>> BUT WE CAN WING IT. [00:00:01] >> YOU DIDN'T? >> WE CAN WING IT. >> THIS MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER. [1. CALL TO ORDER] MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> NANCY SIKES-KLINE. >> HERE. >> BARBARA BLONDER. >> HERE. >> JIM SPRINGFIELD. CYNTHIA GARRIS? >> HERE. >> JON DEPRETER. >> HERE. >> YOU HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? I DON'T SEE ANYONE BEHIND ME. >> PUBLIC COMMENT. >> PUBLIC COMMENT. >> PUBLIC COMMENT IS OPEN. ANYONE WHO WISH TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE, PUBLIC COMMENT IS [NOISE] CLOSED. [3. CITY ATTORNEY REQUESTS THE ADVICE OF THE CITY COMMISSION REGARDING THE PENDING LITIGATION FOR: ♦ Case No.: CA05-0186 – Craig A. Marlowe v. City of St. Augustine, et al. ♦ Participants shall be limited to: City Commission - Mayor Nancy Sikes-Kline, Vice-Mayor Barbara Blonder, Commissioner Cynthia Garris, Commissioner Jim Springfield, and Commissioner Jon DePreter; City Manager David Birchim, City Attorney Isabelle Lopez, Outside Counsel Michael Cavendish, and a Certified Court Reporter.] >> MAY I ANNOUNCE THE SHADE MEETING, MADAM MAYOR? I AS YOUR CITY ATTORNEY, REQUEST THE ADVICE OF THE CITY COMMISSION REGARDING THE PENDING LITIGATION FOR CASE NUMBER CA 05-0186, THAT IS THE CRAIG A. MARLOW VERSUS CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE LAWSUIT. MAY I READ THE LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ON YOUR BEHALF? THE PARTICIPANTS SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION, WHICH IS MAYOR NANCY SIKES-KLINE, VICE MAYOR BARBARA BLONDER, COMMISSIONER CYNTHIA GARRIS. COMMISSIONER JIM SPRINGFIELD WAS INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE, BUT HE IS ABSENT. COMMISSIONER JON DEPRETER. JOINING US WILL ALSO BE CITY MANAGER DAVID BURCHAM, MYSELF, ISABEL LOPEZ, AS YOUR CITY ATTORNEY, AND YOUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL MICHAEL CAVENDISH. WE DO HAVE A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER, MISS SUZETTE KOWALSKI, WILL BE TAKING THE VERBATIM MINUTES OF OUR SHADE MEETING. THEN WE WILL COME BACK. WE ESTIMATE APPROXIMATELY 20 MINUTES TO BE IN THE SHADE, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK IN THE SUNSHINE AND CLOSE OUT THIS MEETING. [4. RECESS TO THE ALCAZAR CONFERENCE ROOM FOR SHADE MEETING] AT THIS TIME, MADAM MAYOR, IF YOU'LL RECESS TO THE ALCAZAR CONFERENCE ROOM. >> WE ARE RECESSED. WE ARE BACK FROM RECESS AND WE ARE RECONVENING OUR MEETING. [5. RE-OPEN REGULAR MEETING] MISS LOPEZ. >> MISS MADAM MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS, I BELIEVE MR. CAVENDISH HAS AN OUTLINE OF A SETTLEMENT THAT [6. ANY MATTERS TO BE DECIDED IN THE PUBLIC MEETING, FOLLOWED BY ADJOURNMENT] HE'D LIKE TO PRESENT IN THE SUNSHINE FOR POSSIBLE ACTION BY THE CITY COMMISSION. >> MADAM CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS, AS YOUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL WORKING ON THE MARLOW V. LEONARD'S L. LAWSUIT, FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW, A SETTLEMENT OPPORTUNITY HAS EMERGED, AND I'M GOING TO BRIEFLY GIVE YOU THE KEY POINTS OF THE SETTLEMENT. BUT I WILL ALSO IN ADVANCE, TELL YOU THAT IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, AS YOUR COUNSEL, I RECOMMEND THE CITY ACCEPTS THE SETTLEMENT. IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF MAGNOLIA AND MIRAMAR THAT IS SOUTH OF THE VILANO CAUSEWAY BRIDGE, THERE IS A SUBDIVISION FEATURING HOMES AND LOTS THAT ARE ON THE SHORE OF HOSPITAL CREEK, LOCAL WATERWAY THAT BOATS CAN RUN IN THAT FLOWS INTO THE MATANZAS RIVER. THIS LAWSUIT HAS BEEN A QUIET TITLE LAWSUIT, WHERE IN A PRIVATE PARTY WHO HAS PRIVATELY HELD REAL ESTATE LOTS, HAS ASSERTED CERTAIN CLAIMS OF OWNERSHIP OF AREAS OF LAND THAT AS THE PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THEM, APPEAR TO OVERLAP PARTS OF THE CITY'S SOVEREIGN PUBLIC LAND, BOTH DRY LAND AND SUBMERGED LAND IN THE WATER OF HOSPITAL CREEK. THE PLAINTIFF HAS BROUGHT THE QUIET TITLE LAWSUIT FOR THE PRACTICAL PURPOSE OF FINDING A CORRIDOR IN WHICH TO PUT A LONG DOCK THAT IS TYPICAL OF OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTIES IN THE SAME WATERWAY. PUTTING IN ALONG DOCK WOULD FIRST AND FOREMOST REQUIRE GETTING A PERMIT FOR THAT DOCK FROM THE CITY'S OWN PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. THE OPPORTUNITY THAT THE CITY HAS IS TO SETTLE A LAWSUIT, OBTAIN A DISMISSAL OF THE LAWSUIT WITH PREJUDICE AGAINST REFILING, MEANING THAT THE SAME CLAIMS CANNOT BE FILED AGAIN, OBTAIN A FULL RELEASE FROM ALL ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS OF QUIET TITLE, ALL ATTEMPTS TO PRIVATIZE AND DEFINE DISPUTED AREAS. IN EXCHANGE, THE CITY WOULD REQUIRE [00:05:05] THE PLAINTIFF TO PUT IN A NEW DOCK APPLICATION BEFORE ALL APPROPRIATE AGENCIES, INCLUDING THE PZB AND THE DEP, AND TO COMPLY WITH ANY AND ALL REQUIREMENTS THAT THOSE AGENCIES TYPICALLY DEMAND. THEN IF THAT IS DONE, THE CITY AGREES TO NOT OBJECT TO THE PLAINTIFF'S DESIGN FOR A NEW LONG DOCK THAT WILL OCCUPY A STRETCH OF WATER OVER SUBMERGED LAND AND MARSHY AREAS AND SHORELINE THAT IS DEFINED AS THE WATER WARD EXTENSION INTO HOSPITAL CREEK, OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH LINES OF THE CITY STREET THAT IS AT THE TOP OR NORTHERNMOST BOUNDARY OF THIS PLAT AND NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS CALLED EAST SAN CARLOS AVENUE. THERE IS SPACE IN THE WATER IF WE TAKE THE NORTH AND SOUTH LINES OF EAST SAN CARLOS AVENUE FOR A PRIVATE DOCK. THIS IS A NATURAL PLACE WHERE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER IN THE VICINITY OF PLAINTIFF'S LOTS COULD PROPOSE TO THE REGULATORS TO LOCATE AND DESIGN A DOCK. IN THIS PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, ONCE THE PLAINTIFF DOES THIS PROFESSIONALLY, WITH SURVEYORS, WITH CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING DRAWINGS, WITH ALL THE APPROVALS FROM THESE AGENCIES, THE CITY'S PART OF THE SETTLEMENT WOULD BE TO NOT OBJECT TO THE MERE LOCATION OF THIS DOCK IN THIS WATERY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH LINES OF EAST SAN CARLOS AVENUE. THIS AREA WOULD BE BELOW THE VILANO CAUSEWAY BRIDGE. IT WOULD ALSO BE BELOW AND BY EXPLICIT CONTRACTUAL STIPULATION, WOULD NOT TOUCH AND COULD NOT TOUCH THE NEW PARCEL THE CITY HAS ACQUIRED THAT DIRECTLY ADJOINS THE BRIDGE. THIS IS THE RECTANGULAR PARCEL THAT THE CITY RECENTLY PURCHASED FROM A PRIVATE PARTY, MR. VAN DYKE. IN THE CONCEPTION OF THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAINTIFF WOULD BE CAREFUL NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE PRIVATE DOCKS OF HIS EXISTING NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH AND NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE CITY'S NEW PARCEL THAT IT HAS PURCHASED, WHICH JUTS OUT INTO THE WATER TO THE NORTH. IF THE PLAINTIFF IS SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING THE DOCK PERMIT, THE CITY THROUGH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WOULD ISSUE THE PLAINTIFF WITH A WRITTEN LICENSE, WHICH IS WRITTEN PERMISSION TO BUILD A DOCK LIKE STRUCTURE ON THE CITY'S SUBMERGED LAND. IT'S A COMMON FORM OF LEGAL SOLUTION THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ALREADY USES WHEN IT DEALS WITH OTHER COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE LAND OWNERS WHO ARE ON THE SHORELINE AND WOULD LIKE TO PERMIT A DOCK, WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A DOCK. IT'S A VERY SENSIBLE SOLUTION. THE ORDER OF EVENTS IF YOU APPROVE THIS SETTLEMENT, AND I SHOULD MENTION THERE'S NO CASH COMPONENT IN THIS SETTLEMENT, THE CITY IS NOT BEING ASKED TO OR REQUIRED TO PAY ANY MONEY AS PART OF THIS, WE'D HAVE THE PLAINTIFF'S SIGNATURE. THE PLAINTIFF WOULD DISMISS THE LAWSUIT WITH PREJUDICE BASED ON ASSUMING THE COUNCIL WERE TO APPROVE THIS. WE WOULD RELEASE THE CITY'S SIGNATURE TO THE PLAINTIFF. THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ITSELF CONTAINS THE FULL RELEASE IN FAVOR OF THE CITY, AND THEN IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE PLAINTIFF TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF PUTTING IN HIS DOCK APPLICATION AND COMPLYING WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AGENCIES THAT OVERSEE THOSE DOCK APPLICATIONS. IF HE'S SUCCESSFUL, AND IF THE PERMITTED DOCK IS LOCATED ACCORDING TO HIS DESIGN IN THE CORRECT PLACE, ACCORDING TO THIS AGREEMENT, THEN THE CITY WOULD GIVE HIM A WRITTEN LICENSE, WHICH WOULD IN TURN SUPPORT HIS ABILITY TO HAVE THIS DOCK IN THE EYES OF SOME OF THESE REGULATORS. THOSE ARE THE PARAMETERS OF THE SETTLEMENT THAT I DO RECOMMEND, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS? I THINK WE HAVE A CONSENSUS. ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE SUPPORT. >> APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT? >> APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT, YES. >> I'LL SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> JON DEPRETER. >> YES. >> NANCY SIKES-KLINE. >> YES. >> CYNTHIA GARRIS. >> YES. >> BARBARA BLONDER. >> YES. >> VERY WELL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE IT. THAT ADJOURNS THIS MEETING. [00:10:03] WE WILL COME BACK FOR REGULAR MEETING AT 05:05. IT'S IN A MINUTE. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.