City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, while you're looking for that, I'll be right with you. Do you have the insurance?

Good evening, everybody. Thursday, September 10th, 530. This is our rescheduled, regularly scheduled city council meeting. A couple things to go over before we get started. If you're in the back of the room, if you're up for proclamations or presentations, that's fine. If you're going to be just attending the meeting, we do ask you to do the codes and fire marshal codes to take a seat in the spillover room in the back. There's an audio video. You'll be able to see us, hear us. We do have rules of decorum in effect, folks. And I know there's some very passionate items on the agenda. But if we could refrain from clapping, booing, cheering, of course for proclamations, awards, those things. It's important because it helps the meeting to go quicker. It helps us to conduct our meeting. And most importantly, there may be one person amongst 50 that wants to speak a different opinion and would like to be able to do so without being heckled or vice versa. So if we could do that, it would be greatly appreciated. A few things to know for tomorrow, 9-11 ceremony. Is it 9 o'clock, Chief, right here? 9-30, right here in front of the fire station. And then we have the blue ceremony at 11 o'clock at the San Marco Catholic Church. So if you can attend those, certainly a nice honor or necessary honor. With that, why don't you call the roll, please?

Councilor Henry? Here. Councilor Gullar? Here. Councilor Dunn? Here. Vice Chair Champagne? Here. Councilor Schwan?

Councilor Schwan's going to be calling in on a Zoom call. We're going to get to her in a moment.

Councilor Gray?

Here.

Chair Palumbo?

Here. All right, so six councilors accounted for in person. Guys, we do need a motion to allow Councilor Schwan, and I just saw her there. Benita, can you hear us?

Yes, I can.

Excellent. Happy to have you join on Zoom. We do need a motion to allow her to present. I move to allow her to present. second motion by Councillor Dome second by Councillor Gray can you call a roll on this please Councillor Dome yes Councillor Gray yes Councillor Kohler yes Councillor Henry yes Vice Chair Champaign yes Chair Palumbo yes Benita you're official you're with us yes thank you and I would like to thank the residents of Marco Island for the kind

messages and prayers that I received for the passing and loss of my family member. It's so greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Well, we stand with you. I wasn't going to mention it, but thoughts and prayers for you, Counselor. All right. Item three, the invocation. Reverend Thomas McCauley of the New Life Community Church is going to do that. And after that, it remains standing. If you're able to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, I'll leave that.

dear god oh lord you allowed me to fall in love with marco island as a teenager 52 years ago and you allowed me to move here permanently 40 years ago you were not surprised god when 29 years and 13 days ago we became our own city harry cowan the first city council chairman asked me to provide an invocation to open the first meeting of the new council I must have blown it, Lord, or at least lacked faith in at least one of my requests of you that night at Mackle Park. I ask for peace and tranquility for the city of Marco Island and not just from hurricanes. Concerned about the need for emotional healing for all of us after the years of dissension over the issue of incorporating ourselves as a self-governing city, I ask you specifically for lots of brotherly love amongst the citizens. Since then, we've seen the sewer war between owners of condos and owners of single-family homes and homesites. And the battle over short-term rentals came along. Nobody but you, God, would have expected shark fishing would become so controversial. Lord God Almighty, I don't have the faith to pray that we will all agree about much of anything anymore. But about tonight's agenda and for all future agendas until you return, oh king of the universe, I do have enough faith to humbly ask for the following three things. That everyone who speaks tonight will be able to clearly communicate what's on their heart. That everyone who listens tonight will be able to clearly understand what's just been said. And that the members of the council will govern with the wisdom of Solomon. without having to split any babies. I pray this in Jesus' name. Amen.

Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Before we get to the approval of the agenda, Reverend McCauley, beautiful words. And you have a long history on the island. So well said. Let's hope they hit their mark. Guys, I need the approval of the agenda. I'll entertain a motion for that. So moved. Second. Motion by Vice Chair Champaign, second by Councilor Dome. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Anybody opposed, say no.

I have a request for the agenda. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Suggested request for the agenda. Item ID 265772 has some corrections that need to be made before we continue with the approval of the agenda or a vote on this item. I checked on the website. Which one are we, 850? Give me the... ID 26-5772. Okay. Further explanation, if you'll bear with me. I checked on the website for the planning board minutes for the meeting of 7-23-26, where the conditional use permit was approved. The minutes aren't available. I'm not sure why. I was at the meeting, but I only have the agenda resolution and the video to work from to confirm my information. The language of the resolution that was approved at Planning on 723 does not match the resolution in our packet today, ID 265772. In the resolution before us today, there is an addition of the sentence, with continued associated parking separated by a collector road per Section 30-484, This language was not present in what was approved by the planning board. I believe it is a critical difference. It was not discussed by planning. Staff was not given any direction to make this change. I find this language regarding parking being added to a conditional use permit for boat rack storage approval to be problematic. I believe our agenda is required to have a separate additional item for approval for the site development plan off-street parking component. Because the parking is bisected by a roadway per section 30-484, the planning board and city council shall both approve the off-street parking. I understand that this off-street parking may be considered a pre-existing condition. I have found no record of any planning board or council approval of this lot identifying it as an independent SDP from the 2014 plan. I think as a legal point of approval, this off-street parking must be considered an independent site development plan approval and must at least be added to the agenda and the language of the CUP approval and ID 26-5772 be returned to what was approved by the planning board on 7-23.

Thank you, Counselor.

My pleasure, sir.

All right. For the record, 14B is ID 265772, correct?

Yes.

All right. We did just approve the agenda. It might have been a little pertinent just before that, but I appreciate you bringing it up. David, you know I'm going to look over to you for some guidance and advice on this.

David Tolstice, Assistant City Attorney. Good to see everyone this evening. My recommendation and guidance to the council is that Councillor Gray's comments are appropriate for when that item comes up for consideration and not sooner than that because it is a quasi-judicial hearing. You will have the ability to ask questions of both city staff, both the applicant, and myself as well. But at this point in time, the item is properly on your agenda for consideration at the appropriate time.

Councilor Gray, you're going to get to talk about it. We certainly won't diminish your voice. Do you find a big difference in changing our agenda or taking it up when we get to that?

This is fine. Thank you for that. I appreciate the guidance from our attorneys.

It's a long agenda. Remind me when I'm there in case I will make sure your voice is heard. Thank you. Now, folks, if you hear proclamations, presentations, public comment, they're going to come before item six, which is require the millage rate discussion by law to come at the beginning of the agenda in case anybody's wondering. But while you're here, if you have public comment for items not on the agenda, you want to sign up for public comment with our city clerk, Joan Taylor, over here to my left, and you can sign up for any item on the agenda. All right, with that, we're moving on to item six, public hearing adoption of the tentative FY2026-27 millage rate budget. I'm going to get Joan in a second. I don't have the whole thing before me to read, Casey. Do you have any chance to read into the record? I just have the highlights on it. Thank you. Yes.

I'll go ahead and read the resolution into record. Thank you. Our clerk's multitasking over there. So this is Resolution 2643. Let me just make sure I have the correct agenda item. A resolution determining and fixing the tax levy and millage rate for the City of Marco Island exclusive of dependent taxing districts for the fiscal year 2027, commencing October 1, 2026, and ending September 30, 2027, for the purpose of providing sufficient funds for the general fund operations and to pay interest on and provide for the retirement of debt approved by referendum, providing for conflict and severability, and providing for an effective date.

Excellent. Thank you, Casey. And my iPad's up and running in case I need to jump in. Melissa, would you like to start?

Absolutely. Good evening, Council, Madam Clerk, City Manager. Melissa Hinton, Budget Manager for the City of Marco Island. The first four items that you have on your agenda are related to the millage and budget, tentative millage and budget for Marco Island and Hideaway Beach. So it's going to take me a little bit to get through all of the readings that are necessary as dictated by the TRIM compliance. So with that, I'm going to start with Item 6A, which is our resolution to adopt a tentative millage rate for micro island city council is requested to consider the attached resolution setting the tentative millage rate for 2027 city budget this resolution conforms to the discussions at your august 3rd 2026 city council meeting with respect to the tentative millage per resolution 26-39 Section 200.065 of the Florida statutes governs the budget adoption process. The truth and millage statute establishes a detailed timeline and approval process that requires two public hearings held in the month of September and separate actions for establishing the tax levy for approving the annual budget. To comply with the trim regulations, city council is required to take separate actions in a specified order. At each public hearing, the public may speak and ask questions before council adopts any measures. Council must then adopt a millage rate before it adopts a budget. The millage rate and the budget must be adopted by separate votes at the advertised hearing. The final millage rate adopted at the second hearing cannot exceed the tentatively adopted millage rate that is adopted tonight. The proposed tentative millage rate is the rate of 1.2670 mills for city operations. Any change approved by city council will be reflected in the resolution adopting the final millage rate. At this hearing, prior to the adoption of the millage levy resolution, the following must be announced. The name of the principal, tax and authority, is the City of Marco Island, Florida. The current year aggregate rollback rate is 1.3126 mils. The current proposed aggregate millage rate is 1.3506 mils. The change over the aggregate rollback rate is an increase of 2.9%. The millage rate to be levied is 1.267 mils for the City of Marco Island. The City has a dependent special district, and the Board of Supervisors of the Hideaway Beach Special Taxing District, at their July 3, 2026 meeting, recommended a tax levy of 1.600 mils for district operations. the fiscal year 2027 budget is presented in balance and the operating millage rate of 1.2670 will support the budget as discussed by city council the proposed budget continues to process of eliminating the requirement to borrow money to pay for renewal replacement and improvement of currently owned assets by accumulating funding to build reserves for a prescribed list of projects. No debt service millage is needed since the Veterans Park voted debt service has been repaid as scheduled. Staff's recommendation is to conduct the public hearings required by TRIM regulations and approve the resolution adopting the tentative tax levy millage rate. The rate to be considered at the second public hearing can be lower but no higher than the rate approved at this first hearing. The budget is based upon operating millage rate of 1.2670. The operating millage rate can be reduced in the motion below, but not increased from the proposed millage rate of 1.267 mils as submitted to the county property appraiser. And with that, I can take any questions on the millage rate.

Councilor's light signs with questions. Councilor Gray.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Motion by Councilor Gray, second by Councilor Groller. Anybody signed up for public comment, Joan? I know you're busy over there, but on 6A...

No one has signed up for public comment for 6A.

Thank you. Can you call the roll, please?

Councilor Gray?

Yes.

Councilor Goler? Yes. Councilor Dunn?

Yes.

Councilor Henry?

Yes.

Councilor Schwan?

Yes.

Vice Chair Champaign?

Yes. Chair Palumbo? Yes. Motion passes 7 to 0. All right. We're on to item 6B.

Yes, item 6B is resolution 26-44, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Marco Island, Florida, making tentative appropriations of sums of money for all necessary operating expenditures of the City for the period from the first day of October 2026 to the 30th day of September 2027. prescribing the terms conditions and provisions with respect to the items of appropriations and their payment for the general operation of the several departments of the city including utilities and for contributing to the sinking funds of the city to pay interest on and provide for retirement of outstanding bonds and other fixed obligations of the city providing for budget control policies thank you okay

This is the second of the required resolutions in the budget adoption process, providing for the tentative approval of the city budget. The budget is presented as a separate document for consideration by city council. Section 200.065 of the Florida statutes governs the adoption process. The truth in millage statute states establishes a detailed timeline and approval process that includes the requirement for two public hearings held in the month of September and separate actions for approval of the annual budget. To comply with the TRIM regulations, city council is required to take separate actions in a specified order. First, at the public hearing, the public may speak and ask questions before council adopts any measures. Then, before council adopts a budget, it must have adopted a millage rate. The fiscal year 2027 budget is presented in balance. The operating budget is submitted, is balanced using a millage rate of 1.2670 mils. The staff, the recommendation by staff, excuse me, is to conduct public hearings required by the term regulation. Councilor Schwan. Councilor Geller?

Yes. Councilor Dome? Yes. Councilor Henry? Yes. Chair Palumbo?

Yes. Motion to pass 7-0.

I'm just going to say I'm getting tense that I think there might be something with the internet stream being down.

Thank you for notifying. We've been also told by some members in the audience. I do know that Martin is looking into that right now, and he's trying to come up with this. He's trying to sort it out. Thank you.

Is there, I don't know if she can hear us, maybe not. Is there not a number, Counselor Schmong can call in. We have a dial-in, do we not, or if I'm wrong? And sorry if we went a little quick and we didn't really have to call the roll on that. But anyway, we are on to item 7B, approval of city council minutes from August 17, 2026. Councilors, any changes to those minutes?

I'll make a motion as presented. I'll second it.

Motion by Councilor Gray, second by Councilor Dome. I presume nobody signed up for this, correct? All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed, no. Motion passes. Item eight, approval of the consent agenda. Council, does anybody have anything they want removed from the consent agenda?

Move to approve. Motion by the councilor.

Chair Palumbo, I do have a person that has signed up who wanted to talk about one of the items on consent. Absolutely. Would you like me to have him talk at public comment? No, we'll bring him up. Just let me know who had the motion.

Council Henry, who was the second? I second. Councilor Dillon-Mills, please, guys, send all light signs from the council, so please bring them up for the comment.

So this is Michael Josephs, and he is commenting on item number 8D. Thank you. Yeah.

Michael, are we good? This is the one you want to comment on? Yeah. So this is the boardwalk, correct? No. No? I'm sorry.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

This is the boardwalk. This is the award of the contract.

So in regards to the boardwalk, I'll be short and sweet.

No, that's D. D is the boardwalk. Yeah, that's the club.

Right. OK. We have you. We know what you're. State your name and take it.

Michael Josephs, Marco Island.

Very good. Here to talk about the boardwalk.

So I know this started in not such a very positive way, in my opinion, where in the beginning of this, we were told the boardwalk was falling down, it needed to be replaced, and we're at numbers like over a million dollars. I'm not here to divide, okay? I'm here to thank you folks for taking some advice from some people, perhaps maybe myself, and to take a closer look at it. And while taking a closer look at it, there was an incredible difference, right? So we got four bids. I love four bids, right? We're getting better. We're getting better. And the four bids, we had the lowest one at $123,000 and the highest one at over $500,000. This is the main reason why I please I implore you to please continually ask staff to bring multiple bids up. Think of that we saved potentially $400,000 by just going through this process. So that's really what I want to say. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Excuse me, Chairman. We just had somebody else just sign up to speak about AD as well. Very good. Please bring him up. This is Mario Curiel. Please come forward. Mario, where are you? Come on up. I saw him around.

Mario, are you still here? We saw you here a few minutes ago. Okay.

How are you? Great. Mario Correale, 820 Eubanks Court, Marconi, Florida.

Guys, can you reset the clock for us four minutes, please?

Three and a half. Thank you. It's even better.

It's even better? Finally, the guy before me said exactly what I was going to say. If I remember correctly, about three and a half months ago, you guys were throwing bids all over the place. How much is it going to cost this? How much is it going to cost that? And I specifically said you need additional bids to come first before you guys make any assumption of what something costs. It just proved to me, and the guy just said we saved over $400,000. Originally it was a million dollars. So what are we doing? Well, not only that, the responsibility of the walkway is part of the Marriott system. In turn, they build that thing because we approved Marriott. Marco Shore, that was the idea to do that. We're going to absorb 125 better than 400,000. Thank you.

I think there's some wisdom in Mario's comments that we should have asked for. And this was counselors before us. We should have asked for maintenance on that boardwalk in perpetuity. Maybe we think about going forward. And I'll just make a quick comment. I think staff does a good job. And I appreciate the public comment. They do go out. They try to get bids. They do aggressively pursue them. However, I think some of this conversation helped. We have a local contractor, which is wonderful. I find him to be reputable. So the citizens speaking, the councilors listening, engaging in conversation, people asking, what's the procedure to put a bid in? What's the platform? It seemed to work. So I think we've all won on this one. So kudos to everybody. Councilors, no other light signs? Can you call the roll, please?

Councilor Henry?

Yes.

Councilor Dunn?

Yes.

Vice Chair Champaign?

Yes.

Councilor Gray? Yes. Councilor Goler?

Yes.

Councilor Schwan?

Chair Palumbo. Yes. Motion passes six to zero. Just out of curiosity, before we get to proclamations and presentations, which I'm not going to bump them, but how many people are signed up for a citizen's comment number 10 not on the items not on the agenda?

So there are 19, and some have some time. There's a couple that have time ceded to them from another person.

Is everybody aware these are items not on the agenda?

When filling out the form, I questioned them, and they assured me that these are items that were not on the agenda. Very good.

We'll talk about that shortly. All right. Counselors, if you'll join me for some proclamations and presentations. If you can meet me up here, and I'll be down at the bottom there. Everybody hear me? All right. We're on to 9A, Employee Service Awards. Diana Snover. Yes.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. If we could have Michael Grasick to the front, please. Michael, come on up. On September 26, 2011, Mike joined the city of Marco Island as a mechanic trainee in the water and sewer maintenance department. Through hard work and dedication, he worked his way up to maintenance mechanic three, becoming a trusted professional with exceptional mechanical and electrical skills. For 15 years, Mike has been someone who gets the job done with professionalism, dedication, and pride in his work. Mike, thank you for 15 years of service and for being such a valuable part of our city team.

15-year dedication. Keep that on the wall of your office forever. City pin. But what that doesn't say is you're the backbone of the community. When we don't realize what happens when we're sleeping, when we're eating, when we're doing things, where people like yourselves are taking care of us, and we greatly appreciate that. Anything you'd like to say? All right, Ruth McCann. Ruth, where are you? Come on up.

Diana, come on up too. Rick.

Introductions.

This is a proclamation honoring Ruth McCann for 34 years of dedicated service to the Marco Island Civic Association.

Whereas the Marco Island Civic Association, MICA as we know them, has long served as a cornerstone of the community's stewardship, advocacy, and civic engagement on Marco Island. And whereas Ruth McCann has devoted 34 years of exemplary service to MICA, guiding the organization with steadfast leadership, professionalism, and an unwavering commitment to the residents and property owners of Marco Island. And whereas throughout her distinguished tenure, Ruth has provided invaluable knowledge, continuity, and integrity, strengthening Micah's mission to preserve neighborhood character, enforce deed restrictions, support community standards, and enhance the quality of life on Marco Island. And whereas Ruth's coordination with the Chamber of Commerce and the Market Island Association of Realtors allowed for a robust candidate form during city council elections, ensuring the voting populace was informed and had an opportunity to hear from city council candidates. And whereas Ruth's participation in the city's 25th anniversary celebrating planning committee led to a week of community events, including a mica scavenger hunt and a popular beach cleanup. And whereas Ruth's institutional knowledge of Marco Island will continue to benefit residents for generations, reflecting a career defined by service, integrity, a deep commitment to the well-being of the island, she has tirelessly championed. And now therefore, be it proclaimed, the City Council of Marco Island will express its sincere appreciation for Ruth's dedication and hard work and to recognize the lasting positive impact of her service on the entire community. Oh, that's beautiful. Jerry, Jerry, turn around. Get a picture. Come on. Don't go in here yet. Ruth, I have a quick something, and I just want to say 34 years, it's incredible. It's a legacy on the island, and the city greatly appreciates you.

Diana? I have a few words to say, but I have to read this only because if I don't, I'll start weeping. I had the pleasure of working closely with both Ruth and Dennis for many years. During my time as president of the Marco Island Civic Association, I came to truly appreciate their knowledge of MICA, but also their deep commitment to Marco Island and its residents. Ruth had an incredible amount of history and institutional knowledge, and she was always willing to share that experience and perspective. Ruth and I worked together on many issues affecting our members in the community, and I always knew how deeply Ruth cared for Micah and the people it served. As president, I relied on her experience and appreciated the open communication and respect we shared. Dennis McCann's dedication to Micah, and especially to our resident speech, was truly something special, Dennis. Dennis didn't just maintain the property. He cared for it as if it was his own. You could see his pride in every flower, every beautifully kept area, and every step along that boardwalk. For so many of us, walking down that boardwalk through the beautiful grounds brought smiles to our faces. And Dennis was the big reason why. His hard work, quiet dedication, and genuine love for resident speech helped make it the special place we all treasure. I will always be grateful for the opportunity to have worked alongside Ruth and Dennis. Even more importantly, to have known them personally. Their contributions cannot be measured simply by the number of years they served. They reflected in the people they helped, the relationships they built, and the lasting impact they made on Micah and our community. Both Ruth and Dennis have earned the respect and gratitude of all of us who had the privilege of working with them. Their 34-year legacy will remain an important part of MICA's history for many years to come. Thank you to both of you for the service to Marco Island.

Ruth, before we let you go, would you like to say, you don't have to, but would you like to say anything?

We'll be the first and last time.

We're putting you on the spot.

I'm not really crying. Thank you all. We have enjoyed our 34 years at MICA and Residence Beach and serving the community. That's what it was all about.

Dennis, I got one question. Where's the dream vacation after 34 years? Make sure you cash in. I'm getting one. Thank you. There you go. Thank you so much, guys. Thank you. We have one more, Councilor Gray.

No, they weren't here. Thank you for a cue.

We have Hunger Action Month. All right. Where's our daily bread? Evelyn, come on up. Come on up.

Big round of applause.

All right. Guys, we're going to start the little proclamation. Then we're going to bring the whole team up.

All right.

Come on, team. Come on up. Come on up. Evelyn's going to bring you up now, don't we? Come on up.

Come on up.

If you want to fill in both sides, maybe.

Keep everyone in the middle, maybe.

All right.

It's a shame that you're needed, but we're blessed that you're here.

All right. Guys, this is Hunger Action Month, September 2026. Whereas hunger is a serious issue affecting individuals and families within our community, and whereas our Daily Bread Food Pantry has been a steadfast and dedicated partner in addressing food insecurities by providing essential food assistance to those in need, and whereas this month of September is nationally recognized as Hunger Action Month, a time to raise awareness of hunger and to encourage action to end it.

That's if you can keep them down, please.

And whereas the month of September is nationally recognized as Hunger Action Month, a time to raise awareness of hunger and encourage action to the end of it. Whereas our daily bread food pantry has demonstrated exceptional commitment to alleviating hunger through their tireless efforts and dedication to serving the community. THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND DO HEREBY PROCLAIM SEPTEMBER 2026 AS HUNGER ACTION MONTH AND THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND COMMENDS OUR DAIRY BREAD FOOD PANTRY FOR THEIR INVALUABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMBATING HUNGER IN OUR COMMUNITY. NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF MARCO ISLAND DO HEREBY PROCLAIM SEPTEMBER 2026 AS HUNGER ACTION MONTH IN THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND COMMENDS OUR DAIRY BREAD FOOD PANTRY FOR THEIR INVALUABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMBATING HUNGER IN OUR COMMUNITY. And I do apologize, a few robust people out there, they're excited about their proclamation too, so. That's gonna be for you. Thank you very much. Now, before I get to a few words, if you have, I'd like to say something, if you don't mind. It saddens me that this organization is needed, but it warms my heart that you're here. I talked a few meetings ago about never missing the opportunity to fill the bins around the island. I like the Winn-Dixie one, but they're all over the place, not to just want to happen to bump into more often than not. But this is September, and when we debate businesses and locals and residents, let me tell you something. September is the month where the employees of Sweet Annie's, the Corvalli Restaurant Group, the service industries, they starve. They look for shifts. They beg for shifts. They don't want anything for free. They just want to work their way out of a tough situation. It's all they want. And you give them a little leg up, a little help along the way so they can regain their footing, and we can try to provide those shifts as season kicks in. So we are grateful for you.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Chair Palumbo, and to all the council members, and to our Marco Island community. Our Daily Bread Food Pantry is a volunteer-founded and a volunteer-powered organization here to lift up our community and to invest in the health and well-being of our community. We have been providing food, encouragement, and hope for 10 years. We serve over 1,300 households, families who are working and living on Marco Island and in the area every single week. We want to thank everyone for your many contributions, for all of your support. A hearty thank you to all of our volunteers and our board chairman, Alison Richards. Thank you so much. And to our council members for this wonderful recognition. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

thank you thank you thank you so much thank you thank you thank you all very much everybody thank you thank you thank you thank you guys thank you no thank you

All right.

We are. Item 10, citizens' comments. 19 times 4, right? Oh, sorry. Jeff, I do apologize. I skipped right over you here. I'm so sorry about that.

I'm used to that.

We have 9D. I'm sorry. Jeff, please.

All right. Council, good evening. For the record, Jeff Poteet, general manager of your water and sewer department. Also with me here tonight is Joe Alardi. Joe is a consultant with Jacobs Engineering. He's our primary drinking water consultant. And so about a year ago, we presented to city council an overview of the city's potable water system and the findings of the 2004 or 2024 capacity analysis report. At that time, we discussed our existing treatment and water supply capacity report. the continued increase in potable water demand. We also talked about the continued improvements that would be necessary to meet the needs of the community for years to come. Tonight's presentation is intended to provide an update on where we are one year later. We'll look at the water demand and how it has continued to change. We made improvements both at the north and south water treatment plants, the changes that remain with treatment plant capacity and water supply, and some of the regulatory issues that that we need to plan for in the future. Also, the most importantly, we'll discuss the improvements we believe will be needed over the next several years and the proposed timeline for those investments. so that we stay ahead of the demand and not falling behind. And so with that, I'll turn it over to Joe. I believe last time, Chairman, we addressed questions at the end. We can do it any way that you choose.

Let's go through the presentation. We'll save questions until the end.

Thank you.

So Joe Lardy with Jacobs Engineering, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. think i learned this last time so so the city is required by the south florida water management district to update its 10-year water supply plan every every five years and this water and sewer department tries to be proactive on this and looks at it every year so and as jeff mentioned i was here last year talking about the capacity analysis report update which is a similar document that was kind of done in parallel. That's for FDEP, whereas this is a management district document. So we look at this to look at the water treatment capacity, the source water supply, look at the past and future potable water demands. We look at identifying updated regulations that we need to meet. as well as establishing ultimately capital improvement projects that are required to maintain a secure and a reliable drinking water source. So Marco Island's potable water supply is provided by two different water treatment facilities. The North Water Treatment Plant, which is a lime softening and membrane filtration process. The lime softening process has been around for quite a while. The membrane filtration process we installed back in 2013. and this water, it treats the surface water from Henderson Creek, and this facility is designed to produce 6.67 million gallons per day of water. Meanwhile, the south water treatment plant is a reverse osmosis process that takes brackish groundwater out of wells on the south end of the island, and this facility is permitted for 6 MGD. The combined facilities are permitted to produce 12.67 MGD of safe, reliable treatment for current regulations and demands. So going into the source water, you have two different source waters, one groundwater and one surface water. The surface water is treated by the North Water Treatment Plant. And what's really nice about this facility, the source water facility up at Marco Lakes, about 10 miles north of the island, is it's an alternative water supply. It takes stormwater from Henderson Creek before it goes out to the Gulf. And it also has the ability to do aquifer storage and recovery, or ASR. And what the ASR does, it takes all the excess rainwater during the wet summer months, puts it into the ground, and then you're able to pull it back out of the ground and treat it during the dry season. So this allows the facility to produce more than 8.5 million gallons per day of water to the North Water Treatment Plant. However, as I mentioned, the north water treatment plant is only designed for 6.67 MGD. Meanwhile, this is the opposite case at the south water treatment plant. The wells that supply the RO facility at the south plant come from the south central and the road going out towards Goodland. And these wells can produce enough water to produce 2.71 MGD on an annual average basis. And this is limited by permit, not actual wells. although well limits are there as well. So this is less than half of the permitted capacity of the RO facility. So combined, what this means is on an annual average basis, you're limited by the permitted capacity of the north plant, 6.67, the water available for the south plant, you can produce 9.38 MGD on an annual average basis. However, And I say current here, but really this is the 2024 demands were nine point nine two mgd Which is exceeded your average? We're able to get by the water management district doesn't say you can't produce the water you need and as a matter of fact the South plant used to have a bigger allocation But never needed it and so they actually took some of it away now we're in in the process of looking at trying to reincrease that allocation and And then the other thing to point out here is that the future of 2040 build-out demand was projected last year to be 10.41 MGD. However, as Jeff had mentioned, this is a graph that maybe you may remember from last year. Each of these individual dots represents the actual water that was sent to distribution by both plants combined. So every day and every day is shown here for the last 11 years. And what we're seeing here is that, similar to last year, we showed that the demands in the red was the max day demand. That's the cyclic nature of your demands that go high and low. You see that the high demand period is during the dry season, during the winter and spring, and also during your peak population season. Meanwhile, the low demand season is during the summer, during the wet months, and you have a lot lower demand. So it's a pretty big difference between the two. But both of them were consistently going up at a nice steady pace up until 2020. And at that point, we thought your water treatment facility sized for build out, no problems. But then we've seen this increase in demand, both on the low end and the high end that's happens over the last six years. And what we're seeing here is now we're exceeding the max day capacity just on individual days. You have storage that can handle that difference. So we're okay for now. But if this trend continues, it's going to start stressing the water treatment plant. And what we're also seeing here is that I mentioned the 2024 average day demand on the previous slide was 9.92 MGD. In 2025, it went up to 10.35. So there's a lot more consistent demand happening over the course of the year. And this is coming, again, stressing more of the source water as well as the treatment capacity. So the potable water demands are projected. So these projections were actually done last year. And at the time, we're showing that the potable water demand projections were at build out based on the number of usable lots left on the island, the average use per person, per capita, per unit. We're expecting the peak max day demand to reach 13.67 MGD, one MGD above your capacity or water treatment plants. The average day demand was expected to reach 10.41. We're already at 10.34. So we're accelerating faster than that projection. And then the maximum month average daily demand, which is the average of your biggest month, which is typically March, is going to be up to 11.86 MGD. And that's shown here on the graph with the blue being your average, your max month being the black, and the orange being your max day. So your treatment capacity is shown there with the green dashed line. So you're already at your, for your max day, you're already at your treatment capacity. So the other, so that gets to the demands and what the capacities are. But let's also talk about future regulations. The big name right now is PFAS, the Forever Chemicals. And what we're seeing here is that they're a big item for a lot of facilities here in Florida. Well, the water and sewer department was very proactive in this. They wanted to make sure they were ahead of the curve. They were measuring this for the last several years. And what they found is that it went from pretty much non-detect to very low, below the limits for multiple years. But then when we're looking at the supply wells, there's no PFAS in the wells for the south plant. So that's good news. But PFAS was detected in the surface water, but again, below the levels. And it was below the levels until early 2025. And this is a case that's happened in a lot of facilities here, especially with the drought years. And we're finding is that right now the facility is measuring for regulatory purposes the PFAS in the water. And right now it's projected to exceed the maximum contaminant level, meaning that we really recommend you start planning for compliance by the extension date of 2031. So this is something that we really thought a year ago was not a problem. And now it may not be a problem, but it's trending in that direction. So Jeff mentioned that we also, the utility has been doing a lot to try to maintain the existing facilities. And at the North Water Treatment Plant, we submitted an application to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to re-rate the North Water Treatment Plant to 8.5 MGD to make the best use of that available surface water. We actually, when we did the upgrades back in 2013 for the membrane filtration, The extra capacity was there, but we never needed it, so we didn't try to take advantage of it. So we put in that new application, and that's under review right now, but it looks like that will be approved. The city also replaced the north water treatment plant membrane filtration membranes in two of their trains to really improve reliability. That's also made sure that that capacity of that 8.5 MGD is reliable. And then we're currently commissioning the biological filters up at the source water facility north of Marco Island. That's really going to improve the reliability of the membrane filtration system. So we said that you can produce the 8.5 and that gets you kind of a little bit of breathing room right now on those demands I pointed out. But really the Lyme system really will need upgrades to sustain that 8.5 MGD. It's an old system, 30 plus, 40 plus years old. It needs some upgrades to be able to reliably do that for the long term. However, we did pilot an advanced treatment alternative back in 2018, which was low pressure reverse osmosis. And there's several drivers of this, but mostly to improve water quality as well as significantly reduce the operating cost of the facility. So there was a driver. There was a payback for doing this. And that was on the books to do it. But we decided that the biological filtration project should happen first. So that started. However, now that we're seeing some issues with the potential regulatory issues, as well as those other benefits we talked about for the low pressure reverse osmosis, really would recommend considering moving forward with that process to save yourself money in the long term, but also make yourself more reliably able to meet current or future regulations. So the upgrades timeline that we had in the capacity analysis report and that we'll have to update for the next year showed let's take another look at the regulatory treatment requirements and how we can reliably meet those in an evaluation in fiscal year 2027. leading into the design of whatever improvements come out of that evaluation in 2028, followed by construction in 2029, at which point then hopefully complete those or actually complete those improvements in time for the 2031 PFAS compliance deadline, if required. So for the south water treatment plant, recent projects that have gone on there is the new high-service pump station. We mentioned that last year. It's under commissioning, and this will reliably produce enough pumping so that you can meet your water demands, even the increased ones we talked about, through build-out of your facility. We replaced membranes and trained two to improve the reliability of the south water treatment plant as well. And that was done and really saving on energy as well as improving water quality. And then there's an ongoing project to improve hydraulics in your well field because the next thing you need to do is add additional wells. And a permit's been submitted to provide additional water so that the south water treatment plant, when they get the higher allocation, can reliably produce the 6MGD that it's designed for. But the critical needs of the South Water Treatment Plant, again, this is a 30-plus year old water treatment facility. There's aging infrastructure, and then the wells are getting saltier over time. And so that's not a problem, but it is a problem for aging infrastructure. So first step is to negotiate that water use permit with the South Florida Water Management District, which is in progress. Continued investment in the existing wall maintenance and replacement and upgrades so the new wells are very important and to continue the rehab program that the that water and sewer department has been doing and Then really the next step is to really conduct a condition assessment of the existing facility really focusing on what it would take to modernize the infrastructure how to improve energy efficiency, save money, optimize performance, but really look at increasing recovery rates to maximize production. Right now, three-quarters of the water brought in is turned into drinking water, and the idea is we could probably do better than that with newer technology. So that way you're not up against the limit of what your wells can produce. So this upgrades timeline roughly looks like doing this condition assessment optimization, working on the additional well design, and the raw water pipeline design in 2027. 20, fiscal year 2028, implement some of these, the wells, the pipeline, and some of the easy improvements to improve the RO system. And then start looking at the long-term design of the RO system, the improvements for the long-term, after you've already kind of worked through the issues and the potential improvements for the Northwater human plant in 2030. And then have those ready to go approximately in 2033. And the way this all looks together, kind of summarize it all together, is fiscal year 22. It's 26. I talked about how we've already worked on the biofilters, the re-rating of the north water treatment plant, the membrane replacements that have been completed, and the in-progress negotiation on increasing the allocation at the south water treatment plant. Fiscal year 27, work on that evaluation of how to best move forward with the north water treatment plant, and then do that condition assessment at the south water treatment plant, as well as improve the wells, design the improvements to the wells and the pipeline. 2028, look at the expansion and water quality and design of the reliability improvements for the north plant. 2028, also look at the south water treatment plant, easy upgrades as well as the construction of the raw water. And then into fiscal year 2029, start the construction of the north water treatment plant improvements and the south water treatment plant design. And then finally, look at the construction of the RO plant upgrades for 2033.

and that's clues what I had today and we'll open up the questions I do want to add something because Joe said a lot of stuff that might sound really scary and I just want to let everyone know that that we're in a really good spot the the treated water is really well, but we do need to think about making some improvements, especially with the new regulations regarding PFAS. The ideas of going to low-pressure RO have a lot of benefits, not just regulatory-wise, but they have economic benefits. So we're real excited about that, and we'll open it up to questions.

Counselor's light signs if you have any questions. Counselor Henry, you're up first. Okay.

I just want to thank you. That was an excellent presentation, well broken out and very easy to understand once you get used to all the different initials. But no, thank you very much. And I have to say on this type of thing, I went to make notes and I realized I don't have to because I know we're in good hands with you guys. So thank you for all you do and thanks for a very well done presentation.

If you could hear me, Vice Chair Shenton's monitor is on again.

Maybe you could come over and help him out. Is Counselor Swans on for you to use for the moment, Vice Chair? I can mute back and forth.

All right, Counselor Gray, you're up. Oh, thank you. Excellent presentation. It's always delightful to see Mr. Poteet up here. I'm curious about the daily run rate. When we looked at 2025, from 2015 to 2025, and I forget what the exact number was, and we're sort of projecting 2040 to be just somewhat modestly higher than that. I might suggest, just in terms of assumptions, which is a dangerous business, I do believe our water usage is coming up. I do not really believe we're at the end of adding customers. So really, my questions, I'll try to ask them broad-based so I don't put the audience to sleep. Tolerances. I'm trying to understand where our capacity is, number one. I'd like to understand if we stress test the system, for example, for hurricanes or whatever. The daily spikes, I can't understand whether I should be concerned about daily spikes above certain levels and at what point those become a concern. So I'm just trying to understand. And then from a capital expenditure standpoint, I think Jeff did an excellent job in the 27-year budget for sort of forecasting his expenses. But there are no sort of dialed-in numbers here for what would need to be done in 27, 28, or 28, 29, 30. Is there any understanding of the source for the PFASs that are coming in? And why wouldn't we be convinced to target 2031 on being compliant with PFAS?

Okay, there's a lot there. That was my shortcut. Right. So let me try to handle some of that, and I'll go backwards with the PFAS. Okay. So the PFAS is a concern, and we're addressing that concern. And we are moving forward. One of the ideas right now is to go to low-pressure RO. If we go to low-pressure RO, that takes PFAS out of the water totally. Okay. And like I mentioned, there are economic drivers to also do that because when we go from lime softening to low pressure RO, it's just cheaper to operate. Especially, you know, I would say there's about a 10 year payback. two-year payback that you might like, but it is a payback after 10 years. And you can expect that system to run consistently for 20 years. So let's go back. I kind of lost some of that.

The daily spikes, when do those become a concern?

So they are a concern right now as far as making sure that we have improvements on our radar because there are daily spikes that go above our permitted capacity. um but we have storage facilities that flatten that out so while it's a concern for me it's not necessarily a concern for the the public and as far as hurricanes you mentioned hurricanes typically hurricanes are are as far as water demand goes a very low flow type of situation because most of the community hopefully though they'll evacuate and we won't have those high demands that we have during during season so we don't have the capacity issue during during hurricane events that you might think okay so

Could one of our facilities go offline? Could we manage if one of them was offline?

That's how we operate, actually. When we prepare for a hurricane, we shut down one of our facilities so it's protected. It's off the grid, totally protected. In fact, we stop producing water, and we use the water in the storage tank out of one of the facilities, not out of both of them. Okay.

My last question. Is there anything I should or the community should be worried about?

Well, you just need to keep it on your radar, right? We don't want to forget about it. We don't want to be complacent about these things, PFAS, whether these upcoming contaminants. We're really diligent about going out and finding out whether or not it's an issue, especially in our particular case, because what may be an issue even at Collier County, because they use a different source of water than we do, may not be an issue for us. Vice versa so we need to be up to date on all the rules and regulations to make sure the community safe I think our team does an excellent job in doing that. They're very dedicated people we also have consultants like Joe here that that Have a whole team behind him that help us, you know manage those those different regulations and

Martin, we have another screen down over here at Councilor Dome. And when we're done with this presentation, we're going to take a few minutes to see if we could look at this technology. But let's get through this first. Councilor, if you need, you could share with me if you have to. I've got a big screen. I didn't mean to interrupt. Jeff, anything to add to that? I'm good. Vice Chair, did you hit Councilor Schwan's button?

Yes. OK, then you're up. One question.

Did I hear that the Northwater treatment facility may peak out due to breaching of capacity?

So we actually just went through a study, and I mentioned this last year. One of the things that's really nice about the North Water Treatment Plant is that we designed it for extra capacity back in 2013, just never used it. And so now that, like I said, DEP, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, is expected to approve this pretty soon, where you'll actually have another about 1.8 MGD of capacity. We're taking full advantage of that capacity. So that'll help during the near term, exactly.

Let me try to make and simplify it a little bit.

So we built a treatment plant that had X capacity.

But because we didn't need that extra capacity, we didn't permit that plant for it. Now we are, as you can see in the graph, seeing that we need that capacity now. And so we've reached out to DEP, and we're going through with the process of getting the plant that extra capacity that we've already built into it.

Very good. No more questions.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Councilor Golder. Thank you for the presentation. I have a quick question. I'm very much concerned about PFAS as well. And can you explain in a very short way that we have reverse osmosis, which one is it, north or south?

The south treatment plant.

The south treatment plant. So are we talking about implementing the low-pressure reverse osmosis in that plant? No. So how are we going to do that? And what's the time frame that we're looking at?

So the north water treatment plant currently uses the lime softening process. We'll replace that with membrane softening, which is low pressure RO. And so when we go to that low pressure RO at the north water plant, that will remove PFAS as well as many other things. So what's the time frame we're looking at, Jeff? So we're looking at having it built by 2031 in that time frame.

And meanwhile, are you monitoring the PFAS?

Yes, we're required to monitor it right now.

And what happens if the level raises?

We'll have to reevaluate and fast-track something. I don't think the rule goes into effect until 2031. Actually...

The rule actually goes in effect 2029, but your PFAS level is right at the borderline So you're much lower than a lot of Florida has Ten times what you have. Okay, so so you're you're kind of in a good spot So your 2031 deadline is actually very easy for you because you're just right at the edge so so that you have that extra time and there's there's there's enough time to implement and

All right. Thank you, sir. And we've already done a lot of pilot testing for the low pressure RO. We were hoping to implement it sooner than that, but then it made more sense for us to put the biologically active filter system in place and online. no matter what we did because that's going to help a little bit as well as just figuring out some other alternatives that we can do to reduce not just PFAS but other contaminants.

I just meanwhile want our community to be informed because you hear that concerns. I have somebody who has cancer. We have reverse osmosis at home. And I think it's very important for our community to hear about it and be

I couldn't agree more, because without us getting some information out to the public, you just wonder what's going on. And I'm hoping that we can do this a little more frequently, talk about all things water and sewer, because, well, that's what I do, and I love talking about it. And I'm really excited that all these people showed up for the presentation. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you, guys.

Jeff, I got one more question before we let you go. And I'll make it quick. Folks, sometimes if we don't have a lot of questions, we've talked to Jeff in great detail. And thank you both for the presentation. So I'm going to just make mine very layman's and dumbed down because some citizens reached out. And there's some belief amongst just the very small of our population that our source water, our wells, it's not going to be enough to handle the Marco demand. as the years go by. Can you speak to that?

There's absolutely some truth to that. We are going to have to drill more wells. The wells don't last forever. Our existing well field is becoming more salty. And when it becomes more salty, some point it becomes economically unfeasible to treat so right now we're in a good spot as far as our need but as we go forward next couple years we have funding in our capital program to to design and drill wells but we're going to have to you know continue to do that on the groundwater side. And then on the north plant, I think we're in a real good spot there as long as we can get more allocation from the water management district.

Jeff, anything we need to do on that or is this something you'll bring to us over time?

We'll bring it to you over time and I appreciate all your support. Very good. Thank you.

Counselors, I've had a challenge today. My internet providers going on and off. I see it. They're sending me texts from my house, my businesses. I don't know if it's happening here for the city. It seems like it might be island wide. So we're going to take, Casey, what do you need for a five minute break? I know it's a long meeting, but about a five minute break. Let's use the bathroom. We have a long agenda after that. So it'll be a good welcome break. And excuse me, Chairperson, we do have public comments. So we're going to get to them right after this because our screens are down.

Perfect. Thank you.

Recess for five minutes. Councilor Schwan, are you with us? Yes, I am. Excellent. I don't see you on any of my screen, so if you need to speak up, just holler in here and I'll make sure your voice is heard, okay?

Okay, thank you. And I was kicked off for a while. I couldn't get on, but then I did eventually, but I was not... I think I was off when the vote was taken about the...

the access at winterberry they all they all pass uh all through um council communication so your vote would not have swung anything but uh just so you know it didn't didn't have an effect at the very uh due to the technology challenges joan how many people signed up for public comment now we have two people signed up for this item

For citizens comment? That's correct. Yep.

Beautiful. So the rest of them were shifted to?

No, this is for the water presentation.

Oh, we have two for, I didn't realize we had anybody. I'm sorry. Okay, you got me excited.

Sorry.

So this is for 9D. Please call them up.

Thank you. So the first person is Terry Sommerfeld, and the second one is Dennis Bartolucci.

Terry, welcome.

Thank you. Terry Summerfeld, San Marco Road, Marco Island. Okay. I'm not scared. How about you? I heard a presentation that makes me very nervous, especially because we've got a lot of people in the room that I think are going to talk about other things that relate to development intensity and density. And I didn't hear much about water capacity related to projects. So what I did hear is that the presentation reports that the average daily demand rose from 7.39 MGD in 2015 to 10,000, or I'm sorry, 10.35 MGD in 2025. So from 2015 to 2025, we had an increase of approximately 40% in our water usage. Now, with projections of build-out in 2000 to 2040, We talk about having a capacity of 10.41 MGDs, average daily demand. That's just 0.06 MGD above what's reported in 2025. So what we're saying is in the last 10 years, we've had a 40% increase. And from now until 2040, we're basically going to be flat. That's what it says. Um, I haven't heard any of the counselors talking about this. I haven't heard any counselors talking about a water plan, uh, or a water plan around capacity as new projects come forward. And we know that there are a number of projects on the books right now, uh, doubling the Hilton, uh, Rose Marina, uh, Walker's K. I think there are others, but that's probably enough to give you a sense of how much we're building out. And I think that the permit issue is also something that doesn't really speak to what our operating capacity is. So we can talk about how much we're permitted for, but we really need to know on an ongoing basis how much we're actually using. So I recommend that the council minimally set up a benchmark so that you're watching the water.

look more accessible will be a great improvement. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Joan, before you call the next person, I just want to comment real quick. And I want to spend too much time. This is a plan we followed based on the pickleball players, the type of panels and where they were going. However, we're flexible. We'll talk to staff on it. But just wanted to make it known this is what was suggested we put in place. With that said, if it's medical challenges, we'll get together with our city manager and we'll certainly talk about it ASAP. Joan, next person to bring up, please.

Sure. This is Mr. Zach Lombardo. And he will be followed by Ms. Victoria Myers, who received time from Lynn Nathanson. Zach, welcome.

Good evening. Zach Lombardo for the record here on behalf of Mr. Annette, who is coordinating the pickleball players. And first I want to thank you for purchasing the e-noise panels and putting them up. We have learned a lot since they've gone up. One of them is that they are quite good at noise, which is what was hoped for. What we have also learned is they are quite hot. So we have two requests. Mr. Annette has two requests, somewhat consistent with what you just heard, except I have some pictures on the document camera. If I could, there's one set of fences in the middle of the courts that they have not gone up yet. And what the pickleball player group headed by Mr. Annette is asking is that those just not go up at this current time while we work through this heat challenge. And I think if we can put that on the screen, maybe not.

They're working on it, Zach. Sorry, a little technology.

That one I think staff, we emailed with staff, and I believe we're on the same page about what that is a reference to. The second question asked is what, and I know this isn't working but I'll put it here anyway is what she just said the prior commenter said which is if the outside edge a noise piece can move to the left it would significantly help the heat issue and we want to point out that again we think the noise has been a big success but because the city just sort of put them on the existing fences without doing an overall design of how the program works there's been some unintended consequences but I think we can work through this and so I I'll leave you with that. The request is first a thank you, and then if your staff can take a look at not exacerbating the problem and potentially moving it over, and I'll hand these two pictures to the clerk or whoever wants them. Thank you. Very good.

Thank you. If you can go to the clerk and she'll copy us on them. Joan Victoria Myers up next.

Yes it's Miss Victoria Myers and she is receiving seated time from Miss Lynn Nathanson Good evening City Council Victoria Myers Bluebonnet Court I'm here to speak to some about something tonight that is not on the agenda and that is cruise ships when are we as a community and a City Council going to have an open and honest discussion about cruise ships I attended both planning board meetings and the topic of cruise ship was barely mentioned. Now Rose is running ads in the coastal breeze and social media claiming their requests are merely about buffers, landscaping, and trash bins. That simply is not true in my opinion.

Is this not going to be a Rose Marina issue?

It is not about anything.

She's touching on items that are on the agenda this evening, Mr. Chair.

Recommendation?

That she focus on cruise ships.

Very good.

Thank you. Okay. This is simply not true. I searched the city's website about any mention of cruise ships. I searched American Cruise Lines, ACL, on all agendas and all minutes from 2023 to 2026. The first time the subject appeared was August 6th of 2026 when a resident of Angler's Cove spoke during public comment showing photos and expressing deep concerns of multiple cruise ships in the marina. These ships began arriving, churning through the Big Marco Pass and churning up the pass in the river more than two years ago, but it's never been on an agenda or in any minutes. Cruise ships were not mentioned at the neighborhood informational meeting either. Neither were buses. That NIM was not complete and must be redone. Proceeding with an inaccurate public notice risks exposing our city to a valid lawsuit. I do recall one meeting where the subject came up very briefly and very quietly. It's when former Chair Bresnik sat right next to where Dome is, and he whispered over something, it's not auditable on playback, to Mr. Palumbo saying that they were not, cruise ships were not allowed by the submerged land lease. The chair at that time, Mr. Palumbo, shushed him and said, we're not talking about that. And guess what? We're still not talking about that. I'm going to skip to the end because the community deserves an open discussion, not made by omission. I ask that you act with transparency and courage tonight. and so that Marco Island that we hand on to the next generation still feels like it's home. The city has a legal obligation to do this. They also have a legal obligation to uphold our comprehensive plan, and I hope you will. Thank you. Thank you.

The next speaker is Ms. Mary Rose, and she is followed by Ms. Sheila Yawitz.

Hi. Thank you for your time this evening.

Mary Rose. Mary Rose. Not affiliated with Rose Marina.

Thank you for your time. First of all, I want to say that I am heartbroken, and it is absolutely gut-wrenching that I need to be here tonight to speak for my 94-year-old dad, who has been asked to not return to the farmer's market this year. This is his life. This is all he lives for, and it will kill him. So I'm here to ask for a meeting with the city manager to please discuss this and please to reverse this decision. Let me tell you what's going on. So I want to let you know that the Marco Island Farmers Market is refusing my 94-year-old dad to return to the market. The decision has absolutely had, has nothing to do with my father who is the owner and the operator of the company. I just found this out a few days ago. My father does not know this. This would kill him. My dad has participated in the farmer's market since its inception. He is a well-known fixture to the crowds. He is easily spotted sporting a white headband and displaying a photograph of him from his college days as a basketball player at Villanova University. My mom started the farmer's market with my father. She is no longer alive, and the market is the only thing keeping her alive. We are well invested in Marco Island. My mother was the editor of the Eagle newspaper, and my father at one time had one of the largest produce companies in Southwest Florida. He is the only vendor at the market that lives on the island. Being that my dad is the owner and operator of his business, shouldn't he have been notified that they are kicking him out or that there was ever a problem? My father has never had one complaint from any customer in over 30 years. I have not told my dad again about this because my dad has been working on the market since April.

I'm sorry I have to cut you short with the timing, but you can email us with any concerns and we'll take a look at them. Okay. Thank you.

The next speaker is Ms. Shia Yawitz is ceding time to Lisa Foster. So we will set that at three minutes. Okay. And then she is followed by Chris Dowell. Ms. Chris Dowell.

Lisa Foster, Marco resident.

Is the overhead projector on? Let's see if...

We don't have it up yet. We'll see if that comes up. I'm curious, 6 p.m. time certain, is that gone? I thought we had an ordinance there. It kind of dovetails nicely into what I want to talk about. I do have to disclose that there is a court reporter in the room and memorializing all the testimony tonight. If anybody feels that they're an affected person or someone damaged by tonight's proceedings, let me know and I'll, if the overhead ever kicks in let me know and I'll get you a copy I think tonight we may hear a counselor bring forward or ordinance 21-10 and state that we must abide by it and our hands are tied I'd like to get in front of that I think that's fiction in the July 6th meeting of this year in council communications it was decided by consensus with a show of hands to allow audit advisory committee member Chris Ricci to remain on the committee for the next meeting, even though he had not met the attendance requirements required by the handbook. It was later noted that required committee attendance isn't merely a guideline, but an ordinance. In section 2.206D, supported by ordinance 99-11, the requirement is memorialized and required by ordinance, a locally enacted law. At the time, Mr. Gabriel gave the advice to counsel, and I think this is an exact quote, Quote, council can choose to enact or enforce an ordinance. In the July 6th council meeting and council communications, the chair called for a show of hands by consensus to let Mr. Ricci remain on audit advisory for the next meeting. The reason for this action is immaterial to me. I'd like to preserve it for the record. The council now has the mechanism and precedent to vote formally or by silent consensus to decline or enforce an ordinance. Tonight, you'll be persuaded to enforce an ordinance that under the guise that you have no choice in the matter, and I contend this is not true. If you are presented with evidence that a prior decision is faulty or invalid, as you have all been made aware by the chair of the planning board, it is your duty to vote to rescind an approval granted in error. The Rosemarine site development plan, which is not on the agenda tonight, sir.

The Rosemarine matter is.

The site development plan is not.

City attorney, this is a quasi-judicial hearing we're going to have coming up, correct? Correct. Where people will be sworn in. Can you maybe recraft it? Would that be possible?

I'm on the record right now, and this is the third time I've been interrupted by this lawyer at the podium, and it's starting to feel like a pattern. I'm only talking about the site development plan, which is not on the agenda. Can I continue?

Please finish.

And get my time back, please. So on the planning board, which came for the planning board July 23rd, ID 26-5514, the site development plan 24-000139, and it was implied element of approval for busing to be used for virtually any site patron, including but not limited to boat charter and restaurant patrons. Total seating for the restaurant combined with the Coast Guard listed allowable passengers for the current list of charters together Total more usage of the site than their parking can sustain according to our parking metrics Our parking matrix was designed to limit intensity Thank you, we're also in violation of our comprehensive pan. Thank you.

Thank you and I will just before we get to Before we get the next speaker up, we don't normally answer questions, but public comment is time certain or as soon as possible thereafter. Christine, please.

Hi. Christine Nell. I looked over the C5 overlay for heavy commercial district section 30-260. what it actually says is what actually can be in section 5 overlay the c5 such as full service auto repair establishments primarily engaged in construction specialized trade activities outdoor storage yards are permitted consistent with requirements contained herein section 30-262 permitted uses all of what's permitted in c4 auctioneers auto dealers boat dealers general contractors building supply dealer construction trades educational services police and fire protection repair services outdoor storage printing companies transport services road transportation commercial fishing and fuel dealers nowhere does it say cruise ships Nowhere does it say cruise ships. We have been looking to see when this was actually allowed. We cannot find it anywhere. Just so you know, Punta Gorda's commission refused to let American Cruise Lines come in. They have to go way out, drop their anchor, and tenors have to bring those people in. They refused to have them dock at Punta Gorda. So just before I came, I was watching a convention on TV about listening to hostages tell their stories, and it really brought a message home to me. Elections have consequences.

Next speaker, please.

The next speaker is Mr. David Cadwell, and he is going to be followed by Ms. Jane Hansen.

David, welcome. Well, hi, counsel. It's been a while. Dave Cadwell, 90 Marco Villas Drive. hear about pickleball noise i'm sorry we've been out of pocket my wife and i but we have a young grandson who's handicapped he lives in indiana and we've been up there he's had some surgeries and has some more serious surgeries coming so carla's going to be in and out but i'm going to be around but i you know i stand here and i hear the pickleball community coming up here and we negotiated with everybody and said that this is that this would work and they agreed to it that these panels would work If you go over to the facility now, they have an open side and the air blows in from the north heading to the south into that area. Go to anywhere else where they have panels up and it's a similar layout. Nobody's complaining about how it looks or how the environment is. I think they're there to play pickleball or that was supposed to be the intent. Excuse me. If you move those panels to the far side, you're going to have that south end open again. Because you're going to have to put them on the, I guess that would be west and the south side to cover that space. And it's going to be open down the middle. I'm really frustrated with Tim to have so many representation come up here and say he doesn't want to finish through with something that he committed to doing. We expected this as a community. This has happened to us before. And really, we're right back to where we started. We don't want any expansion over there. The noise that they bring into the community and the requirements that they put on us as a community to live with that are just absolutely unacceptable. So I just want to say that where we're at, we don't want to see any expansion over there. We're right back to where we're at. We don't trust them, and we feel like they're going to try to do everything they can to just overturn this thing and do what they want to do. That's all I got. Thank you.

The next speaker is Ms. Jane Hanson, followed by Mr. Ronald Hatton.

Hi, Jane Hanson. I live on Marco. Originally, when I signed up to speak, I was speaking in reference to Ruth McCann. I wanted to speak about Ruth McCann and the proclamation. But with that, I sincerely want to thank the city council for acknowledging her because there really hasn't been a lot of fanfare about her departure from MICA and Residence Beach. And it's been devastating for a lot of us in the community. I go there every day. I've gotten to know Ruth as she's there on Sundays cleaning out the restrooms so that Dennis can get home and they can go to church. I've been there through his surgeries and, again, Ruth being there to take care of the restrooms so we could hopefully keep Dennis from being there. And I was so excited when I saw that you put it on the agenda that there was this public acknowledgement. So I'm really wanting to thank you as the city council for doing that. And then if I could just make one little suggestion, could you add Dennis McCann like in an asterisk or a footnote on that proclamation? Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next public speaker.

The next person is Mr. Ronald Hattonday. I'm sorry if I'm pronouncing your name wrong. Hattonday. Come on up, Ronald. Thank you very much. And he is followed by Dr. Rich Blana.

State your name, Ronald. I will know exactly how we pronounce it. Okay.

Ronald Hattendorf. Welcome. And I live over at Angler's Cove, 320-unit community. I think it's the largest on the island. Right next to Rose Marina. Okay. I think I've got three pages here. I'm going to go to the one-page one.

We had to limit your time, so make sure you give me important stuff.

Can I put a picture in here just for the fun of it?

Put it down there and see if it works. If not, you can give it to the clerk at the end, and she'll make sure we get a copy of it.

Oh, okay.

Apologize for the technology problems.

It is not.

We'll give you a little extra, but I'd say get to the important stuff.

Okay, let me find it because I have three of them, but I'll do the one. Good evening, my name is Ron Hattendorf. I have two concerns regarding the Marina proposed plans. First, I'm concerned about the proposed.

Ron, this is going to be, I mean, this is going to be, you're going to have an opportunity to have four minutes to speak during the Marina conversation. This is for items not on the agenda. Oh, okay. So, unfortunately, we're going to have to ask you to sit down. It's going to be a little while, but you'll have more time when that comes up.

Do you want me to stick around and come back or do it now?

I would stick around if I were you. I would like your voice to be heard, but we're going to take a little while to get there, just so you know. Quiet please let the councillor handle this The next person is Dr. Rich Blana followed by Mr. Luigi Carvalho

Just as an aside, I was going to speak originally during the Rosemarina talk and I was directed to speak now, so just as a heads up. Even though I'm a kayaker and not a power boater, I'm here to speak in favor of the Rosemarina project. For over 50 years, the Rosemarine has served voters.

I've got to stop you. I'm sorry. We might have given you misinformation.

Doctor, I don't know who gave you those instructions, but they're on the agenda, so you'll have to wait.

I understand that. That's what I signed up for, but I was told to speak.

I don't know who told you that, but that's not true.

We apologize for that.

If we can get you patients, I'll get you back up, everyone.

So I would like to get some clarity that the items that I have switched, so I was the one that provided direction to Dr. Blana about Rosmarina, and that item was in general discussion. He had explained to me about Rosmarina, not necessarily the items A, B, and C that were on there. Should we talk about general approval, or where are we going with this?

Yeah, I'm just talking in general about my support of Rosemarina.

So in light of the fact that it's a quasi-judicial matter, I would respectfully request that this council refrain from having any comments related to that prior to the public hearing that's been scheduled for those three items.

Thank you. Go ahead, Rich. Give him his time back, please. No, what I'm saying is that he not talk about it now.

Oh, I'm sorry, Paul. That he refrained.

All right, Rich, we're going to have to get you back up. I'm sorry for the- Well, since I'm up here- That will avoid- I have two minutes. What else is on your mind? I'd like to talk about something else. All right, go for it. I'd like to talk about pickleball, actually. And since I live directly behind the YMCA's pickleball courts, and there seems to be some controversy about the extra panels at the city facility, If, in fact, you do take down those extra panels at the city facility, please make them available to the Y. I live on San Marco Road and back up 66 feet from the pickleball facility, which in Naples is 1,000 feet from the nearest home. Everything you read on the National Pickleball Association newsletter, actually it's a group. They suggest a minimum of a 300-foot buffer. And in many cases, 1,000 feet. So you have six courts 66 feet behind a row of houses on San Marco Road. It's really absurd. There's a quiet ball that was designed by a scientist who lives on Marco Island. I'm going to bring that to the city council. I actually played with one of the pros, and it plays just like a normal pickleball with a third of the sound. Thank you. Thank you, Rich.

All right. Joan, who do we have next on the public speaking?

Mr. Chair, if I may, there were individuals who did indicate that they wanted to talk about the Rosa Marina site development plan. But due to the fact that everything is so intertwined, my recommendation is that all those comments be allowed only during the public hearing related to the quasi-judicial item. That will avoid any confusion from both the city's point, from the applicant's point, from the public's perspective as well.

I would agree with you, and let's put this on us and staff. I plan on having the city attorney speak before the Rosemarina conversation, explain these rules. Sorry for the miscommunication with the public comment. Joan, who do we have that's signed up that's not going to be speaking on Rosemarina yet?

So we have Mr. Mario Curiel, who has just said that he wanted to talk about things in general. And he is going to be followed by Ms. Katia Landero, who has not provided what she would like to speak about.

Mario, let's give you a shot. But if it's the Rose Marina, we'll have you up at the next item.

Next item will be Rose. This time it will be a bush.

All right. Go for it.

Honestly, this has been a joke. But anyway, I'd like to congratulate all the voters that all came out. A vote for the referendum. I congratulate the people that voted for yes. And I congratulate even more people who voted for no. I do like to thank all the people who voted for no because I thought I was the only one who cared for the island. But when I found out almost 2,500 people that they all cared for the island, damn, I got an army behind me now. Now let's see what we can do now, right? The first thing I would like to do is remove the referendum. Okay? Repeal the referendum. You cannot have a referendum with one vote. I don't know what he come up with that.

Do you realize we're going to have a whole topic on this later on in the meeting? I got four minutes? No, you have two, and this is... No, I got two.

Everybody got three, four, and I got two.

All right?

I got an idea then, okay? Since I have an army behind me, I would like to push the fact that we need to change... The Charter of Marco. We need a mayor in place here, and I need a support because there's so many loopholes out here that it's very hard to make any change on the Charter. So if anybody out there is more smart than I am, please come forward to help me out. Thank you.

Thank you, Mario.

Then I speak to the other one.

All right. The next speaker is Ms. Katia Landero, followed by Ms. Becky Irwin.

Well, thank you so much for your understanding. Former Councilor Irwin, did you have something that's not Rosmarina? Please come on up.

Thank you very much, Becky Irwin, Marco Island. I'm here to talk about the splash pad. Pardon me, Becky. Guys, if you could take the conference.

Thank you so much.

Becky, please. The splash pad at Mackle Park. That has been an issue that has been since I've been on the council. I have a daughter and son-in-law and two little grandchildren who live on Marco Island full time. And this has been a hot summer, as every summer is, of course. and they have a lot of little friends. My granddaughter is two, my grandson is seven months old, and they have a lot of friends in that age group, and there's not much to do other than go to the beach, which we do, and they do, but the splash pad is a big draw, and it should be working, so I would just like to ask if there's something we can really do to make that a reality. It's intermittently working. Sometimes it works. But for instance, my daughter, and I don't know if she wants me to say this, but she said this morning she asked her friends, oh, do you want to meet at the splash pad? And they're like, not working. So it is something that we do have a lot of kids, believe it or not. We have a lot of kids on the island and a lot of young families. So I would really like to see if we could get that amenity up and running for them, please. Thank you. Thank you.

Joan, anybody left on that?

That is the final speaker.

Good. Did we miss Mr. Joseph?

Sir, I don't have your card. I only had.

Come on up. Come on up. Don't worry about it. The card just helps keep us in order, please.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Of course. So here to talk about.

Just state your name for the record, please.

Michael Josephs, Marco Island. I'm here to talk about the lack of time that we're being afforded. And we're saying we want less people speaking. You're working for these people, OK? When the agenda is put together, it should be looked at thoughtfully. We don't put sharks and turtles and pickleball on the same agenda, right? Or Rosmarina, OK? I'm trying not to get escalated, but it's kind of frustrating that we're squelching the people You're here to work for us. Give us the chance to talk. One more point. If we need to move the meeting along, let's not go around three, four, and five times to you folks. You guys have the agenda available before, and you should study it and go one time around. I could only go one time around. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. This closes citizens' comments. We're moving on to item 11.

Chair Palumbo, we've had a couple. If we could just hold for one second. We've had a couple of people who do no longer want to speak about the SDP, but they would rather speak about another topic at this time. Absolutely. I could please call Liz Fitch forward? Of course.

Good evening, Chair and members of the board. My name is Liz Fitch, residing on Magnolia Court. I'm formally submitting a mandatory notice objection and urging the board and city attorney to continue these petitions due to fatal procedural and due process defense. Ms. Fitch.

Yes. Just like the other speakers, it's related to the items that are on the agenda. I respectfully ask that you wait. You'll have your four minutes during that time to speak. Thank you.

This is...

Next speaker. So the next person is Greg Vilk, and he has been seated time for John Martini.

Mr. Vilk, please come up and state your name. Items not on the agenda, please.

Greg Vilk resident Marco Island actually I had prepared a nine-minute speech on everything so I'm gonna skinny it down this is really about the process itself we know about the congestion the traffic issues we have in Marco Island everybody's aware of it currently Marco Island Planning Board is operating under a 2005 2005 ordinance for parking that was done at a time when we were in a deep recession over 20 years ago the city has never updated that to a current code that's comparable to any other city in the area the outdated standards have contributed significantly to excessive congestion now affecting our streets and our neighborhoods Why has the city not updated these standards since the economy recovered? Better yet, why has the city staff remained silent about the issue throughout the preparation of any project? Dan Smith claimed during a recent project that we were doing a correction on mistakes from a 2015 project. this was the opportunity but we're going to be talking about later today to correct those mishaps that's his words yet community concerns regarding congestion were ignored the Planning Board advanced this project coming today without passing a fully analyzed or disclosed parking conditions Please Mr. City Attorney

I'm sorry. I know you're talking about the Rosemarina Project, so I would respectfully ask that you wait. And to all the members of the public, I'm just the attorney. No, I'm not.

I'm talking about Walker K. We're talking about time. I'm talking about Walker K.

So why don't you be specific then?

Because I don't want to say any names of any projects.

Okay.

But you happen to be right. It is consistent with the Rosemarines.

No, I'm being consistent. I thank you for that. I'm being consistent with treating everyone the same. I agree. And you're just taking more time this evening.

You have a habit of interrupting the public consistently. Um, further, furthermore, there is an inconsistency in decision-making at a recent meeting at the same planning board members support. Did I get my time?

Okay.

At a recent planning board meeting the added congestion noise and parking conditions for one project Were enforced against another and both are essentially identical same issues ones approved ones denied very inconsistent to the community Not getting into any additionals I I'm going to stop there because I don't want to go into it and be tagged for something. So I'm going to be fair to everybody else. Appreciate it. We'll have you back up. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Very good.

All right. Joan, are we good with public comment here?

There's a little bit of confusion that's now. It's a tough meeting with a big agenda, so that's okay. We're trying to sort it out now. We appreciate you. A lot of time. So we are done with public comment now, and we can close that. There's no more speakers asking to speak at this time. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Item 10, public comment is closed, and we are moving on to Item 11, City Manager's Report. Councilors, light signs if you have anything for Dr. Lucius. Casey, anything for us?

Councillor Gray, you are up. Two quickies. Thank you for your wonderful report. You mentioned the FDEP additional water quality testing on Marco Island. Is there any more meat on that topic that you could share? Amount, locations, anything that is relevant?

At this time, no, other than that they have offered to do some additional testing along with the city testing. Okay. And we did hear actually just today that our 4E plan has been approved, so I'll follow up with an email to the city council on that and put it in my next city manager's report.

Thank you. Last question. Collier County Schools, a wonderful letter by the city council requesting some reimbursement. Did you get any response or reaction from them on our request for some compensation?

No, sir.

Thank you.

Chair Palumbo, I do have a comment. Yes, Councilor Schwartz, please. So, Dr. Lucius, I would ask that you could share with our residents about the Winterberry ballpark field update and the progress that we've made on that.

Do you hear the question? Yes. I think regarding Winterberry Field update, just a quick update is our facilities team did add some sod to the Winterberry Field. And we did a safety assessment. It was flattened out, so to speak. So it was determined safe for play, for football. I also worked with the Senior Softball League to come up with a plan to do a sod replacement this December, and they actually ask us to wait until after their season finishes, which would be late spring next year.

Thank you.

Thank you. No other light signs? I presume nobody signed up for any of this?

I do have a question for our MIPD police report.

We're going to get to department head. Go ahead, Councilor Schwann. We have you on. If you're on there, we'll bump you right up with the chief.

Okay. So, but I can wait. I didn't mean to interrupt. No problem.

We're going to get there in one moment. We're on city attorney report, just so you know, if you can hear me. Councilors, any light signs for the city attorney? Alan's on vacation. I'm sure he's heartbroken. David, anything to add for us?

No, I'll save my words for later.

Thank you. Okay. Departmental reports. Councilor Schwann, go ahead.

Yes, so thank you for the MIPD from our chief that submitted that report. And it was good to see all the wonderful things they're doing for our community. And I did really appreciate the detailed information on the bicycle and e-bike stops that they reported in regards to the 107 stops, the 55 verbal warnings, and the 52 written warnings. And my question was, just as a data accumulation understanding, were there, like when we report in all our other various

Citation areas were there any citations in the e-bike and bicycle micro mobility stops in July You get that chief So I have report for the past 12 months here and for the month of July we had We had we had two e-bike crashes in 2026 and a total of four micromobility crashes. So bicycles and e-bikes total four crashes in 2026 altogether. We did not, it doesn't appear that we had any citations in July, but we had two citations written in August. So that's where we stand right now.

Thank you. Councilor Swann, anything else?

Yes. Thank you for that information. And I appreciate all your support that you're doing with this, and I appreciate that all the additional safety information that you're providing with the warnings and the stops, too. So thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Henry.

Well, I want to thank everybody's reports, as always. Very well done. I wanted to take a moment to compliment the efforts of Lynn Musgrave. She's a customer service manager for the city. I emailed why my water bill was mailed to me with an envelope to remit payment. when it's on auto pay. Ms. Gray walked me through setting up so that I would not get mailed statements saying paid, and she went a step further and she coordinated with the third-party mailer of the invoices so that if you are getting a statement mailed to you and you're on auto pay, you will no longer be getting an envelope in the mail with it. Small savings, but it's something. So basically my PSA is if you are on auto pay and you are getting a bill mailed to you that just says paid, very easily you can go online, uncheck a box, and then you'll save the city the postage, the printing, and the everything. So I just wanted to give a compliment to the city, somebody taking an effort and making sure and just a few more pennies saved and not wasting any more trees. That's it.

Thank you. Is there anything else for department heads? All right, this will close 13, departmental reports. And we are on to item 14, quasi-judicial public hearing, 14A. We want to start with reading the resolution first, and then we'll open it up to our city attorney and some conversation. Please.

Certainly. I can read Resolution 26-51 by title into record. A resolution of the City of Marco Island, Florida approving variances VP-25-000096 from Section 30-440A4 MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS AND 30-624X4 DESIGN REGULATIONS AND SECTION 30-441G MINIMUM LANDSCAPE BUFFERING AND SCREENING BETWEEN USES AND SECTION 30-1012C2 AND 30-1012C3 solid waste disposal and recycling of the City of Marco Island Code of Ordinances for real property located at 951 Bald Eagle Drive, Marco Island, Florida, providing for findings and conditions of approval and providing an effective date. Thank you.

David, before you, let me start, if I might, just very quickly. Guys, I'm going to have a city attorney talk to you about what a quasi-judicial public hearing is, why we limited some of the comments during general comment for items not on the agenda, and why that's important. Your voices will be heard. I will ask that you do it civilly, with dignity. We can agree to disagree. It's OK. But we can do it nice with each other. David, can you please inform the council and citizens

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Once again, David Tolstice, Assistant City Attorney. And my role here as the city attorney is to make sure that the record is proper and that the cities and the applicant and the public's interests are protected in the event there is any litigation following any hearing. So to the extent that anybody feels offended, I apologize, but this is my role. So may I start? This is a quasi-judicial hearing. The hearing will be conducted by the city council, which will hear testimony under oath in the following order. The city attorney will swear in all individuals who desire to offer testimony regarding this matter. The city staff will present their presentation and planning board recommendations. The applicant will then be able to make their presentation, call witnesses, and offer sworn testimony. The council will be able to ask questions of city staff, the applicant's council, the applicant's witnesses at any time during their presentations. After city staff and the applicant have testified, the hearing will be open to the members of the public to offer sworn testimony in support or against the application. For those members of the public who are not sworn in, they will be permitted to speak after all other members of the public who are sworn in present their testimony. Please note that under the rules of quasi-judicial hearings, the City Council may only consider testimony and evidence that is provided under oath or sworn. Additionally, each person or member of the public who gives testimony must be subject or may be subject to cross-examination. Upon refusal to be sworn, that testimony will not be considered. The general public will not be permitted to cross-examine witnesses. The City Council may set reasonable time limits for members of the public who speak. Each person who approaches the podium to speak should state their name and address for the record. The City Council has the authority to refuse to hear any testimony that is irrelevant or repetitive. The material in the City Commission's agenda package will be considered as part of the record as well as any evidence introduced by any other party. After the public speaks, the applicant and the City staff will present rebuttal testimony and evidence. The hearing will then be closed and the matter decided by the City Commission. No further testimony shall be taken and the members of the City Council shall not ask any further questions of persons presenting testimony. The City Council shall discuss the evidence that was presented at the proceeding and vote on the application or petition. In reaching its determination, the City Council shall consider whether the petition's request is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan, if applicable, and state with specificity the reasons for the approval or denial of the petition. Said approval or denial may by reference incorporate the staff, board, or other reports or evidence presented at the meeting. All decisions of the City Council must be supported by substantial competent evidence in the record pertinent to the proceedings and cannot be based on generalized support or opposition that is not fact-based. Substantial competent evidence is evidence as opposed to opinion or speculation as will establish a substantial basis of fact from which the facts at issue can reasonably be inferred. It is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. And for information, city councils may have spoken with individuals or conducted their own investigations and site visits regarding this matter pending before them. Such activity shall not be presumed prejudicial to the action if the existence of the investigation, site visit, or communication is made part of the record before final action on the matter. Therefore, at this time, I would ask each councillor if they have had any ex parte contacts that are not part of the record, which shall include any discussions or site visits with interested parties, including the applicant and city staff, as well as any site visits. So, Mr. Chair, I turn it back to you for that.

I've walked the site. I've reviewed the drawings. I attended the NIM meeting. I've attended the planning board meetings. I've spoken to the owner of Rosemarina. I've spoken to the general manager of Rosemarina. I've spoken to Rosemarina's attorney. I've spoken to city staff. And I've spoken to many members of the community.

Councillor Golder? I have attended sightseeing with Mr. Lombardo. I had a short communication a couple days ago with the attorney for the applicant. I had a meeting with our city staff, and that's about it. Councilor Dome?

I did a site inspection and had a quick, very brief discussion with the manager of Rosa Marina.

I walked the site, spoke to the applicant, spoke to the applicant's attorney, spoke to the chairman of the planning board, members of the public, watched the planning board meetings, and spoke to staff on this.

Quite frankly, I've spoken to quite a few people. I've spoken to many people in the community, both for and against the Rosemarina application. I've spoken to our attorneys, two attorneys, Alan and David, spoken to the city manager the director of growth management Mary Holden I've spoken to I think that probably wraps it up I've spoken to a lot of people I own I've been on the site I've spoken to the applicants Dan high and Dwight

Councilor, so before we go to Councilor Gray, is Councilor Schwan allowed to speak on this, although she's not allowed to vote on it?

Well, I need to make a clarification here. Thank you, Chair Palumbo. So I actually have spoken with our city attorney, David, who's representing us in this meeting, because this is a quasi-judicial matter and that MY UNDERSTANDING FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY, BECAUSE OF THAT, I'M NOT IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, AND THEREFORE, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE OR VOTE ON THESE RESOLUTIONS. AND I'D ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY, DAVID, TO CLARIFY THAT.

THAT IS CORRECT.

VERY GOOD.

SO WE'LL HEAR FROM YOU ON THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM OR NEXT THIRD ONE. COUNCILOR GRAY, PLEASE.

THANK YOU FOR INCLUDING ME. I WAS AT THE NIMH. I'VE BEEN TO THE PLANNING MEETINGS. I've had very, very limited conversations with management at Rosemarine as well as council. I have talked to a great number of people in our community about this topic. And I have fueled my jet ski at the pumps at Rosemarine.

Very good.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. One other question. In addition, at this time, I'm asked to ask each councillor if they can be fair and impartial and base their decision on the testimony and evidence presented at this hearing. So I'll just get down the row.

We'll start with Councillor Gray this time.

Councillor Gray?

Yes.

Thank you, Vice Chair Champagne. Yes. Chair Palumbo, Councilor Dome, Councilor Koehler, Councilor Henry. Thank you very much. So at this time, I will ask all individuals who are intending to offer testimony to the City Council regarding this matter, which is item 4A, to stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in at this time. And you will be asked when you speak if you've been sworn in. So we'd like to keep that record straight. All right. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God.

I do.

Thank you very much. You may be seated. Mr. Chair, back to you.

And before you start, I would just ask, show of hands, did anybody plan on speaking that was not sworn in or chose not to be sworn in? All right. So we shouldn't have any challenge there.

Dan, please start. Thank you. Daniel Smith, Director of Community Affairs. What I'm going to do is I'm going to do an overview of Rosa Marina, how we got here, backtrack a little bit to the site plan approval process and what was actually approved, which were conditioned on a variance petition, a conditional use petition, and a boat dock. petition if any one of these the site development plan approval was was contingent on all Three the variance conditional use and boat dock extension being approved if they're not approved Any of those are not approved, then it goes back to the planning board for reconsideration. However, the Rosemarina group would like to proceed. So I just want to give you a heads up. That's what's happening moving forward. Again, the site development plan was approved contingent on... These variances conditionally use and boat dock extension. It was approved July 23rd 2006 and some of the things I want to bring up I've already brought up one Two was pursuant to this section 30-484 of the city City Code of Ordinance of the Planning Board and City Council approved the off street parking lot on the west side bald eagle for use by the development because the proposed parking lot is separated from a proposed development by a collector road. I'll discuss that later on, but in staff's opinion, and I'll go over that, that was approved in 2014. They're making some changes, some alterations that are less intense than what was approved at that time. So from a staff's perspective, that was already approved in 2014 and There's no reason to bring that forward, but I want to make sure the City Council was clear and the Planning Board was clear because I brought that up during that meeting. We're also going to be talking about the size of the boats that were previously approved in 2003. That's going to be during the boat dock extension discussion. Mary Holden is here to provide that information. So anyway, just for a general discussion, these were the things that were approved on July 23rd. all contingent on these three items being approved. So here's the area in question. This is Rosemarina. This is the outline of Rosemarina. For general discussion, we're going to be talking about Factory Bay, which is the sublerve land lease area, and then we're all going to be talking about the uh... magnolia basin two separate areas one is a land lease one is owned by rose marina you look look over here this is c five across the street to see for most of the discussion we're going to be having is not going to be on the parking lot area it's going to be regarding the the restaurant and really that's what's moving forward at this time They would like to add a restaurant. Jack's was there at one particular time. It was knocked down during a hurricane. They would like to have a large restaurant there. And that's really what starts this whole process. In 2014, everything that's on there right now is approved. They can continue on with the way they're doing business now. If this were to be denied, they can still continue with the operations that they have right now. We don't regulate boats. We do it based on, we regulate it based on parking. The submerged land lease in 2003 allows for two large boats or two boats that have a certain capacity. And again, Mary Holden will be discussing that. So this is the site plan that was approved in 2014. It was approved to have a parking lot across the street again. And at that point in time, it wasn't just parking. They actually had a new boat sales facility at that time. They also had an area right here that was going to be a maintenance facility in this area that they're asking for a conditional use to allow for dry dock storage. So just to give you a heads up, in 2014, at one particular time, those... those buildings were approved by site plan approval in the city council during that time. And this is the area where Jax was, that the planning board, through a recommendation approval based on the variance, conditional use, and the BOCAC extension, is they would like to put the new restaurant here. This is the site plan that was approved by the planning board. I really don't have any discussion on that, except that in this area is where the variances for the landscaping is being asked for along here from going from 20 feet to 10 feet. Foundation plantings along here. They're asking for variants for that and and they're asking for the This is the area where they would like to have the dumpster. They also want to have a recycling facility over here. The way the code reads is both your facilities, your recycling facility and your dumpster enclosure has to be within 200 feet of the building. Because of the unique nature of the site, that's why they're asking for the variance. So again, the variance petition was brought before the planning board. The planning board reviewed this and through a vote of 4-3, recommended the city council approve this item with a vote of 4-3, the following conditions that the STPA 2400139 is approved by the planning board, which it was. The applicant contractor shall obtain a building permit before commencement of any construction and that the owner developer petition response for any of the private deed restriction approvals with Marco Island Civic Association. This is what was previously approved by the 2014. I'm going to show you where the dumpster enclosure was. That yellow spot right there, which is right on that corner. That was previously approved in 2014 for the dumpster enclosure. If you look at this buffer right here, along here, the buffer is actually on the opposite side of where the property line is. It's actually in the city property line, and that whole area was asphalt. The foundation plantings that were previously included were just a few trees in front of the storage facility. And again, variance one is perimeter planning. In this case, they're going to, they're asking for a deficit of 2,483 square feet in front of the large building here, which is still gonna be more than what's existing that was approved in 2014. They're also gonna be adding additional landscaping in front of the new restaurant above and beyond what's allowed. Variance two is the right-of-way buffer. Again, this is to reduce from 20 feet for the C buffer to 10 feet. This is going to be similar to what's been allowed at Elan Flooring and similar to what's allowed to the bargain basket. Due to these buffers, the planning board, city council, and staff has felt parking would be a little bit more important for these sites, and that's really why they've been approved. Parking has always been a problem in these areas, and we feel that we can still get the landscaping in there, and in turn get the additional parking. So it was very important for them to get that. And that was already approved again in 2014. Again, the solid waste buffer, they're asking for a variance to allow the dumpster enclosure in this buffer area. They met with staff, and one of the unique things about this is they own the residential property just to the north. Of that and there they were willing to put it an additional 10 feet strip of landscaping along there to buffer even more The restaurant and the the dumpster facility and last but not least is This is where the recycling center is going to be in a I showed you that it's not going to be within the 200 feet That's allowed and we thought this was alright because really this recycling can be used for all the site not just the restaurant and Again, this is the area for the recycling facility. And again, here's another picture of where the landscape buffers are going to be reduced for landscaping. Here's the dumpster enclosure. Here's that 10-foot strip of additional landscaping they're willing to install. And again, here's the area that they plan on installing the buffers. Do I have any questions on the variances before I move forward with the conditional use?

We're just doing one at a time.

We're just doing one application at a time? Yes. So we finish with the variance and then I'll go to the conditional use after a vote is taken?

Yes.

Thanks, Dan. Great explanation. The big takeaway I see here is that most of this or all of those were approved in 2014. That's correct. And now they're coming to us and actually reducing their The request, it's less. You're asking for less right now.

Well, the intensity is actually less. The original plan was to have the maintenance facility where they're looking at the dry dock storage. And across the street, they originally had part of that was a new boat sales center. So in our opinion, this is actually reducing a lot of the intensity that's there. And they're actually adding more landscape than what they currently have that was approved in 2014. Great.

Thank you.

Councillor Gray. Thank you. I started earlier this evening talking about that off-site parking. You referenced, I couldn't find the approval. You're assured that that off-site parking approval was done in 2014?

That was part of the original site plan that was approved during that time.

Okay, so that was formally approved. I apologize for distracting you. That's correct. I'm going to cite Councillor... I'm looking at the minutes from September 23, 2024, and the minutes from that council meeting, he raised questions about the legality of operating public transportation buses in all zoning districts, and this is a feeder road. Can you speak to our land development code and the legality of buses on this roadway?

At this point, we're only discussing the variance that's in front of us.

So tell me when I'm allowed to ask that question.

It's not part of the consideration with respect to this item. Okay. And if you want my opinion, it's not necessarily public transportation that's being placed on this property. But I would reserve your questions for the applicant.

Okay. Councillor Henry.

I just want to verify words that you said. You said that in front of the restaurant, their landscape buffer is more than allowed. Did you mean to say more than required?

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, there's a couple things. We're talking about the landscape buffer along here. That is required to be 20 feet. They're asking for a 10-foot variance, which is consistent with some of the other properties along Bald Eagle that we've approved. What I'm talking about is the landscaping the foundation plannings in front of the restaurant are actually above and beyond.

I just wanted to check, because you said more than allowed, but I wanted to confirm it's more than required. That's correct. Okay, so they're doing more than is even asked. That's correct. Okay, that's all. Thank you.

Thanks, Chair Champagne.

Yeah, I'm going to have a lot of questions, but before I start, let me just say that I'm taking a neutral position. I am not in favor nor against what's being proposed. I've heard so much information that 2014 approved everything, I started looking into the 2014 resolution. And what I'm finding is what was expressly approved in 2014 was, number one, a dry dock boat barn height up to 53.5 feet. Number two, a service building height up to 44 feet. Number three, a boat dealership with an outside display area. And number four, conditions concerning building size a five-foot angler's cove side yard, enhanced landscaping along that boundary, and no restaurant in the service center building. I have not found resolution 14-20 containing any separate operative clause expressly adopting the complete site development plan that you reference. I'd like to see a document. Do you have that document?

That was the site plan. We do have the approval for the site plan. Could you show it?

That's key.

I don't have that.

You're contending 2014 was totally approved. I've heard your words. That's right. I'd like to see the document. Show me the document that shows everything you proposed tonight has been approved already in 2014. This was the site plan that was approved in 2014. I'd like to see the document. Show me the document that confirms what you've just said.

Mr. Vice Chair, are you asking for like the minutes of the meeting or? No, no.

He's contending what we're being presented has been totally approved in 2014. I'm saying show me. Show me the document that totally approves what he's just said. And you know what? I haven't found that document. A vote of counsel? Back records?

I'm not sure what... Oh, I think to the extent that we can get that for you, we will. I think Mr. Smith is indicating he doesn't necessarily have that document in his hand right now.

Then how do we vote?

No, I'm saying that let's see what we can get to you. All right. And also, he's not proposing. This is the applicant's proposal.

All right. So what I believe... Resolution 14-20 does not contain a separate operative clause making those kind of approvals. The council agenda called the matter a final site approval or decision, but the recorded motion and operative resolution language granted conditional use. That's the difference, isn't it? So not full approval.

Am I correct? My understanding is the approval of the site plan, which I watched that meeting, and the conditional uses were approved.

Without a document, I don't know how we can come to that conclusion.

Councilor Schwan, maybe if you could mute your, if you could hear me, if you could mute that. All right, Dan, I got a question. Sure. So this particular item passed on the planning board four to three, correct? Yes, it did, the variance. Did they ask, and I respect Councilor Champaign's deep dive into information, did they ask for any of this? Did they take staff's opinion, approval, belief that the 2014 document exists?

Yes. They believe that this was approved in 2014, correct?

Okay, so we had an approval from the planning board. They're sending this to us. What does the staff recommend on this? The staff recommended was approval of the variance. Approval by the staff, approval by the planning board. Okay. Seems like a tremendous reduction in intensity. Dry docks, 53 feet, 44 feet. Dealerships, it seems like it's going from this to about this. And so I have a question. How is moving a recycling bin affect the general public negatively? It really doesn't, that I'm aware of. And it looks like the garbage was moved actually from the very corner of the street and tucked back a little. That's correct. So it's not on the corner. I remember when it used to be there.

Yes.

On the Magnolia lot, that shoulder lot, and the street. So it looks like, to me, that looks better. It just looks like a good start. Am I missing anything big here, Tim? No. Okay. I see no other light signs. Do we want to bring up the attorney or the presentation from the applicant?

That would be consistent with the procedures, yes. All right.

Please, Mr. Lombardo, state your name for the record. You know the drill.

Good evening. For the record, Zach Lombardo on behalf of the applicant, Rose Marina. I do have a PowerPoint. I don't know if that can be put up on the screen. I'm not sure if the document camera is working. But while this gets loaded up, I want to directly address the question that was asked about the 2014 approval. The resolution cited 1420, which I have a copy of with me, is not the approval document. And I agree with that. In that hearing, there's a second vote and a motion to approve the site plan. so there was the vote in motion to approve the conditional uses which you cited then there was a motion to approve the site plan the site plan that mr. Smith had up on the screen as well as the landscape plan that's in the agenda packet from that approval were approved by that motion by City Council that there is, I'm unaware of there being a resolution that joins that. And so for that reason, we're not standing here saying you must do this because it was approved before. We filed variances to go through the full process on these. My suggestion in our application is that all of these variances are better than what counsel by motion approved in 2014 you can watch it on the video the city maintains a full video of the proceeding they go through the entire conditional use Afterwards they specifically asked the city attorney at the time Burt Saunders if they needed to separately approve the site plan He advises yes, there's a motion to approve the site plan. It's second that it's unanimously approved and the agenda packet is the site plan which was shown and again this landscaping plan I'd like to I don't know if the document camera works but I'm going to refer to this landscape plan throughout our presentation so I'd like to make sure that it does and if it doesn't I have copies sufficient for all council But let me start from the top here. My name is Zach Lombardo. I'm joined here by our landscape architect, Chris Anunzkiewicz, our project engineer, Chris Hagan, our environmental consultant, Tim Hall. We have Arturo Lopez, our architect, and our traffic engineer, Norm Trebelcock. It has been a long road to get to here. It's been specifically 26 months since the filing of the application to be standing here, and the planning started before July of 24, and there are environmental permits that also took several years to obtain in this process. While these are the subject properties for the entire site plan, on the variance, we're only looking at the Yellow Star. All variances are on the east side of Bald Eagle Drive and what I'm going to call the historic marina site. So getting into this variance application as a preliminary matter, in addition to the testimony and evidence that's going to be presented by our team, I'm submitting all the documents that are in the agenda packet in this presentation into the record as evidence for the hearing. mentioned by staff the variances had a staff recommendation of approval Planning Board also found approval and I do want to note that the condition that the SDP a 24 be approved by Planning Board that has obviously been met so that the remaining conditions are informational and the applicant agrees to these conditions staff provided its analysis finding land development code consistency finding comprehensive plan consistency attributing the variances to the uniqueness of the property and I want to emphasize that again we're not tying this to the 2014 approval as a reason to approve the variance I'm providing that as a reference point and saying that we meet the variance criteria and as you heard from your staff there are other bald eagle properties that received similar variances because they were able to meet the variance criteria I'm now going to go through these and what I'd like to do is I'd like to bring up our landscape architect because I want to make sure we're really clear on all of this And we'll kind of do a little bit of a back and forth here. I would like to submit Mr. Anunzkiewicz's resume into the record. I don't know if my paralegal can help me here. I have sufficient copies for all City Council. This is Mr. Anuskiewicz's resume. Chris, could you just give a brief summary of who you are, your qualifications and your role in the project? Sure. Thank you.

Sure. Good evening, Council. I have been sworn in. My name is Chris Anuskiewicz. I'm a landscape architect with Placemaker Design Studio. I graduated from the University of Florida with a degree in landscape architecture. I'm also an AICP certified planner and certified arborist. I am the owner of Placemaker Design Studio, which is a landscape architecture practice, and have owned the firm for 16 years.

Very good.

Thank you, and as a record matter, we are submitting our landscape architect as an expert witness. The first variance is what we'll call the perimeter plantings variance, and what I have on the screen here is two excerpts. On the left side is from the current site development plan, and on the right side is from the landscape plan of the 2014 site development plan, and I have this as well to submit into the record. And just to confirm, we kind of stand next to each other here. On the left side, is that an excerpt from your landscape plan?

Yes, it is.

Mr. Lombardo, can you just make sure that your paralegal provides us with a copy and you explain fully exactly what you're passing out so that we know? Absolutely. Let me back up.

Generally, I just want to state on the record, we do not hand out items to the council that haven't been made available to the public. And if you are going to hand out items to the council, then you have to provide copies to the public. And it's not the clerk's responsibility at the last minute to make copies available to the public. So I think if you have items on the screen that are available for everyone to see, that's sufficient. But I don't like the idea of handing out documents like this to the council that no one else has seen, including our city attorney and our city staff.

I've put the resume on the document camera. This is a quasi-judicial hearing, and we need to be able to qualify our experts.

The resume is understandable, but you're handing out plans at this point.

This is the 2014 city public record, which is the landscape, and I can put this on the document camera as well. Please. I started by placing the resume on the document camera. Can we switch to the document camera? I don't know if we can switch to the document camera.

Not going to work.

Martin, you got that thing up and running? Zach, can you move on to something else besides this?

The excerpts are on the screen. This is available for everyone for view here. On the left side, as confirmed, this is from the landscape plan for this project. On the right side, as confirmed by Chris here, that is from the 2014 landscape plan. Like Chris, you just described the differential here. What is the change in perimeter plantings for these two buildings?

For the existing ship store, there are no existing perimeter plantings. We're providing 1,278 square feet of perimeter plantings. For the boat barn, we are providing 1,408 square feet of perimeter plantings. for the existing boat rental building again which has no perimeter plantings we're providing 130 square feet of perimeter plantings

So as to this first variance, as indicated by city staff, this is a significant improvement from the last round of approvals, as shown on the slide. And we believe that that helps meet one of the variance criteria, which is that it must be the minimum necessary to achieve the variance. I'll note the boat barn has already been constructed. So we're not adding the boat barn. It was constructed the first time apparently without perimeter plantings. I will note on this particular item, the boat barn is specifically in the resolution 1420. And so it was addressed directly, the perimeter plantings for whatever reason were not required. I will also note that that condition cites to the landscape plans that are in the city's records, it's a public record, it's available on Legistar, and certainly available by public records request to the city. And so this particular variance, as described, is a variance from the code requirement, but a significant improvement from the current site conditions in the 2014 approval. The second variance is as to the right-of-way buffer. Because this is in the town center overlay, there's a 20-foot right-of-way buffer that is required. So similarly here, I'm gonna confirm with our landscape architect the top Piece is an excerpt from the landscape plans for this project. The bottom piece is an excerpt from the 2014 landscape plans Chris could you describe the the difference here?

Yes, so as you can see on the plan on the top, which is the plan I prepared, we have a minimum 10-foot buffer provided along the right-of-way. There is also no dumpster located in that buffer. The plan below, you can see it does have a buffer, which is a 2014 buffer, But actually, all of the buffer plantings in that image there are actually in the right-of-ways, so they are not on the property. And then you can also see that the dumpster is located within the buffer as well.

So as to this variance, again, while not up to the stock code requirement, it is a significant improvement from 2014 primarily because it's actually on property. So it's going to be on property, the correct size, and it's taking the dumpster out of that buffer so that the buffer is serving appropriately here. And I want to note on this particular one, again, the site has been here since the late 1960s, and it has – gone through many iterations. 2014 is not the only site plan. There was a 1998 site plan as well. And so over the years, it has had a 10-foot buffer. The next variance is the solid waste dumpster. There's two dumpster variances, if you will. Again, the left side is the landscape plan for this project. The right side is from 2014. And what I want to highlight here, and we'll have Chris address it, is in 2014, the dumpster was in the right-of-way landscape buffer. And you'll note here, there was zero, none, landscaping on the northern boundary and you can see this at the site today if you go to the site today there is no plantings here it was not required in the landscape plan at all that is not consistent with your current code so what we are proposing is the full buffer interrupted by the dunster in the landscape buffer and then a corrective additional buffer on the lot owned to the north which is owned by the marina so chris could you describe the difference here

Yes, so the image on the left is the landscape architecture drawings that I prepared. The image on the right is the 2014 drawing set. So on the left, you can see we have a 10-foot landscape buffer that is on the adjacent property that's in front of the dumpster. So the dumpster is not within that 10-foot buffer. But then in addition to that, we have that buffer really varies from the 10 feet to an extra 15 feet both on the left and right side of that dumpster. So you can see we have up to 25 feet in many areas for that buffer.

The last one, and I'm going to switch to Engineer Chris Hagan. This is the recycling location. On the left, we again have the excerpt from the landscape plan. On the right, we have the 2014 landscape plan. And what I want to emphasize here is there's a single bay dumpster here. And what I'm going to ask Chris to confirm is that there was no recycling dumpster for Jack's Lookout. So it was using the dumpster, the recycling dumpster, on the south side, on the east side of the marina, which is what we're proposing here. Chris, if you could confirm that.

Hello, for the record, my name is Chris Hagan. I have been sworn in. I've been accepted as an expert witness before for engineering here. Would you like to get my resume or do we not need to go through that today?

I think we're okay.

I believe we're good. Very good. What Zach has said is correct. The right-hand picture does show, excuse me, what was permitted and there was no recycling dumpster in that portion of the project. It was all the way at the back and was shared and has been planned to be shared since the 2014 approval.

And just to confirm, were you also the engineer of record for the 2014 site plan?

Yes, I was and I sat here throughout those hearings.

So on the variances, what I want to confirm is Consistent with the staff's analysis consistent with the planning board's analysis consistent with the staff recommendation consistent with the planning board's recommendation There is common substantial evidence that the variance factors in section 3065 of your code have been met for each of the four variances the significance of the 2014 site plan, which we we do not We're not conceding that there wasn't a site plan. There is a site plan. There's a motion. There's a second It's on the record and all the documents are in legislature But we're offering here today that the standards have been met, that that proves that this is the minimum necessary because we had previously been approved for drastically less. Just these variances represent an addition of something like 80 additional trees at Rose Marina, and all of that is not required under the current site plan. And so to not move forward with this is to not add these additional buffers, which the Marina feels important to improve the compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood so again the marina believes that the competent substantial evidence has been provided as to each of these variances this is all landward it does not impact the docks it is focused on pre-existing conditions a unique site obviously if we look back at the primary map here The property line is in the water. This lot shape is quite unique This is not comparable to almost any other lot on the island. And so I would have liked to at this time consistent with prior practice reserve my closing for after public comment and I appreciate your Consideration and before then if you'd like to ask questions, I'm available and my team is available to answer One light sign vice chair champagne, please.

Yeah because everything is hinging are depending upon the 2014 site plan approval I then went and checked and see is there a sunset provision on site plans that have been presented years ago and much to my surprise there is correct and the conditional use expires if it was not timely commenced or was later discontinued. As far as I know, 2014 was never commenced. The site plan for 24 never started, never implemented, and it had a two-year expiration date, so it's null and void, isn't it?

No. We have to, so two responses. The site plan expiration deadline was enacted after the site plan approval. And I can get the site for that and the ordinance shortly.

Well, that would be required for a vote because once again.

And I will provide that. during this hearing. There is an ordinance. I, in fact, emailed back and forth with Dan Smith about this earlier in this process because that was a question raised by staff. As to the 1420 expiration, the boat barn was approved by that resolution. The boat barn was built. What cannot be built, I would agree, is we cannot build the maintenance facility on the point at this point. We did not start construction on the maintenance facility within the two years of the 1420 conditional use. We therefore cannot construct the maintenance facility on the point. That has been expired. But the conditional use was, as you cited in the beginning, also for the 54-foot-tall boat barn, which was constructed. so a portion of it has sunsetted in the sense that it cannot be acted upon which is in large part why we're here we cannot come into compliance with the that conditional use at this point because it is expired so instead we're proposing ground rack storage and that will be in the next hearing but the boat barn was constructed it was constructed timely and then I will provide if I can have five minutes or you can ask another question the ordinance citation for the expiration of the site development plans which again was enacted after 2014. i think you have a little time during public comments so you should have plenty of time uh vice chair champion do you have any more questions oh yeah oh yeah um it um it seems to me section 30-64 had a one-year approval

And obviously that wasn't met. Section 3679, which came before the Council on June 16, 2014, had two years. And the variances that you're presenting were not therefore approved because they were not implemented during that period of time, right? The variances you're trying to get approved tonight, you claim multiple times were approved in 2014. I'm saying to you, even if they were, time sunset, made it invalid because they did not get implemented during that one or two year time frame.

I guess I'm not following. The perimeter plantings were not – they weren't there, so they weren't installed.

But you're using 2014 as a –

justification as an explanation for the minimum necessary and what I'm but this is what happened they built the the the boat barn and they did not build the perimeter plantings to code they then put the 10-foot buffer along the road that's there the dumpster is sitting in the northwest corner by the former restaurant location that's there and there is no landscape buffer along the top

portion of the site right now but where you're proposing the dumpster to be today exists not approved in 2014 it was on the landscaping plan and it my point is the there was no recycling facility within 200 feet of Jack's lookout on the 2014 approval well I'll tell you it it's very confusing to say the least my research suggests that Well, let me even ask a more basic question that may answer all of the questions I've been asking and more that I haven't yet asked. Do your three resolutions tonight depend 100% on 2014? No. Why are we arguing?

That's what I said at the beginning of this. We're not sitting here demanding legal nonconformity for a lot of the reasons that you're pointing out.

The reason why we were is because you've been using it

over and over and over as a justification simply as a reference point to show that there was a prior council looked at these conditions and determined that this was appropriate they voted to approve it so when what I'm choosing as a benchmark is the marina is not coming forward and saying that's appropriate we're saying we need to do more and so I'm using it simply as a benchmark not as a entitlement so 2014

in my opinion, you should not be using. You just disregard it. It's immaterial. You're putting forth three brand-new resolutions. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

And they are not dependent on anything that occurred in 2014 to get approved?

That's correct.

Then I end my questions because it's a waste of time.

Councilor Gray. Clarification on the variances. The basis for them, is there a hardship? And do you think these variances create a hardship for the community around this site?

To the first question, the hardship and the practical difficulty alleged and agreed with by staff is the site layout and the parking layout. And so this site has, as you can see from the aerial and the property lines, it has a huge amount of submerged land, which significantly constrains the available building area. That is the practical difficulty that all of these pieces are creating. The addition of the additional landscaping is what the marina believes does not create any sort of hardship on the surrounding area because it's a great increase from the current level of approval. Not a justification for this, but the current level of approval is present. That's there. And this is significantly more than that to specifically address the surrounding community. And I'll note that the right-of-way buffer, the adjacent property to the west is the marina. On the other side of the right-of-way is the marina parking lot. The green star and the blue star do not have variances. they are meeting code when it comes to buffers all the way around. And so by the time we get to the first affected party, I guess you could say to the west, we have the church and we have those multifamily buildings, they are screened to code. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. If we look at Angler's Cove, that screening was approved in the conditional use and it was built because that boat barn was built. So that has been resolved before. The only piece that's not present If we look on the north side and we're looking towards Magnolia Court and the homes on Magnolia Court, that's where we felt that it was going to be an issue. So we proposed a full buffer with offsetting on the additional lot that the marina owns to address that issue in a way that could both acknowledge the practical difficulty of the site design and not create a hardship for the neighborhood because we're providing a significant amount of landscaping on the northern end that is currently not present.

Did the 2014 site development plan require any variances?

If you're asking me if my opinion is it did or did they file for any?

I don't know what was in place. I was just trying to understand.

They applied for no variances. And another reason why we did not or not sitting here demanding that that's the reason you should approve this is because certainly as to that northern property line, there should have been a landscape buffer there. But there wasn't. So we're providing it. We're providing offset. And we're dealing with it directly as variances. And by the way, this is something that your staff pushed for. When we initially filed, if you review the application history, we initially filed without variances for this argument. Staff pushed back. They disagreed with us. They didn't think that this was appropriate. They couldn't find evidence of variances in the record. And so we filed for variances because we felt it was appropriate to document this because this is somewhat complicated. This is a 1960s site. It's lived through a lot of iterations of the code. But we, again, feel that we can hit all of the requirements in the code, so does staff, so does planning board.

Thank you. Mr. Tulsa, I don't know if I'm allowed to ask this question or not. The connector road and buses.

Mm-hmm.

My question is, I don't know that it's permitted under a land development code under a connector road. Is it, whether it's private or public? I'm trying to understand because of the wear and tear on this stretch of roadway.

We're unaware of any prohibition here. It's a C5 site. It allows for significant intense uses. If we think about restaurants anywhere on the island and grocery stores, we have semi-trucks that reload at those sites. If we look at some of the hotel sites, including the Marriott, they have buses that come with no restrictions. I'll note that this year the city approved a minor site development plan amendment to the Marriott that allowed for the construction of a bus terminal at the Marriott. That was approved in February. It was a minor site development plan. It did not go to the planning board. There are no conditions on that site plan about volume, about number of buses. Again, these are all things that are accounted for in the base level zoning. This is the most intensely zoned property on the island. Marco Island does not have industrial zoning.

I'm not sure about these following questions. I'll try to make it very efficient. Councillor Champaign made some interesting points about the complexity in trying to get my head around the decision I'm trying to make and if I have all the relevant information. Am I permitted to understand whether there's been a comprehensive transportation analysis, an emergency access analysis, a parking staging overflow and turnaround plan, emergency evacuation plan, and clarity on the environmental impact? Those are just some of the things that, to me, are relevant to trying to understand the totality of the project.

All traffic impacts through the use of the traffic impact statement, which is what you all require, were analyzed and presented to planning board as part of the site development plan. The landscape buffers that we're currently talking about, do not, in our view, have any impact on that piece. In fact, they're not related at all. But I don't want to in any way be evasive. This was analyzed. This was a heavy topic. We provided bus circulation exhibits as part of the site plan. We went through this. And in fact, I would suggest this was the reason that the marina was subjected to a reconsideration. I mean, for the record, we went to planning board two separate times for a total of about nine hours of public hearing. Part to provide more information to make sure it was clear what was going on and in the second hearing Our traffic engineer confirmed that we were looking at the city's most recent data That had not yet even been approved by you all a City Council Thank you Thank you, so I have a couple questions and you hit on a few of them within nine hours so ballpark how many times have you gone to staff with this roughly how many hours and Do you have any idea? I don't know how to speculate to that. It's that many, correct? We filed it in July of 2024. There were many rounds of substantive review. You can tell by the dates on some of the applications that some of the applications came later as we were working with staff on what was the right way to cover all of the various parts of this application.

2024. You said it. Nine hours at planning board. They asked all the questions I had to. You covered all the agendas. We're here reinventing the wheel when it seems like this has been well set up for us. Staff recommends approval. And actually, this is the only one close in planning board with the 4-3. The other ones are super majorities, 6-1 and 5-1. This seems like, I don't know what made it a little more of a 4-3 vote, but it seems like this is pretty well set up for us. Has anything changed between planning board and now? Did you add any asks in this? Did you change anything that's been presented to us?

This is what was presented. The variances are what was presented. And I want to further note, so as to the variances, this is exactly as filed. In the conditional use in the boat dock, as we'll get to, they are significantly reduced. The variances, however, this is what was filed. This is what was presented to planning board. This is what's being presented to you. We've always asked for these four variances.

Can I call Dan back up? Dan, can you come up with a question for you, please?

I JUST WANT TO AFFIRM FOR THE RECORD THAT THE PLAN THAT MR. LOMBARDO PASSED OUT TO IS INCLUDED IN THE DOCUMENTATION THAT WAS PROVIDED AS PART OF THE AGENDA MATERIALS. IT'S THERE.

DAN, QUICK QUESTION. STAFF APPROVAL. LOOK, I KNOW THIS IS CONTROVERSIAL WITH THE COMMUNITY. I KNOW WE HAVE OPINION HERE AS COUNCILORS AND WE HAVE REGISTERED VOTERS AND CITIZENS WHO ARE OUR BOSSES. WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU USE TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS? As far as the variances? When staff recommends approval, what's your criteria to make it?

Our criteria, there's a list of criteria that we look at. Uniqueness. Is this something that... is been previously allowed we look we look at all the factors each each property has its own nuance to it and obviously this piece of property does have a lot of different nuances to it and we look at past history on how it was developed what you have to understand this is redevelopment and that was one of the things in our comprehensive plan in two thousand one we knew we were going to go down this road and the citations i have for our comp plan, talks about redevelopment, allowing some of these different site development elements, one of them being variances, to allow for these properties to continue in being successful. So that's the best way I can say it. I'm trying to look at the clock here.

And then from there, upon your approval, or does your approval matter? Is it conditional upon no approval from staff that goes to planning board or goes to planning board anyway without staff support? I'm sorry, what was the question? Do you have the option to send it to Planning Board with your approval or without your approval? That's correct. Without your recommendation. Either way, it still goes to Planning Board. That's correct. This particular one went there with your approval. They took it on and voted to approve it, correct?

That's correct. And there was a question I just want to answer. Rainey, now that I've listened to some of the conversation back and forth, 2014 was approved for that site plan. How it happened wasn't necessarily the direction I would have gone. When this got brought up for this approval, I directed Zach, this is the proper way of doing it through the variance process and going through the process that we're going. It didn't go that way in 2014, but it was approved. Nothing I can do about it then. I'm just trying to fix what happened before.

Very good.

Counselor Gray, one more, and then I'm going to talk about public policy. A clarification with Dan, really. It was just following up on your question. comment, Mr. Chairman. Staff recommends this. Planning board went there. That was a key part of this conversation. Are there times that staff does not recommend something and the planning board does approve it? Correct. Yeah. Okay. So I'm just trying to identify that that's not a be all and end all. Thank you.

All right. Joan, how many people signed up for public comment on this?

We have 18 people signed up with four people seating time. So that's 14 are going to speak.

10 of them are going to speak for four minutes. Yes.

Can I ask a question? Please. And I want to make sure everybody's voice is heard. Do we, do you want to have public comment after each one? Do you want to have all the public comment?

No, we're going to need to let them speak on each one because they're separate votes. And I'm already considering, and folks, when you ask why is it such a heavy agenda, some things are time sensitive by law, and sometimes the applicant has went through the process and deserved to be heard in a reasonable time. With that said, item 16, the bond resolution is not time sensitive. That could be bumped to another meeting, and councilor communication can also, or at least a white paper if we have to. But even at that, we're at 40 minutes. So we're going to have to cut them down a little bit to hear them for all three. But I want to give them, Joan, give them three minutes so they could have their voices heard. And if there's seating time. Yes, ma'am.

No, I just wanted to say that each application is distinct, so that's why we're going to have each one heard.

We have to get them all in. And I want to make sure voices are heard from everybody. So let's go with three minutes. And then if there's seating time, we'll give them five, okay?

Okay, understood. Please call them up. Sure. The first speaker is Ms. Lisa Foster, and she will be followed by Ms. Sarah Bax.

Before we start that clock, David. I might ask you, we are keeping comment based on 14A, correct? This particular item. Correct. What is before us, what we're required to vote on.

Correct. And as I stated before, the city council has the authority to refuse to hear any testimony that is irrelevant or repetitive. Very good. Please.

Thank you, Lisa. Name and if you've been sworn in, please.

I have been sworn, but I'll do it again. No, no, just you have to say you've been sworn in. Okay, I've been sworn, Lisa Foster, Marco resident. I don't actually know where to start with this. I've signed up for every section. I don't know that we can, as a community, speak to you if we're corralled into these little corners where we can only speak on these specific variances because this is a site development plan. It's like doing surgery on different parts of a body and expecting it to work. I don't even know where to start. The practical difficulty and hardship is entirely created by the size of the facility planned. We're talking about dumpsters and fencing and vegetation here. Am I in the right pocket? It's my understanding that the 2014 site development plan, that those landscaping features were never enacted. At the NIM, there was a statement that they had not executed that and that they would be coming up to speed on it. So right there, I see a petitioner that comes to you with unclean hands. I've got to go here because Councillor Champaign was mentioning that the 2014 plan was an entitlement and that's what it appears to be because that off street parking element which isn't addressed here so I don't know when to talk about it is supposed to have an independent site development plan Period it was never done. So when you're listening to this and you're hearing that the site development was approved. It was done so inaccurately I think if you push and you ask for that Independent site development plan for the off street parking you will find it does not exist and the whole thing hinges right there Because they're using busing to get around our parking matrix Which is our single barrier to intensity if they build a smaller facility They wouldn't need these variances If, you know, the community is feeling all the pressure for this, and to say that they have hardship is kind of insulting. And I'll come back at the next time. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Yes, the next speaker is Ms. Sarah Bax, and she will be followed by Mr. Peter Rekas.

If you just state your name and let us know you've been sworn in, please. I've been sworn in. Sarah Bax, Saturn Court, Marco Island resident. Good evening, council members. My name is Sarah Bax. I'm here tonight in full support of Rosemarina and the first matter before you. Before addressing the specifics, I think some context matters. Rosemarina is not a faceless corporation, as has been reported across social media. is a long-standing marco island business owned and stewarded by a family this community knows and trusts the marina employs approximately 40 full-time people with additional employees during season those full-time employment numbers have remained steady roughly five years running they provide stable jobs for our very own friends and neighbors the family and the marina have also supported countless organizations throughout our community including all three schools the rotary folds of honor and on and on those are meaningful contributions from a respected marco island business but ultimately this application should stand on its own merits this first request addresses the landscape buffering dumpster and recycling requirements associated with the marina's redevelopment Importantly, these requests involve conditions similar to those previously approved for this property, while the redevelopment itself provides an opportunity to further improve the site. We should scrutinize development on Marco, but scrutiny should lead us to the facts of the application actually before us. there's clear evidence and precedent that support a yes vote on this variance based on those facts and not social media opinion and the long-standing conditions of this property i respectfully ask that the council approve this request thank you all and thank you for your service thank you the next person up is mr peter rigas and he is being followed by miss tamra moore

Peter, welcome. Good evening, Council. Peter Regas. I have been sworn in for the record. So I believe Rosemary has put together a very thoughtful plan for this project and discussions with several years with the city to work with city staff to come up with a plan that made changes and also received planning board approval for the landscape and the site plan. I've heard Councilor Goehler say before that if planning board approves something, we should approve it on council. I hope that you'll keep your word on that. The current plan already represents a compromise to what Rose is allowed to build. As they said earlier, it's less intense than prior plans. Rose has agreed to make reductions on bigger buildings, more dry rack storage, et cetera. The city's now asking them to do more landscaping, taller fence, more than what's been required in the past. The new requirements are being placed in a variance, but they're actually an increase over what's been approved previously. It's not much different than having an older home and doing a major kitchen remodeling, in my view. It doesn't mean you have to bring the entire home up to the latest code. It seems what we're going to be doing here, even though the use of the property hasn't changed, and the changes are only on a portion of the site. No one's going to ask me to put hurricane windows in just because I'm doing a kitchen rental on an 80s house. It just doesn't work like that. Nobody would accept that. The variance doesn't fairly represent the other major concessions that Rose has made in order to get the city staff in planning approval in the two-year process. Most variants are exceptions to new builds, but this one's for more requirements for an existing use, a business that's been there for 60 years. For a business that's not changing use, imposing anything more than what's in the variance ignores the concessions that Rose has already made and breaks the bargain that the city made with Rose to approve the application. Any further requirements on them would be counterproductive and would really disincentivize investment because it's simply easier to allow a property to go into decline than meet the ever-growing list of demands when even moderate upgrades are made to the facility. This is how cities go into decline. The marina is paying to widen the road, improve storm drainage, adding significant landscaping, improving the entire area all at their expense. The city shouldn't, as a matter of policy, try now to take a maximalist position on the landscaping in some of these areas. Rose Marina has already made compromises and reduced where they could in order to get the staff and planning board approval here. More requirements make it counterproductive. Similar landscape has already been pointed out. It's been approved for similar compatible sites on the same roadway. What I think is a win for this area is getting much more landscape than it had in the past, getting great storm drainage on Bald Eagle that floods during storms, and what the marina is proposing is a good plan. Boating this down would get you no additional landscaping, a road that continues to flood during storms, undoing two years of compromise that has gotten to this point the marina is investing its own capital here doing this on his own dime in solving a road and infrastructure problem the city does not have to use tax and tax money taxpayer money for this is something that's at a constant battle as we know here infrastructure improvements are we know we know are needed on marco they need to begin solving them one at a time or to continue to risk more failures of infrastructure we should take this opportunity to have this business use their own funds to fund our infrastructure and take this expense away from the taxpayers. I would urge the council to approve this and I see something of a 6-0 vote here is appropriate. Thank you. Thank you.

The next speaker is Ms. Tamara Moore and she is going to be followed by Liz Fitch, who has time ceded to her from Brenda Markhan.

Ms. Morse, your name, please, and just if I've been sworn in.

Tamara Moore, and yes, I have been sworn in. Thank you. Actually, I don't know what I can add to all of this. Can you just move a little closer to the mic? Actually, I'm not sure what I can even add to this now after sitting here and hearing everything that has been said. The impact that this project would have on the infrastructure of the Bald Eagle area is including Old Marco, including the whole road would be a dangerous and unavoidable problem for access to any driveways, any roads that are going into it, and therefore I am totally against it and I have been asked to speak for my homeowners association at wherever I live.

I'm going to go with Angler's Cove, Riverside. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

The next speaker is Ms. Liz Fitch, who is time seated to her. And she will be followed by Mr. Greg Vilk, who also has time seated to him from John Martini. Excellent.

Hi, Liz Fitch, Magnolia Court. I'm going to first start with something. Ms. Fitch, you were sworn in? I was sworn in, yes. Thank you. This kind of goes to the question about the parking facility, the green star and the blue star. In the 2014 plan, the only parking lot was the green lot. The blue lot was supposed to be a boat sales place. So it definitely could not have been approved for the full capacity of those two lots. So I'm just bringing that to your attention. So I'm going to just speak about that variance application. The violations in this request are overwhelming. Rosamarina is asking this body to compromise public land use protections purely to serve private commercial expansion. directly violating our comprehensive plan goal to preserve our low density small town character. Policy 114 of the housing element and policy 514 of the future land use elements policy mandate the city to protect residential areas from non-residential encroachment through strict buffering and compatibility. Yet the applicant gut slashes our required roadway landscape buffer by 50% from 20 feet down to 10 feet. This converts what should be a quiet access drive into an intensive four-lane commercial thoroughfare abutting a residential neighborhood district. Second, policies 3.1.2, 4.2.1 strictly prohibit non-residential uses from expanding into low-density residential zones under the guise of variance. Pay attention. The applicant plans to place a commercial dumpster and landscape buffer directly onto a deed-restricted residential lot, forcing a unity title improperly imports commercial utility onto residential land without a lawful rezoning. This variance is also required in the boat dock extension petition. Unifying these parcels wipes out property boundary lines, creating an unlawful zero riparian setback for dock extensions in Magnolia Court. Make no mistake, as documented in the December 18, 2025 letter, Regarding the boat dock this variance is being used specifically to establish a zero-foot riparian setback The applicant is using the unity of title on Residentially zoned land as a legal backdoor to obliterate property boundary lines under the shield of landscape buffer to erase mandatory repairing setbacks the push heavy commercial that to hook and push heavy commercial vessel traffic deeper into narrow canal a Florida variance law requires an inherent physical hardship unique to a land. Rosa Maria suffers no physical hardship. Their space constraints is entirely self-created by forcing a commercial expanse and beyond their lawful boundaries. You cannot legally grant a variance to relieve self-created commercial desire. Please uphold our comprehensive plan and deny this thing. So I wasn't able to speak before. That's on variances. My next was before where I was stopped. And this basically has to do, and I don't have this, so I can't show you anything, but I'm here to formally submit a mandatory notice objection urging the board and city attorney to continue these petitions due to a fatal procedural and due process defects. The applicant's neighborhood information meeting record confirms that these petitions travel together as one integrated package Yet the posted sign in front of Rosemarino only lists the CUP hiding the companion variants boat dock and SBD, SDP petitions from the public. The published legal ad for the boat dock cites a zero riparian setback whereas the one that went to the homeowners was a seven and a half foot encroachment into the west side of Magnolia Canal. The public was denied uniform accurate notice. The mandatory NIM disclosures omitted key site revisions, true parking matrices, and undisclosed commercial commitments, including American Cruise Lines lease terms and bus routing protocols. A flawed NIM deprives residents of legal due process, requiring this matter to be continued and re-noticed. As a port of call, American Cruise Lines and Marina has 60 scheduled dockings. We'll go through that. I can't put it up there, but I did send an email to all of you wanting to know about ACL and what kind of leases they have, if there's a right of first refusal. No one responded back to me. And this is why I'm up here today. But I will just say, compounding the intensity is a proposed 200-seat restaurant addition. Notably, this was submitted to FDP back in June of 2022. way before Ian happened and they got rid of Jax. layered over cruise ships ferries and charter fleets the project severely deflates parking demand passengers the the fishing charter passengers predominantly arrive as individual drivers yet the matrix artificially restricts vessels like the American Patriot and the American hunter to one to three passengers under counting the demand by at least 25 spaces documented evidence I have pictures let me finish from December from September 1st showed 42 overnight

people there and then there's more thank you the next speaker is mr. please guys enough come on just the next speaker is mr. Gregg Philk and mr. is please I don't want to remove anybody just name for the record please and they've been so great Gregg Vilk and you've been sworn in mr. Oak yes thank you so much

Is the overhead working?

We do not. Is it, Martin, is that thing working yet?

Okay.

If not, we can have you, when you're done, give her a copy to the.

I have one. I have a couple copies, but they're pretty critical copies. That's the reason why I brought them. This is the warranty deed for Marco River Marina, 1967. Page two. The rights of the public and any governmental agency, if any, in and to the repairing rights adjoining the above-described property and the use by the public of the waters, Magnolia Waterways, Marco River Marina, and the Marco Pass, abutting said property. It cannot be affected. This is the purchase of the second lot that's known as Lot 2. It became part of Lot 1, which was the first one bought the day before. It says, the rights of the public and any governmental agency, if any, in and to the repairing rights adjoining the property and use by the public, the waterways Magnolia waterways Marco River Marco Pass abutting the property and in connection therewith optioner will take no action which will affect the riparian rights adjoining the property as they presently appear on the optioners master plan of Marco Iowa page 9 The optioner shall execute and deliver upon the buyer the warranty deed required by the terms hereof, excepting that the warranty contained in said warranty deed will not cover or extend to repairing rights. page ten upon the closing of transaction a deed to be to be given by the option or shall provide that therein after the property described as exhibit one which is lot one and two now and the property which is the subject matter of this within with within agreement will be treated and considered as one in one entire parcel of the property and the two parcels thereafter constantly one one parcel may never be subdivided or sold except and may only be used for the operation thereon of a yacht marina and or a yacht basin that's not a port i will tell you can you pause mr vilt's clock for a second please

Mr. Volk, we're talking about garbage cans, waste disposals. I'm just getting to the use. I know you're going to tie it in. It's a broad use. Tie it in first.

Now, when it comes into the use and the deed restrictions, which is what's here, okay, with the purchase, they are asking to take 10 feet from a residential lot. Forget who owns it. It doesn't matter who owns it. 10 feet. and call that a buffer. Put their garbage can right on the property line. You cannot put a garbage can within your site setbacks. Cannot. So that's what they're offering. They're taking a residential property and allowing it to be used for commercial use. They're doing it by a unity deed. So they're taking a unity deed and they're consolidating a residential lot and a commercial lot into one. So what is it now? Unity's have to have to be approved to under D restrictions So I honestly feel like I just passed through Times Square Past the red district through the shell game table over here It's it's amazing the the destruction that's being done here just strictly on the community on the lifestyle the noise and the nuisance that this already establishes with the diesel fumes non-stop It's going to accelerate, compound the traffic, the congestion, and I'm telling you, the noise and the nuisance. So I'm going to end it there because I've got many minutes to go forward, but thank you. Thank you so much.

The next person to speak is Ms. Brenda Barboza, and she is receiving time from Joseph Barboza. And the following speaker after Ms. Brenda is Mr. James Holloway.

I came up here today on behalf of myself and the concerned Marco Island residents and neighbors in our community to address the significant issues regarding the planning board's approval of this project, with a particular emphasis on the variance requested as the conditional use permit. Because of the depth of these concerns, I urge this body to halt the proceedings on this project. If the project's heard it, It must be denied. Let me begin with the legal framework of this request. The requested variance and the proposed CUP do not comply or meet with the existing ordinances and land development code, the LDC, regulations currently applicable on Marco Island. To support such a variance, the council must first amend the existing ordinance and the LDC to satisfy the proposed use. IF THE PROPOSES USED UNDER THE C.U.P. DOES NOT SATISFY EXISTING CODE REQUIREMENTS, THEN THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL EFFECTIVELY AUTHORIZES A conforming use. I was doing pretty good without glasses. Variances are intended strictly for unique and exceptional property hardship, not to authorize a use that's otherwise inconsistent with existing regulations. Approving this request would establish a dangerous precedent that weakens the land development code and creates uncertainty for the future projects across the island. We ask that the council explicitly identify the specific ordinance provisions that allow this CUP and provide the factual and legal basis for approving a use that fails to meet the minimum code standard. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Mr. James Holloway, followed by Ms. Cindy Sheppelman.

Mr. Holloway, welcome.

Thank you, sir. Good evening, council members. My name is James Holloway. I represent Marco Island Civic Association. Excuse me.

I'm sorry. Have you been sworn in?

Yes, I was sworn in. Thank you. Thank you. I'm here to speak on the issues relating to the Rose Marina application, specifically the variance application. essentially this is an issue related to what the issue that what the residents perceive to be a lack of transparency and procedural irregularities related to the notice that was provided regarding this variance particularly as it relates to my client Micah they would highlight the fact that there was really no mention of the landscape buffer that was provided on the residential parcel because that invokes a 2015 agreement which allows for mica to regulate the use of residential parcels and the resolution that we're here on also allows for or specifically details that mica approvals need to be sought and they need to be obtained before we can move forward this process So you can imagine the disappointment that MICA experienced whenever they realized that there was going to be some sort of commercial benefit that was going to be on a residential lot and there was no conversation with MICA. We've had previous communications. I believe the planning board was privy to some of those communications. related to how we thought we were going to play well in the sandbox together. However, we're here with no communication from MICA, no approvals from MICA. In addition to that, I have been contacted by many residents within 300 feet of this proposed development and other residents that are outside of that parameter. But I believe what we have here is a situation where litigation will ensue, and the only ones that will win will be the attorneys, based on the fact that we have a perception that there's a lack of transparency. So what do we do there? stop slow down be transparent have more conversations I see here that documents are being transmitted to the board as we speak I know that this is going to be a problem with the general public because they won't have an opportunity to review those documents I can tell you that I personally submitted a public records request and now I'm hearing that there's been a detailed traffic study I didn't receive that I asked for every document related to these approvals So again, I would like to say that residents are here, they're preserving the record, they're anticipating litigation. We can avoid that if we can be more transparent and slow down the process so that everybody can get up to speed. What's happening is this development has evolved. It has morphed. It's become more complicated and more detailed. And we have not taken the time to provide the detail that's necessary for the residents to sufficiently come before you and present their case and present their objections. So if we approve this without doing so, it will be halted, whether it be by litigation or otherwise. And I think we all want to avoid that. And we can do that by virtue of a conversation. Again, I think litigation only allows the attorneys to win. And while I am all about people accessing their rights in court, I don't necessarily think that we should have that circumstance present itself here. Thank you.

Can you wait for one second? Can you stop the clock? David, we have a right to ask questions or cross-examine, as you said, I know the lack of terms.

Anybody here? You have the right to ask questions of any person.

Well, let me start with you. I understand MICA. I respect them. I know they have deed restrictions. Do I have – do we and this Council have any authority to impose any MICA restrictions in these proceedings?

No. Our office has rendered previous opinions, and we've expressed that many times. And Mr. Holloway said it's a contractual obligation between the property owners and MICA. The city does not get involved in the enforcement of MICA deed restrictions. We only have a reference in our resolutions to make sure that the applicants are aware that they may have to go and meet MICA restrictions. But it's not a condition that we.

That is a courtesy. There's another entity out there. Even if I agree with him, I don't have a right to. decide on that.

We do not have the right to enforce any deed restrictions for MICA.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you so much. May I respond to that briefly? Please. The resolution says that MICA approvals need to be sought and obtained. Your resolution says that. MICA didn't say that. So the only thing that I'm saying here is that if you're directing MICA to be involved in the process and now MICA's here asserting that right, that's not necessarily us trying to make you enforce ID restrictions.

That's something I'm going to let your attorneys handle, but thank you so much. I appreciate you coming. Next speaker, please.

The next speaker is Cindy Sheppelman, followed by Mr. Michael Joseph. The card is here. I don't know if you still want to speak. Hi, Cindy.

Hi.

Cindy Sheppelman, Marco Island. You've been sworn in? And I've been sworn in. Thank you. And what I did, like you all did, I went to the planning board. Meeting that lasted for five hours, which was just killer then I've been to Jack's 5,000 times I've been with most of the fishermen captains that park their boats there that their boats are not parked there anymore I've been on roses marina a good probably 20 times and I've been on the Key West Express quite a few times and Just so you know, I didn't just pop in and don't know a little bit what I'm talking about, which I'm sure you're all wondering why I'm even here. I would like to know also, and I would like to put this down, Jax wasn't hurt by the hurricane, and that's not why Jax left, and that was said before. That wasn't, that's not what happened. So just FYI. And also Mr. Rose and Jack shook hands. Nothing was ever written down. Mr. Rose told Jack he could have it till he died. Jack left when he was 88. I do know that You know, Jack's isn't Rose's and all that. But that was quite a pretty, what I thought was like kind of the real Marco. And a lot of our real Marcos are gone. Not that we're going to have Jack's. They're going to build their pretty restaurant. And speaking of the pretty restaurant, do we have... Cindy, bring me to the topic.

We're going to get to the... Bring me to the disposals, the garbage, the buffers, please.

Well, I was going to talk before, but then they told me to talk now. So... Yay on the garbage situation and the plants and the trees. Woo! But like, should I not be talking? Should I come to another one? No, seriously, I'm not being a smarty pants.