Executive Session 1
March 27th, 2006
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: MARCH 27, 2006
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: DUNNELLON CITY HALL, DUNNELLON, FLORIDA
BEFORE: MARLA DIEFFENWIERTH, COURT REPORTER
APPEARANCES: J. THEODORE SCHATT, ESQUIRE
MATEER & HARBERT
7 EAST SILVER SPRINGS BLVD., 2ND FLOOR
OCALA, FLORIDA
ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL
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: We're here, as y'all know, for a
shade meeting. The way I intend to break this down is
first look at our purpose for being here tonight, go
over a couple ground rules; then I'll turn it over to
Steve who, as you know, he's been our point person on
Rainbow River to give you the status and essentially
what our options are.
The subject matter we're permitted to discuss
here in closed session is simply concerning the DCA
appeal. As to what we may do after we make a
determination on the appeal or how Rainbow River
Ranches could play out, that's not something we can
discuss in closed session.
This meeting is protected by the attorney-client
privilege. That's important because if we go out of
this room and we disclose it to a third person not in
this room, even if we disclose it to the City Clerk
who's not sitting in this room, there's an argument
that the attorney client privilege has been waived.
That's important because this is our ability to make a
determination as to how we want to proceed in
litigation.
You don't necessarily want to lay that out in
front of the DCA for instance or the developer for that
matter. So what is said here needs to stay here.
With that being said, the disclosure of the
content of this meeting runs afoul of the code of
conduct that was set out about three or four months
ago, so anything that's said here should remain here.
I believe that's what I need to go over in
preliminaries.
I apologize for the delay in this meeting but
hopefully we're on target now. Steve.
MR. BECHTEL: Okay. We're here to discuss the
procedure for dealing with the DCA notice of noncompliance of the Rainbow River Ranch project, which
you approved in December.
As you know, we got a notice of non-compliance.
Under the growth management act provision of the
statute it's an automatic administrative appeal to the
administrative law judge in Tallahassee so the DCA
didn't have any choice.
It's automatic so that's what happens. It goes to
the administrative law judge. We were required to file
a response to the initial order we got saying to the
parties, what do you want to do, you have to set a
hearing.
We filed a joint response with the DCA and we told
the administrative law judge that we were going to be
discussing various alternatives that we had and ask the
judge to not schedule a hearing until we had a chance
to have this meeting.
We do have to tell the judge by April six if
we're going to go ahead with the hearing, if we're
going to have, what we're going to do. We want to go
over the alternatives with you.
The notice of compliance itself or non-compliance
itself gives you two options, actually there are three
options. The first thing you can do is, it's not
necessarily in order of my recommendation.
The first thing you can do is you can decide that
you're going to fight the DCA and you're going to prove
that your action that you took is in compliance.
That would involve essentially proceeding just
like a trial before an administrative law judge. We
would have to have witnesses and attorneys would argue,
just like you see them do all the time.
I don't recommend that course of action but that
is an option. Second option is simply withdraw the
amendment completely and be done with it. I have to
tell you I have gotten a little bit mixed signals from
the developer about whether they want to do that or
not.
First they said they did but -- they didn't want
to go through this process any further with the DCA. I
think they've rethought that because they've got
lobbyists working with the DCA to make an
accommodation, I don't recommend you do that either.
The third alternative you have is to make some
changes to the amendment to address the issues the DCA
put out before you. The statute allows for there to be
a mediation process, if you're familiar with that.
We would have a mediation session before we had a
hearing, if we ever did have a hearing, where
representatives of the Department would be there and
whoever you all designate would be there for the City,
and we would go through the recommended remedial
actionsthat are in the notice of non-compliance and see
how we could make an accommodation to change things to
satisfy both sides.
That's what I recommend that we try to do
assuming you want to go ahead and try to get this
project going. The main issue to me -- the Mayor knows
this very well.
I think there was one meeting in Tallahassee with
DCA representatives and several citizens and DEP and
water management district, everybody showed up. The
main issue obviously is the docks on the river.
The DCA position and I talked to the lawyer again
today is that there's too much density along the river,
which could allow docks to be located, too many docks
to be located along the river; although it would have
to be approved by DEP which is not going to approve too
many docks but this is a figure the DCA has.
I think the DCA's main objection is density along
the river and potential number of boat docks that could
be put on the river.
Other things would be fairly easy to deal with.
They felt our memo was not specific enough in its
monitoring and enforcement and some things talked about
but we can deal easily with those but that's basically
it.
So my recommendation is that you seriously
consider scheduling the mediation and deal with Bruce
Day and you all and we decide what our position will be
on the different issues.
Might take another meeting to do that and then go
ahead and have the mediation on it. Probably could
have it in April or May.
MR. ERICSON: They did have an April tenth
mediation. If we go into mediation the tenth window is
extended?
MR. BECHTEL: Yes, we would file a report by the
6th with the Judge. We would tell him we're still
discussing settlement with the Department and ask him
to defer further scheduling and he will be glad to.
He wouldn't want to have a hearing if he doesn't
have to. That wouldn't be unusual for us to do that.
We'd have to report to the judge by that day.
MR. TAYLOR: John Taylor speaking. Being at the
last meeting that was -- I don't know if they recorded
it up there or not but the attorney for Rainbow River
Ranch and also some citizens from Dunnellon showed up.
I was there and Steve, you were on the phone listening
along with the city manager.
It was brought up several times at that meeting
that -- and I think also in the ORC report is what
they call it -- that having any type of docks along the
river would be in conflict with our comprehensive plan,
and I can't find that anyplace, and we as a city have
advised the developer and also have advised the
citizens that the city of Dunnellon does not have the
authority to license docks and that's why we -- we
removed ourself from that issue and for some reason DCA
continues to put us back into that issue, and holding
up the development rights because of that particular
issue along with the view -- and I think they've got
that pretty well satisfied.
And they also had the opinion that since we did
our stipulated agreement where we stipulated four
hundred fifty homes on that property, they're under the
opinion that property remained as one house per ten
acres because that's what agricultural zoning in the
county was at the time; but when that was taken into
the city the city zoning ordinance for agricultural is
one house per five acres and I brought that to their
attention and they're still under the assumption that
it retained the county's zoning one house per ten acres
which is not true.
So I wanted to make sure that the DCA was aware
of that because when they were talking about the number
of houses along the river, they assumed since it's one
house per ten acres that the number of houses on the
river fronting property would be a lot less than what's
actually there.
And the developer even has talked at public
hearing with us about limiting the docks to possibly
eleven docks along that river and not the twenty-one
docks that has been laid out in the ORC report and what
DCA feels that could be placed on that river.
MR. BECHTEL: When I was speaking to the DCA
attorney this morning I discussed this with her, she
said, well, we understood that the density was not
going to be what we think it is along the river -- she
wasn't committing to the Department -- we wouldn't
necessarily object to any docks.
I said, well, the developer does have some
riparian rights. I don't think you could say no docks.
Here's what they're picking up on, it's a stretch.
They say that a lot of the development walkways and
docks along the river is internally inconsistent with
existing conservation policy 2.1.2 which states that a
minimum setback of fifty feet from ordinary high water
shall be established for structures and they're saying
a dock is a structure so you're internally
inconsistent.
I think that's really a stretch if you intend to
buy that policy. That's the kind of thing we talked to
them about.
MR. TAYLOR: What about boardwalks?
MR. BECHTEL: Right, same thing. That's what we'd
talk to them about at mediation, why you want to go
that way.
MS HILTON: One of the problems that that would
create and when I had discussed the things with the DCA
and as with several other folks was that while they
were not thrilled with boardwalks, they found them much
preferable to pathways.
Pathways along that river would obviously be much
more destructive of what they're -- I'm not obviously
-- I'm not well rehearsed in law but it would seem to
me that the intent of what we had there is to protect
the area from the water's edge through the marshy area
and up into that fragile growth area by not allowing
homes in it and by not allowing people to tread upon it
because that is always problematic in that kind of an
area -- docks, as such, again are outside the city
venue. If we were within our venue I would push very
hard not to have any. However, they are by law outside
of our venue.
MR. BECHTEL: Well, as I say, any dock still
would have to be permitted by the Department of
Environmental Protection and that's no easy task as I'm
sure you all know.
MS HILTON: I spent several months trying to get
permitted to replace dockage and a boat house that had
been destroyed. Actually it was SWFWMD that gave me
more problem than DCA. You're right.
MR. BECHTEL: That's right.
MR. GRANT: Excuse me, Charles Grant. Is there a
prevention from us establishing because of this project
a contractual agreement that they will not in effect
attempt to put docks if that is a stumbling block?
MR. BECHTEL: No -- that's something that could
be negotiated.
MR. GRANT: Do we need to change that by
resolution within the city? I understand we can't
supercede the State statute but within our developer's
agreement we contract there will be no docks --
MR. BECHTEL: That's certainly possible to do
that --
MR. ERICSON: Would that be --
MR. BECHTEL: I doubt they'll be willing to do
that but it's possible.
MR. ERICSON: I'm going back to what Mary Ann
said. The City's being asked to make some sort of
adjustment decisions on something over which they have
absolutely no control and this is the thing that has
mystified me from day one. How can they ask us as a
community and a developer to modify something over
which we have no control.
And this is the thing that has been -- I have
been stymied over and I can't -- I can't for the life
of me see where it becomes part of this issue other
than if we mediate something would we be -- would we
be acting only as the city and would that in turn --
what we would mediate and could mediate, would that be
a change in our comp plan?
MR. BECHTEL: And if we're going to go forward
with this, if I was Clark Stilwell, I would move to
intervene formally on behalf of the developer so they
become a party to this process.
Then they would participate in the mediation and
of course we wouldn't make any decisions. You could
but you wouldn't, you're right, wouldn't make sense to
make decisions that wasn't going to get the property
developed.
That's the ultimate goal but that's what I would
do. I expect that's what he will do if we tell him
we're going to go ahead with the mediation. It
wouldn't make any sense otherwise. I agree.
MR. TAYLOR: John Taylor again. We've been at
this long enough to know that this particular developer
wishes to have some dockage on that Rainbow River and I
think it is unreasonable for this council to say to
them, you can't have any docks on that river.
They've agreed to setback of a hundred feet
from the high water line. They've agreed to share
dockage. They've agreed to four stroke engines,
anybody putting in at their development has to have a
four stroke engine, makes it a lot cleaner.
They have agreed to numerous things here and for
us to turn around to say as the city, okay, developer,
you can't have any rights on that, along that river
bank, as far as dockage is concerned, I think it's
unrealistic to ask them that.
MR. GRANT: I understand what you're saying,
John, and because obviously people have homes along
there, they're going to be able to access the river.
The boardwalk concept I think makes a shole lot more
sense. It's the one area of the river that's so
sensitive where it's pinched off.
The fact that they were wanting to put the ramp
in the cove I could see the possibility of having some
there, but I mean, if it comes down to the DCA is not
wanting to support this, then it seems like the state
agency itself is telling us there shouldn't be any
docks there.
MR. TAYLOR: But it's not the state agency that
governs docks. It's a different agency. There's
another agency that can -- they can't permit that.
MR. SCHATT: The city finds itself where it's
been all along which is in the middle of something it
can't control.
It can't tell the developer no docks anymore than
it can tell the developer put as many docks on the
river as it wants and it can't tell the DCA to issue
permits and DCA itself can't tell DCA to issue permits
for a dock.
So if we had the mediation, the point in heading
to mediation is to allow the developer and DCA to
continue to try and work something out.
If we proceed to trial, we also give them that
but that means that there's a whole lot more work to be
done and a whole lot more attorneys' fees that will be
incurred. If we pull it, we're essentially telling the
developer you had your shot, you didn't get it done.
MS HILTON: Mary Ann Hilton again. There is
currently a dock on that property, so that the question
of whether or not people have access to the river who
live or to choose to buy in that development is moot.
There is currently a dock there in the area where
the homestead was. It's a nice big dock, fairly long.
It's in the wide part of the river where there is good
flow.
It was my understanding from folks that had
been at the DCA meeting that the primary problem DCA
was having with docks and having boats at those docks
was that in those areas there has been an increase of a
very aggressive aquatic weed, and that their feeling
was that additional docks along the river, particularly
one that would allow people to leave their boats in the
water would increase that hydrilla problem which is now
costing the State, therefore us, a very large amount of
money on an annual basis.
The west side of the river, as I understand it
from some folks at the DCA that I've spoken with, is
fairly heavily populated with hydrilla.
The east side of the river where there is no
docks and no boats holding up that dockage is
essentially hydrilla free and that would be the DCA's
argument for keeping the docks out.
The question of the cove as I understood it from
two people that I spoke with was that is a wetland area
adjacent to the water. That the wetlands actually
extend up into that cove shore line a fair distance and
I believe that was one of the things that was in the
notice of intent was that the DCA disagrees with
allowing the kind of development that the developer
wanted to put there; i.e., a boat wash, a sandy beach,
ingress and egress, there are multiple nesting areas in
there.
It has been changed by man a long time ago
but it has now developed into a primary nesting sight
for several water birds, kinds of water birds and
feeding area for fish hatchery and that was DCA's other
primary problem.
And I realize we cannot decide what we would like
to have developers agree to at this meeting. However,
keeping in mind that there's another area for a dock
might be a handy thing to do if we're looking -- that
there is already a dock in another area that will give
ingress and egress, allow people to probably to put
boats in and out because that would not do a whole lot
of changing in that area and still preserve the health
of the river as described by the DCA, that is in
preventing the hydrilla growth along the east side of
the river and possibly keep everybody happy.
MR. PATTERSON: I'm Jim Patterson. If I may,
I'm a little confused on some of the issues discussed
in this room. What we have to deal with has very
little to do with -- are things that are out of our
control. Am I correct in that?
Most of the things mentioned with the
exception of the archeological habitat or the graveyard
that they have there is totally out of our control and
anything else mentioned really comes into a developer's
agreement. Have I got this right?
MR. BECHTEL: You do. I needed to say this about
the mediation. If we had a mediation and you
authorized and I and the Mayor go -- when a government
agency mediates, the participants can't make the
decision. It has to come back to the council to be
approved so whatever we might agree to would have to
come back to you all for approval. I wouldn't want you
to think otherwise.
I have had it happen many times -- last month
with a federal agency. They disapproved a mediation
agreement but it has to come back for your approval.
If you didn't want to approve it, we could try again or
MR. ERICSON: I personally think that mediation
is the way to go because it gives some options for both
sides. If we -- if we go in any other way we either
acquiesce to one or the other but in essence we really
don't have any say in it.
This way we could sit down with them and give
them how we feel this way, what their concerns are and
at least you get two groups that are addressing the --
addressing the matter, not just one group and then I
mean, I personally, I personally think mediation's the
way to go. Anything else I think would be
counterproductive. I really do -- my two cents worth.
MR. SCHATT: To complete the loop, when I talked
to each of you individiually on the phone, you in
person, one of the options was withdraw and go through
zoning that we already have to try and implement as
much of the development as possible, and upon taking a
second look at that Steve has advised he believes that
to be an option that's off the table, as a result I
believe of the original settlement agreement.
MR. BECHTEL: Right.
MR. SCHATT: So we haven't removed an option from
you without reason. We're really down to we mediate,
which is the new added option or withdraw or we fight
it out.
MS HILTON: Mary Ann again. As I understand it
when you say fight it out, we would be fighting it out
with the DCA to prove what we sent them was an
appropriate thing --
MR. SCHATT: That's correct.
MR. TAYLOR: If we mediate we're likely to be
mediating with the DCA and if the developer is smart
and I'm sure he is, the developer's lawyers as well --
I was very pleased to hear that the mediation would not
be binding. That was my primary concern.
MR. BECHTEL: I should have said that at the
beginning.
MR. ERICSON: This -- this committee basically
is just, we're acting as a committee and council
because we got staff involved. That's, I think that's
why we're here, to make sure that anyone that ever
challenges it, after everything is done, it went to
whatever process we select.
It came back to the council for approval. And I
would assume that there would be some room at that
council meeting for addressment by the audience, I
don't know how you would run it, or you could just run
it any way the council chose to run it.
MR. BECHTEL: Yes.
MR. ERICSON: Okay.
MR. TAYLOR: Well, Councilwoman Langford, we
haven't heard from you.
MS LANGFORD: I'm Pearlie Langford. I'm going to
go to the beginning of it, that I was under the
impression that DCA said that everything was in order,
that they could have docks on the river, and then it
changed to where it is now, where they can't.
They were supposed to have a marina I think or
something like that in one area of the, you know, of
the river where they take their boats down there, you
know, and put them in the river and, bring them, take
them back to wherever they're taking them, et cetera.
And I think I'm also reading something that DCA, what
DCA wants us to do is to write into our comp plan, is
-- am I on the right track?
MR. BECHTEL: Yes.
MS LANGFORD: When DCA -- I was under the
impression that they told them they could have docks on
the river, someone up there went that direction -- but
now we're finding out with all the things that's going
on and what's going to damage the river and et cetera
that they can't do that so now we have to thrash it
out.
I see that -- I feel they should have a few docks
but not that many docks, maybe one household if you
know, they get together, they have a boat or maybe two
can dock from that same marina, they can do that but
not have that many docks, every house have a dock or,
you know, that, no, definitely can't do that because
that certainly would damage the river more than what it
is now, okay?
So I feel that they should have a dock, maybe
five docks or something like that, because I know
everyone that buys a house up there is not interested
in a boat.
They're not interested in what we're interested
-in going down the river, so join in with someone
else, take your little trip down or up the river,
whatever. But I know each house can't have a dock and
it hasn't been said that every house wants a dock, but
I know these things have to be put in order before that
time.
MR. GRANT: Maybe y'all have been up there and
seen this but that whole bank where the river's real
narrow is almost solid with cypress trees. Now unless
they're going to turn those docks sideways, I don't see
how they're going to put them out there.
And that is the area that is of the primary
concern. The area -- Councilwoman Hilton, the area
you're talking about is the area right behind the old
house? There's a dock there right behind the house.
MS HILTON: Yes.
MR. GRANT: I thought that was quite small.
MS HILTON: There's a dock -- the last time I saw
it it appeared to me to extend out a fair distance into
the river and that is the wider part of the river.
The narrows of the river which you will hear
referred to frequently, there are areas within the
Rainbow as you go upstream where right -- now the
rocks, several of them are above the surface of the
water in the middle of the river.
It is difficult to navigate a boat through them, a
pontoon which is most of what's on that river through
the narrows at this point in time when the water's only
down two inches from it's norm --
MR. GRANT: And that's where the trees are real
thick.
MS HILTON: There are also a lot of cypress trees
along that area that is probably the area of primary
concern where the house is currently located on the
land and the time I saw it was quite awhile back, from
seeing it from the shoreside, there appeared to be a
decent size dock, an open area where if they're going
to do -- and I don't know that they are but I wouldn't
be surprised if they did at least part of that gated
community that would be a logical place to have a
clubhouse and a dock that would be available to anyone
that that area where boats could be hauled in and out
and not left and that's worked in a lot of communities,
and a lot of very expensive communities.
Most people in that kind of a community want to
keep the river viable and according to the DCA sticking
ten or twelve docks along the side -- east side of the
bank is not likely to help promote viability of the
water. So the one dock that's there probably would
give them a reasonable access and a reasonable place to
pull in and out.
The other what I see as a major problem, if they
want to put a boat wash down by the cove and I cannot
imagine that DCA will allow that, I can't imagine them
mediating that --
MR. SCHATT: If I was going to attempt to read
tea leaves and it's very difficult when I do this and
it's often counterproductive but if the state was going
to simply let this go, say, okay, we'll let DEP deal
with the issue of docks, it's going to be much more
difficult for DEP once the property is split up to
challenge each landowner's riparian rights to docks.
It's much easier at this point to throw up a road block
and say no docks, get an agreement with the developer
to limit the number of docks and then have that in
force going forward without DEP having to get in the
middle.
So if I'm reading the tea leaves, government
departments got together and said, okay, how do we get
what we want. Let's throw up a road block at DCA and
see where we can get it before it ever has to get to
DEP.
Toward that end, it may mean that if we go to
mediation, we can get something worked out and we can
get the development that was unanimously voted for at
council but we, being Steve and I, have to have the
authority of council to go forward and set the
mediation process and go forward.
MR. TAYLOR: Just to the boat wash area, we saw
the plans, the boat wash area and the boat storage,
that's up in the commercial, I mean, it's way up off
the river, cannot put the boat wash down on the river,
so I mean, all of these, see, that's a problem with I
guess a small community.
There's just a lot of rumors, unfactual things
that are put out there and people say things that are
really not factual and to go around and keep putting
all these little fires out, it's a full time job.
But I guess as a council, you know, I personally
feel that mediation is the right way to go. I think we
need to mediate but I think that DCA also has to
understand there's certain things that the City's not
responsible for.
MR. BECHTEL: Right. Agreed.
MS HILTON: I would assume that's a part of the
mediation process.
MR. BECHTEL: Absolutely.
MR. ERICSON: The nice part of the mediation
process there's a third party independent voice.
MR. BECHTEL: Yeah.
MR. ERICSON: And I think that wherein there lies
the strength in mediation.
MS HILTON: How is that third party chosen?
MR. BECHTEL: There is any number of organizations
of mediators. There's one or two that's typically used
for this type of case and it's an independent person,
works with an organization. We agree to who it is and
they agree to who it is.
I'm a mediator myself in Orlando and both sides
will contact and agree to use me and I'm a neutral
party but there's organizations that have -- groups of
mediators that are ready to serve.
MR. TAYLOR: I need to make a disclosure here
that tomorrow that there's a meeting that has been
called by Senator Argenziano's office and the impetus
of this meeting was really from the last meeting that
we had in Tallahassee where Senator Argenziano sent
over the legislative aide to listen in on what was
being done on this particular meeting that the attorney
for the developer called with DCA and we all were
involved in that.
It appears and I have talked to Senator
Argenziano several times and it appears that a lot of
our citizens have called up there with concern about
the health of the river and also the development of
this particular piece of property.
I had received a call, several calls from Nancy
Argenziano's office, one from her and several from her
legislative aide and I received a call this past week
indicating that Nancy wanted to have a meeting with the
developer and also DCA and invited myself up to attend
this meeting and that will be held tomorrow.
The meeting is going to be taking place over at
the Senate building. She has indicated to me that she
has a problem, I think, with DCA and riparian rights
and that's what she wants to talk to them about.
The senator's reputation throughout the whole
state is a person that is a watchdog for our
environment and our waters and the rivers. Now this
lady is very, very concerned about the health of the
rivers and what goes on in the rivers so --
MR. BECHTEL: She may be able to mediate herself
maybe.
MR. TAYLOR: She may be but I think that it's
sort of -- I think it's bringing in somebody else to
have another set of eyes to look at this development
and say, well, council, I think you're crazy to have a
development on that river.
If she comes back and says that or I don't know
what she's going to say but I think that it's another
expert.
They complained -- there's a group of people that
complained about having a boat launching ramp in that
little cove area and the original developer, the Berry
Group said, okay, we'll take that out because we'll put
what they're considering putting boat docks or boat
ramps up exactly where Councilwoman Hilton discussed.
Well, the experts came down and looked at that area and
said, no, that's not a good area because that's right
at a curve.
There's a bend that comes around there and that's
right where this one dock is at and to have both coming
out and being launched there at a blind curve, they
said that's not an acceptable place so the experts came
down and looked at the cove area and said that is the
place to put a boat launching ramp.
Now we still have to contend with a group of
people that indicate that that's not environmentally
sound. They don't want anything in that particular
area and that's really not up to the City Council I
guess to make that decision.
That's why I need to make sure that we all
understand that there's somebody else out there that's
going to be making this decision and we just want to be
a part of it.
The longer this particular development is delayed
the more it's costing our city and I think we've all
listened to it. We've listened to this a year and a
half. Been through all the public hearings.
Everybody's listened.
There's been some give and take. There's been a
lot of compromise on this. I think it's time for us to
move forward and doing mediation I think would be the
right thing to do.
MS HILTON: Mary Ann again. John, actually this
is a question to you and to the rest of the folks
sitting here. The last time you were in Tallahassee,
it's my understanding that our legal staff advised you
to see that that was published at least in part due to
the very serious interest that any number of citizens
had placed in being at or having access to that
meeting.
I am uncomfortable with a meeting that's going to
involve you and the DCA and even if it's with the
legislature if the people of the city are not aware
that it is going on, I think it will cause a great deal
of discomfort among other fairly large number of
citizens and I have made that obvious enough that our
lawyer commented on it the last time you went to
Tallahassee and went to a meeting with the DCA.
Should this then be published so that there is no
question as to the integrity of the meeting and the
gentleman who is attending it?
Editor's Note:
The decision to 'publish' this meeting was moot. The meeting was scheduled for the next day, and there would not have been enough time to notify the public through publication. The timing of the mayor's 'disclosure' is highly suspect, at the very least; and a negation of due process at worst. You decide which.
MR. SCHATT: That was not a legal opinion that it
needed to be published. That was simply we had
somebody at the previous meeting who was asking when
that meeting was going to take place and it came about
in rather hasty fashion and rather than make it appear
that City Council was not being forthcoming in when
that meeting was to take place, my suggestion was it be
posted on the website.
MS HILTON: I believe after that meeting whether
it was in a subsequent meeting or at that one, that the
people that were sitting in that audience were assured
if there was another such meeting they would be
notified in a timely manner.
I’m concerned that it will cause a number of
people in the city, whether they're people who are in
agreement with my views or people who are in agreement
with someone else's views, that the city is not being
forthcoming and I have a great fear that it will cause
more disruption to this process than we would have if
they were aware of it.
MR. TAYLOR: Well, I think the context of that
meeting and what was said there was if there was
another meeting called at DCA -- now the Senator called
this meeting.
MS HILTON: I think that's spliting a pretty fine
hair.
MR. GRANT: She set this up.
MR. TAYLOR: Yeah, I have no problems in going out
here to this meeting and announcing this meeting's
going to be taking place. People already know about
it.
MS HILTON: My honest opinion would be that would
be a better thing for all of the City Council.
MR. TAYLOR: I don't have any problems with it. I
can go out there after this meeting's over and discuss
that there is a meeting called by Senator Argenziano in
the interest of the Rainbow River Ranch and that I plan
on attending that meeting and Ed's going up there so
I'll have Ed sit in the meeting too.
MR. BECHTEL: I think that's a fine idea.
MR. ERICSON: And other things -- that will be
some but we're also going to be talking about some of
the House bills that are up in, and are
counterproductive to our phase one, two, three -- or
two, three, four and five of the sewer projects. I
guess we want to be as open as we could be.
MS HILTON: I think people will be much more
comfortable with the way things are being done. You
know, I called you this morning because you got phone
calls, I got phone calls.
MR. SCHATT: I don't want to cut off this
discussion but this kind of goes far afield of the DCA
and we don't want to end up in a closed session having
a problem with that so we're -- if there's no further
discussion on whether to mediate, pull it or litigate
it, I would ask for the mayor to call a vote on that
issue and give us some direction as to how we should
proceed.
MR. TAYLOR: Okay, Council, it is my opinion,
I would vote for mediation. That's Mayor
John Taylor. Councilwoman Hilton?
MS HILTON: I would vote for mediation.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Patterson?
MR. PATTERSON: Mediation.
MS LANGFORD: Mediation.
MR. TAYLOR: Councilwoman Langford?
MS LANGFORD: Mediation.
MR. TAYLOR: Councilman Grant?
MR. GRANT: Yes, mediation.
MR. BECHTEL: We have our orders.
MR. SCHATT: I thank you for your participation.
That will close the shade meeting and we can go back
out and continue with the regular meeting.
(Concluded 7:40 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 33 are a true record of the proceedings.
I Further Certify that I am not a relative or
employee or attorney or council 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 31st day of March, 2006 at Ocala,
Marion County, Florida.
__________________________
MARLA DIEFFENWIERTH