: Zero to 37 could be approved.
MR. TAYLOR: Slips.
MS HILTON: I'd rather have it zero to eleven and
if the rest of the Council is not comfortable saying
they could have eleven on the river, I'd just say zero
to eleven and let them put them where they want
according to the DCA or the DEP.
MR. BECHTEL: Let me try to pin them down on
where they got the number and what they mean by a slip
and if they have a dock design with the number of
slips, whatever they have, after I get the DEP language
tomorrow because that may solve some of this. I'm
sorry we didn't get it in time. That may answer
some of these questions.
And from what I'm hearing you want to add
reference to city code in paragraph eight and want the
questions answered from paragraph ten, otherwise we're
okay.
MR. TAYLOR: Okay. I think it's moving in the
right direction but I think our biggest --
MR. PATTERSON: G, as far as how to do that high
swales on the riverfront property on item number two,
that that would be used for storm water gutters.
MR. TAYLOR: They had an engineer in here that
described all that, how they were going to -- they --
MR. PATTERSON: Swale.
MR. GRANT: They were going to swale to direct the
water.
MR. PATTERSON: To a particular location and if
you look at the city charter and read that and combine
that with the DCA, the best practice actually -- well,
of course it would be an opinion but if you take the
west area and you go to the east side, with a seven-
degree grade and you have that gutter on the river, I'm
talking about the riverfront property the rest of --
however they want to do that, they can treat that
accordingly but I believe firmly that 98 216 A and B
ought to be looked at very carefully in our own
charter as to just exactly how that's done.
I think it's very important at least when it has
to do with the upland buffer and the houses along the
river. I think we need to look at that.
MR. ERICSON: You can, you can, you can put
earthen type gutters. But I think you and I have --
MR. PATTERSON: I understand that.
MR. ERICSON: We talked about this once. There's
a certain point at which the flow of the water will be
going fast enough so it would not -- it would not be
-those earthen buffers would not accommodate that
volume of water.
MR. PATTERSON: That's correct.
MR. ERICSON: And would then spill untreated and I
think it's something we ought to look at.
MR. PATTERSON: That's correct. Yes, sir.
MS HILTON: When we were talking about a different
piece of property in my subdivision that was being
revamped, we looked up the urban swale and I could have
sworn that there were no curbs. Now that's next to the
street but that there were no curbs allowed to redirect
the water and I know in Vogt Springs there was a
gentleman who was extremely irate because he had set up
a small curbing system because the hills that went down
from his property line and was washing out and the city
came and told him he couldn't do that. He had curbed
it with looked like field stone to make it run --
MR. PATTERSON: I'm referring to a little bit
more than just curbing the streets.
MS HILTON: I understand that but what I'm saying
is at that point in time our charter had demanded that
that be removed.
MR. ERICSON: I wonder if -- I can't memorize
that but would that not be open for engineering review
to make sure that it does meet the standards set forth
in both the city charter --
MR. BECHTEL: Yes.
MR. PATTERSON: Except if you use the state of
Florida best water management practice that allows
swales, I'm not an engineer, you know, I'm just saying
if they would consider -- if we could at least get the
language and let them look at it, if they would
consider that the area that is against the river to
treat the water that way instead of their trains which
they're talking about, swales is what they're talking
about.
MS HILTON: And you want to redirect the water
with a guttering system.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, gutter and stormwater and
they could be treated accordingly with their best
practices as far as treating it. However, if it's
going to be piped right and central from one direction,
they can treat it from that point but it would be
encompassed in curbs, gutters --
MR. ERICSON: It wouldn't be going to impervious
earth. It will be guided along a hard surface to go an
area where it would be treated.
MR. PATTERSON: Then it could be treated.
MR. ERICSON: And treated centrally so to speak
and then go into the river.
MR. TAYLOR: You're talking about guiding into a
DRA?
MR. PATTERSON: Yes.
MR. BECHTEL: On two b, page thirteen the second
sentence there, it says the best management practices
shall include but not be limited to roadside swales and
no curb and gutters. Do you want to take the word and
out?
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, it shows up twice in this
particular document. It's a stand alone in that one as
well. H. It says roads and streets will have no
curbs and gutters unless required to meet design
standards.
MR. BECHTEL: Okay. So that one's all right.
MR. TAYLOR: I think Jim, he wants them
to have curbs and gutters.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, absolutely.
MS HILTON: His point is that the curbs belong in
and that states they don't.
MR. BECHTEL: So we take the word no out there and
MR. PATTERSON: I do understand the relevance to
the monetary side of it but I mean it's been done a
hundred times, that the swale and these train effects
that they're looking at in swales do not work as well
as we would like them to. However, it does still --
the guidelines that the state of Florida has and the
best way that you can direct water is with curbs and
gutters.
MR. BECHTEL: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: And treat it. We could say roads
and streets will have curb and gutter if required to
meet design standards.
MR. PATTERSON: Well, then they're going to hit
you with DOT on the stormwater thing, for 272 cubic
feet per second or whatever the final calculated
discharge volume is going into the river. All I'm
asking is that whatever is abutting the Rainbow River
has curbs and gutters instead of swale and then that's
what they're looking at, you know -- the 35 percent,
you know, nonpervious is going to be absorbed obviously
at the rate that they're suggesting in these figures
but a lot of it's not and they're talking about on
their best water management practices.
It's almost defeatism as far as I'm concerned
personally and I just, I'd rather feel -- I'd feel
uncomfortable if that were in the language, at least
what we have along the river.
MR. TAYLOR: Talking about the westernmost
portion of the property that fronts the river.
MS HILTON: The high land, not --
MR. TAYLOR: Should have the curbs and gutters.
MR. BECHTEL: Okay. If that's the consensus.
MS HILTON: With the idea of moving it away from
the river so that it will treat naturally through the
DRIs. So I'll repeat. You're talking about curb and
guttering the property that is adjacent to the river?
MR. PATTERSON: Uh-huh.
MS HILTON: At the forward part, at the most
easterly part of that property, the lots, because the
lots go from the front yard.
MR. PATTERSON: Anything along the river.
MS HILTON: I'm not sure what you mean by along
the river. The houses where the lots that are built
adjacent to the river. But where are you proposing it
be curbed, in between the street and that lot or at the
back part of the lot closest to the river?
MR. PATTERSON: What I said originally was the
seven-degree grade away from the river to the front of
the property. The streets and curbs and guttering and
everything else that I'm talking about that directed
the water to a specific area so that they can then
maintain what it's going to do would be actually at the
front of the house.
MS HILTON: The front of the property.
MR. PATTERSON: In the street, yes, ma'am.
Whether it's a cul-de-sac or whatever it is that's
where it would be.
MS HILTON: It would run it to there and DRI from
there.
MR. ERICSON: I'm going to be the devil's
advocate. Would it not be better to -- for staff
trying to look at it and then come back to -- come
back to the Council, just going curb and gutter the
whole place? I know it will --
MR. PATTERSON: I'd love that but --
MR. ERICSON: People will jump up and down, but
you're asking people to define the western part of the
eastern and would it not -- would it not be more
prudent to just say that there will be curb and
gutter? I don't know.
MR. PATTERSON: Actually I would love to do that
throughout the entire, I really would. If you look at
Juliette Springs up here, they've finally discovered
that's what they have to do in order to treat and take
care of the water runoff they have. Ideally that would
be the way to take care of the problem.
Monetarily it's not going to work with the
developer. The concern is the amount of water,
fertilizers and everything used in this particular area
can be further maintained by telling that water where
it's going to go, not swales.
MR. ERICSON: If we tell them where it's going to
go from the time it's here until the time it flows into
this water highway, if you will, to use -- I don't
know, maybe that would be the -- I know it's -- I
won't say it's cost prohibitive. I'll say it will add
additional costs but the one thing -- the one thing
that I think we should look at and -- is the fact that
once the developer leaves, okay, he leaves us with
what?
MR. PATTERSON: Ten percent deposit.
MR. ERICSON: No, I mean other than monetary. You
get the ten percent deposit down and it's given in two
years and it still really is a function. I mean, I'm
serious about this, Jim, I really am because I know it
would be an encumbrance on them trying to sell their
houses but on the other hand, if we have a deep concern
about it, then now is the time to address it because
we're going back to DCA and the FDEP for this.
And I'd throw it open as a, something maybe to
discuss in this venue, I don't know. If there's
another area that had this problem and worked along the
river and they ended up with curbs and gutter, they are
satisfied with it -- I don't know.
MS HILTON: I have long argued that we have
storms here --
MR. PATTERSON: We just had some rains down
Palmetto Way. Can we talk about what happened there?
MS HILTON: Would you like to come see? There's
water up to your knees in places.
MR. PATTERSON: I'm telling you it doesn't work.
Swales don't work --
MR. ERICSON: I'm not saying anything for swales.
I'm saying if we're concerned about making a water
highway that will work the way it's designed to work a
hundred percent of the time, then that would be curb
and gutter.
MR. PATTERSON: You're talking about through out
the entire development.
MR. ERICSON: Yes.
MR. PATTERSON: And then ten years from now when
we're having to do maintenance I'm looking at a
specific area that maintains the quality of water
that's going to be thrown back in the river at some
point or another, that's what I'm talking about and
we've got to start maintaining the rest of it where
we're looking at -- what's the developer going to leave
us eight or ten years from now when we've got to do
maintenance on that?
Talking about that one area. The rest of it
between curbs and swales and all that, they can get
away with it. I don't mean get away with it. They can
do it properly. But in that particular area they
really need to readdress the situation of how the water
flows away from that river and to control it. And the
only way, I mean as far as we're concerned when we're
looking down the road we're going to have less money to
spend, one specific area as opposed to the entire
complex that we're going to be responsible for.
MR. TAYLOR: Can't we put in there the property
fronting the Rainbow River shall be required to have
curb and guttering?
MR. BECHTEL: Yes.
MR. TAYLOR: I mean that's what we're wanting.
MR. PATTERSON: Leave us some money.
MR. ERICSON: And of course, take it for granted,
which will channel the water to additional --
MR. TAYLOR: They have to treat it.
MR. ERICSON: To treat it before it, it goes into
the river.
MR. PATTERSON: The only difference is how they
get it there before they treat it.
MR. ERICSON: The transmission line.
MS HILTON: In that particular project, the rest
of it is basically upland.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes.
MS HILTON: And so is not going to create the
problem that we have in my subdivision where you have a
large hill and everything runs downhill.
MR. PATTERSON: Just the opposite effect taking
place.
MR. TAYLOR: What we'll do is stop it at the top
from coming down the hill and fold it off the other
way.
MR. ERICSON: As the old saying goes we're
cutting it off at the pass.
MS HILTON: This has been a bone of contention at
many of the meetings because we had a number of people
stand up and say you're talking about handling the
first inch and a half of rain. It is not infrequent in
this area to have three inches of rain in two hours and
this is not going to handle it so I think that is an
excellent suggestion.
MR. TAYLOR: Okay, so we got the curb and
guttering on the property along the Rainbow River.
MR. BECHTEL: Uh-huh.
MR. TAYLOR: All right. We can -- you can
proceed.
MR. BECHTEL: Okay.
MR. SCHATT: The only remaining issue is how to
deal with the intervenor issue.
MR. BECHTEL: Right.
MR. TAYLOR: Okay. I have already expressed my
desire on the intervenors. If they could show just
cause and the judge will grant them status then I think
it's up to the judge to do it. I'm not going to sit
here and grant these people --we've got one fellow by
the name of Bert Eno who wants to be an intervenor,
he's not a resident.
He's a vice-president of the Rainbow River
Conservation. He lives in a subdivision, his lot is
125 feet deep. He's in a medium densitysubdivision.
That subdivision has a golf course, it also has a
facility along the Rainbow River and he's coming here
telling us that we should not have the same thing where
he lives at.
I really object to that. So if they can show
just cause to a judge to be an intervenor then that's
up to the judge.
MR. BECHTEL: Okay. Then are you telling me not
to say yes or no? Just say we have no position.
MR. TAYLOR: As far as I'm concerned I would say
no.
MR. PATTERSON: My understanding of the law and
again I don't mean to take your job here by no means
but they have to be an affected party.
MR. BECHTEL: An affected person in this context
is --
MR. PATTERSON: Is that broad base stroke?
MR. BECHTEL: No, very narrowly defined in this
context. Defined as a individual who appeared at the
transmittal or adoption hearing and spoke. It's a very
narrow definition. And if Mr. Eno did not, or the
organization did not make an appearance, then the judge
is not going to let them intervene.
MR. TAYLOR: The only person that appeared at the
adoption of our stipulated agreement was Jack Dennis.
He was the only person when we submitted that --
MR. BECHTEL: Mr. St. Clair or Longhill?
MR. PATTERSON: So he didn't file -- on behalf of
MR. BECHTEL: Same goes for Longhill or St. Clair.
They were not participants of record in the process and
they will not be allowed.
MS HILTON: Is the process strictly that one
meeting?
MR. BECHTEL: Yes.
MS HILTON: Does not include all of the time these
folks spent coming before Council and making known what
their beliefs and feelings were. That seems grossly
unfair to me. Nobody --
MR. TAYLOR: We could have all kinds of people
then --
MR. ERICSON: Thirty people there.
MR. TAYLOR: Thirty or forty people there at the
hearings.
MS HILTON: The definition I believe was narrowed
not too awfully long ago, the definition of an affected
person.
MR. BECHTEL: Yeah. I don't know the history of
it but I'm just -- don't shoot the messenger, I'm just
telling you what the message is.
MS HILTON: I stand by what I said. I would
prefer that it --rather than staying neutral or
saying they prefer that they not, I would say that they
felt that the citizens that were directly affected by
the result, these three --
MR. PATTERSON: I can agree with the sentiment
but I don't personally see where they're affected, but
I'm not a judge.
MR. GRANT: There's a process here. There's
statutes and the judge is to rule by them and that's
what we must live by. We're a nation of laws.
MS HILTON: Part of that statute includes
anything that comes before this body if it chooses to
--
MR. BECHTEL: The judge has asked when the
petition is filed if the state or the counsel for the
other parties does oppose or not oppose the motion.
You can tell me to oppose, not oppose it or to take no
position.
MR. TAYLOR: I oppose.
MR. PATTERSON: I oppose.
MR. GRANT: I would say I oppose.
MR. BECHTEL: I hear three of you saying to
oppose.
MS HILTON: I do not.
MS LANGFORD: I oppose.
MR. TAYLOR: All right.
MR. BECHTEL: All right, that's what I'll do then.
Okay.
MR. TAYLOR: Are you going to somehow communicate
with us about these boat slips?
MR. BECHTEL: Yes, absolutely.
MR. TAYLOR: So we'll get a memo.
MR. BECHTEL: Tomorrow if possible. As soon as
possible.
MR. TAYLOR: Council will get a memo?
MS HILTON: Will it come in the form of memo
individually or will we convene again after we've had
an opportunity to review it?
MR. BECHTEL: What would you prefer?
MS HILTON: I would prefer to be sure I have a
whole understanding of the boat slips and curb and
gutter and everything else we've discussed tonight.
MS LANGFORD: Me, too.
MR. BECHTEL: I'm going to take this document and
do some edits with it which you already directed me to
do with regard to the gopher tortoises and the curb and
gutter, and then I'm going to try to get the
information for the paragraph ten. I could give you
some language there. I will send you the DEP language
as soon as I have it.
The mediation is scheduled for July 13th.
I don't know if we have time to have another
meeting unless you --
MR. PATTERSON: That was my question, how do we
protect the security? I mean, if a memo comes out
reference 37 and eleven and it's a memo that's sitting
in public venue --
MR. BECHTEL: It is.
MR. PATTERSON: And is it relevant in reference to
what we have done in regard to mediation here?
MR. BECHTEL: Certainly I can tell you what the
FDEP's position is. I'll have that in writing. I can
find out what the -- get the answers to your
questions, I could call Ed. I could call the Mayor,
whatever you tell me you want to do but you need to
have that information before July thirteenth because it
looks like if we go to the mediation -- if we only have
this one issue we're probably going to go.
MR. ERICSON: If you E-mail and then require not
an answer to it but the fact that I opened it and would
then give it to each member of the Council, that's no
problem, to make sure that I got it. Because there
have been a few times when people said, well, I sent
you one and obviously I never got it and so --
MR. BECHTEL: You have your read receipt
on that because -- when I get it back from you when
you wrote me that, so I know when you've opened it.
MR. ERICSON: Every time, I'll click it until it
does tell me that, or say that you opened it and then
go on from there.
MR. BECHTEL: I can go back -- I get a note back
saying read.
MR. ERICSON: That's right.
MS HILTON: I'm not sure I'm clear on --
MR. PATTERSON: It's going to go to you and --
MR. ERICSON: Okay, it comes to me and then,
counsel, you tell me, at that point, at that point I
would put it in your mailbox. I would -- how do you
want me to do it?
MR. PATTERSON: I'm not comfortable with that to
tell you the truth. I'm not comfortable with that,
putting it in the mail box.
MR. TAYLOR: I think what you need to do is when
it's communicated to you you contact each Council
person individually, so we don't discuss it amongst
ourselves.
MR. PATTERSON: I would agree.
MR. ERICSON: Oh, you can --
MR. TAYLOR: If we have a problem we will get back
with you and we can have you tell the attorney we need
another special session.
MR. ERICSON: Okay.
MR. BECHTEL : Okay.
MS HILTON: Does that mean that each one of us
gets a written form of what he's saying?
MR. TAYLOR: No.
MR. ERICSON: I'll read it to you. Evidently -- I
said that we would put it in the mailbox and there's
some discussion going on that so you people tell me how
you want me to handle it after I get it and that's the
way we're going to handle it but, you know, there has
to be some unanimity here because I would have a
problem with saying one goes here, one goes this way.
No, no, we're going to do it all one way or it's going
to have to be unanimous.
MR. TAYLOR: Let's think what this might say.
MR. BECHTEL: Okay. Will say 37 slips means no
more than twelve docks, two slips to a dock. Come out
37 but that's all it's going to say. Factual
information.
MR. ERICSON: I would read this, if I call every
member, I would read it exactly the way you said that
you wanted it to be transmitted to them.
MR. PATTERSON: I don't mind receiving a
document, a physical document that I could read and
hold, you know. I just meant it's a public venue as
far as the mailbox thing here. If we walk into your
office, I said, Ed, have you got a document, can you
copy and print it for me? I have no objection to that.
MR. ERICSON: I guess if we're going to do that I
would just as soon give you the call, read you the
document and then put the hard copy in -- a hard copy
in your mailbox. That way you know that I have told
you exactly what they sent and now you can validate it.
MS HILTON: Jim, would a sealed envelope in a
personal mailbox make you more comfortable?
MR. PATTERSON: I don't know if we could do that.
MR. ERICSON: No one could open it.
MR. PATTERSON: If we could, then yes.
MR. ERICSON: With that methodology it's a piece
of cake. When I get the information from Steve, I will
then call every one of you and read it to you. If you
-- if I can't get ahold of you, I will leave a message
to call me and get ahold of me, and at that point I
will read it but the minute -- the minute I read it to
you, that hard copy's going to go in an envelope and in
your mailbox, and that way --
MR. SCHATT: Steve, address, if you would, the
confidentiality of the documents that get handed out.
MS HILTON: That was part of my next question.
MR. BECHTEL: If you have one, smartest thing
to do is have a litigation folder, correspondence from
attorney for DCA versus Dunnellon, put it in there,
keep it separate from your other public documents. Now
this particular communication is not going to be --
not going to be advocating or recommending anything.
I'm just going to give you the information.
MS HILTON: But it is still privileged
information.
MR. BECHTEL: Yes, you can certainly treat it
that way and that's always a good thing to do, have a
litigation folder.
MR. SCHATT: Essentially what Steve's saying is
if this thing is passed out beyond who's in this room,
it's not going to sink the ship but it is confidential
information that once it is disclosed becomes public
information.
MR. BECHTEL: That's right.
MR. TAYLOR: Okay. Can I have my paper back?
MR. ERICSON: How do you want me to do it, the way
we said? I'll call you then I'll put it in a sealed
envelope, I will keep a litigation file. As a matter
of fact everything pertaining to this that I have
gotten an E-mail has gone into a file. Oh, yeah -- I
like hard copy as opposed to --
MR. BECHTEL: I do, too.
MR. ERICSON: But that may be because of my gentle
years.
MR. BECHTEL: This goes back to you.
MS HILTON: Oh, John, I gave you the wrong one,
gave you something of mine and kept yours. Here we go.
MR. PATTERSON: Tic Tac anyone?
MR. SCHATT: I believe just for the purposes of
the record, I'm going to conclude the meeting unless
there's any further comment. Hearing none we're
finished.
(Meeting concluded 8:30 p.m.)
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
STATE OF FLORIDA)
COUNTY OF MARION)
I, MARLA DIEFFENWIERTH, Court Reporter, do
hereby certify that I was authorized to and did
stenographically report the foregoing meeting
and that pages one through 88 are a true
record of the proceedings.
I Further Certify that I am not a relative or
employee or attorney or counsel of any of the
parties hereto, nor a relative or employee of such
attorney or counsel, nor am I financially
interested in the action.
Dated this 10th day of July, 2006 at
Ocala, Marion County, Florida.
__________________________
MARLA DIEFFENWIERTH, FPR
Florida Professional Reporter
90
1