Backup Documents 12/11-12/2012 Item #10 Y (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # l 0 t 10 y
MEETING DATE /;1"--fr Z (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget
AGENDA-IITEEMTITLE �-� 6f,'-1J
NAME ✓; h n �O ✓ 7 ADDRESS )-O /'74,5 `i o tea- /57
Gj w' - 47°� lip�70the '-pl`�
Representing/Petitioner: G L
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS),REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # / 01 - /DY-/vfie_.
MEETING DATE / - -I / - (Circle Meeting Type(Regulai Special Workshop Budget
AGENDA ITEM TITLE O.r7, / 0-5-.5
NAME /U)4 ( 'Ira ADDRESS v P 73's G2✓( 3(dd 14-7c
Representing/Petitioner: .51p/f.
/ 71 Other:
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.200((3-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS),REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: !j / /4a/Pc� /, , ITEM NO:
TT I
THIS COMPLETED FORM IS TO BE PLACED IN THE"SPEAKER FORM BOX"IN THE BOARD ROOM PRIOR TO THE
SUBJECT BEING HEARD.
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
NAME: !?(/ iL'' !/ 6G lF-� I G�
ADDRESS: J 114 L i-UL
REPRESENTING: PETITIONER OTHER:
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,BEFORE ENGA G IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS),REGISTER WITH THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
YOU ARE LIMITED TO 3 MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR.
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # i <//o"/i �►
MEETING DATE II, (Circle Meeting Type)(Regular)Special Workshop Budget
AGENDA ITEM TITLE C 1 a '- I 'S S
NAME SV SC,r 6 e h ADDRESS 6s 2 7 mat-, S S c. L v� , 'f3 I vo 1e `o
Representing/Petitioner: Other:
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # ,/.0.y,
MEETING DATE /4/ /lY
(Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget
AGENDA ITEM TITLE /0 1(}Y
NAME � ,}�q() `7
15 p) ADDRESS g1 QQ , �-i!, t/s O /
Representing/Petitioner: /Other:
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS),REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE(3)MINUTES FOR YOU COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PRIOR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD
i
(PLEASE PRINT LEARLY) Agenda Item # 17*
10Y
MEETING DATE /z. / f/ l2- ,
((( (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget
AGENDA ITEM LE
NAME eb / '. ADDRESS T4'VC tN,- 11
Representing/Petitioner: Other: j
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO,2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
,.amArccrnnirpc) RFC.TSTFR WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. \
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # /().2/
�`
ill MEETING DATE 12-- I (Circle Meeting Type) 6gula—r)Special Workshop Budget
AGENDA ITEM TITLE 2 e , I i '
NAME Y lAim,I'C t.u., C y`41.`P/v$ ADDRESS 4 b 7S' R.-_,/cer-- i 6.7 Bia 3?,/OU ;
Representing/Petitioner: 02> �
Other:
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS),REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE(3)MINUTES FOR YOU COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # /0 , y l
MEETING DATE /3 C C (Circle Meeting Type)=Regular Special Workshop Budget
AGENDA ITEM TITLE a...-4 h,,,-,2a.J,'0,, 4, n.+Cver -Lc p A a,e 0°-L At,.o.4 f' -1-4 ()VcAinaa cR ZPOZ-Z7
NAME �r n der— j2+ia ADDRESS 7 c 7S"' p e_(i cc.r1 ..,.,, E/Lice /V_, eel //
Representing/Petitioner: Other:
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING AL I IVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS),REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
YOU ARE I TMTTC •r" ••------ -
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # J( y
MEETING DATE — CI (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget
ffi
AGENDA ITEM TITLE g V _ p /
�Uffal� ADDRESS 5 S 4r//C4� / ur�a lie'/f
NAME ��/Y 4"✓I /
Representing/Petitioner: Other:
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTNITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
.._LOBBYING TI t ,�o,,,on erTuF R(IARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # /° Y
MEETING DATE /Z/////'. (Circle Meeting Type) egular Special Workshop Budget
AGENDA ITEM TITLE / i7 Y ' S7 d,r,c/ a- �/ ' /
NAME ke, -4 pc,lic-S ADDRESS 7.5 75 ,Pe-�;cc-n /2y 61vd rV eS
Representing/petitioner: Other:
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS),REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE(3)MINUTES FOR YOU COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PRIOR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD
10 AC 6 1O -
PELICAN
BAY
Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc.
December 7, 2012
Commissioner Hiller,
First, I want to express my appreciation for the graciousness with which you have always
received and interacted with me, including our meeting of November 30th and our phone
conversation of December 5th. Since our time together during the Productivity Committee
meetings, we have always been able to disagree without being disagreeable. In that spirit,
please know that while the contents of this letter will articulate a position different from the
one you are advocating, the Pelican Bay Foundation (PBF) feels it is important to share our
concerns with you.
I also would make you aware that this letter has been reviewed and endorsed by the Pelican
Bay Foundation Board and is consistent with the PBF Board's enormous expenditure of time,
resources, and talent to professionally understand, and set a responsible course for, the well-
being of the Clam Bay estuary. This includes assembling a top-flight legal and scientific team
which has played an important part in reversing plans to install red and green navigation
markers, satisfying the expectations of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
regarding water quality, and developing a dredging permit which allows for inclusive
participation for determining when dredging events should occur. Therefore, the references to
the "Pelican Bay Foundation (PBF)" should be understood to mean the views of the Pelican Bay
Foundation Board of Directors and the President.
Specifically, what the Pelican Bay Foundation would ask you to reconsider are the elements of
the December 11, 2012 Board of County Commissioners (BCC) agenda, Items 10.X, 10.Y, and
10.AC:
• 10.X establishes the Pelican Bay Services Division as the "exclusive" source of
recommendations to the BCC for managing Clam Bay. It establishes the one entity
within Pelican Bay that is completely dependent on the BCC as the only source of input.
As you know, the PBSD Board is subject to appointment by the BCC. The PBF Board is
directly elected by Pelican Bay residents and is an important representative body for our
community that this ordinance would exclude from decision-making. Also, it appears
that if the PBSD is the exclusive advisor on dredging and the health of Clam Bay, that the
PBSD would bear the entire financial burden as well.
• 10.Y unilaterally removes the current PBSD-elected Chair and Vice Chair, mandates a
one-year term limit for leadership, and gives the Foundation a non-voting seat at the
table of an organization that advises the BCC. Since the Foundation maintains specific
approval rights and responsibilities for the Clam Bay Conservation Area, this latter
requirement raises the potential for conflicts of interest.
Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. • 6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard • Naples, Florida 34108
(239) 597-8081 • (239) 597-6802 FAX • E-Mail: memberservices @pelicanbay.org
10 .Ac 10 X - 10 Y
• 10.AC disregards the time, energy, and expense the Foundation has invested in
representing the community on dredging matters, water quality management, and
other Clam Bay environmental issues. It would remove the structure and "triggers' for
dredging we had in place with the County through Coastal Zone Management, and
completely excludes the Foundation from input on the work order. It is also unclear
whether a plan that was prepared in 1996-1998 for mangrove restoration and that
expired in 2008 can be "updated" or whether it needs to be completely rewritten.
When we met with you last week, Ronnie Bellone (Chair of the PBF Board) Mary Johnson
(Director on the PBF Board) and I expressed our concern that using old structures, plans, and
responsibilities to address today's circumstances is not an effective approach for managing
Clam Bay. At the meeting, we discussed at length why the intrinsic structure of a Municipal
Services Taxing and Benefit Unit (MSTBU) fails to fully represent the interests of the community
of Pelican Bay in our relationship with the County.
As you know, the community has past experience with how the Pelican Bay Services Division
(PBSD) can be marginalized by a sometimes unsympathetic Board of County Commissioners,
such that the Pelican Bay Foundation has had to enter the fray, even at its political risk and
disadvantage, to represent our community's legitimate interests. Specific examples include the
Foundation's legal action in the Cap D'Antibes matter, necessitated in part because the PBSD
had been compromised by approving the stormwater plan that moved that undesirable project
forward. A more recent example is when the BCC reassigned the roles and responsibilities of
the PBSD to a Clam Bay Advisory Committee that endorsed red and green navigational markers
in Clam Bay. It has been repeatedly demonstrated, that as an advisory entity to the BCC, the
PBSD Board lacks the independence, autonomy, or authority to consistently represent the
interests of the community in situations where the BCC might differ with the PBSD's approach
or recommendations.
Although you have advocated for a stronger voice for Pelican Bay's community institutions and
for active community input, the proposed changes to the MSTBU enabling ordinance--which
neither the PBSD Board nor the Pelican Bay Foundation Board sought--results in neither a
stronger Pelican Bay voice, nor a more inclusionary process. In fact, the proposed changes
were developed without consulting with the affected MSTBU advisory board or the master
property owners association of the community for which the MSTBU was created. Ironically,
these proposals highlight exactly how vulnerable the MSTBU is, and has been, to political
forces.
The Pelican Bay Foundation has taken a thoughtful, professional approach to making decisions
about the management of Clam Bay and Clam Pass. We had sought to memorialize the
comprehensive, science-based and collaborative approach to dredging that has been pursued
with the County over the last two years, building on the Foundation's involvement in the
successful resolution of the marker issue and efforts to develop a collaborative process for
managing Clam Bay's water quality.
1OAc4iOxioy
What you have proposed is not only a return to the structure that resulted in many undesirable
consequences, but additionally, you have suggested an arbitrary limitation on Chair and Vice
Chair tenure (1 year) which undermines the leadership continuity vital to any organizational
structure. Also, the term limits would be retroactive so that the current leadership would be
immediately replaced, which ignores the wishes of the PBSD Board who elected those
individuals to their positions. Further, compelling the Pelican Bay Foundation to designate a
nonvoting appointee to the PBSD Board accomplishes nothing with respect to increasing the
PBF's community voice or representation given the inherent limitations of the PBSD itself, as
noted above.
Please know that the Pelican Bay Foundation Board members and staff, and the Pelican Bay
Services Division Board members already regularly attend each other's meetings and make
their views known during the appropriate comment periods, at workshops, subcommittee
meetings, or via joint working groups. There already exists a strong cooperative working
relationship.
At the December 5, 2012 PBSD Board meeting, when David Trecker delivered news of your
surprise ordinance resolutions, everyone in the room was stunned. Keith Dallas, Chair of the
Pelican Bay Services Division had no advance notice or conversation with you about this
proposal; none of the Pelican Bay Foundation Board members had any advance warning that
you had planned this approach; Susan Boland, Chair of the Pelican Bay Property Owners'
Association has also communicated her shock. It is difficult to understand how the goals of
collaborative and cooperative decision-making can be achieved without the leadership of the
affected entities being included in the discussion.
The PBF has serious concerns that dismantling the current structure and process for managing
the dredging of Clam Pass could have unintended consequences that could jeopardize the
ability to move forward in a timely manner with the much needed dredging of the inlet, which
is rapidly closing.
Further, a number of tangential and complex questions arise from your proposal. There should
be an opportunity for these to be raised and discussed. The consequences and impacts, both
financial and in terms of accountability, must be fully understood. At the very least, it would be
highly improbable that shifting all the responsibilities of management that had previously been
shared by the PBSD and Coastal Zone Management over to the PBSD, would not result in cost
consequences to the PBSD, that is, Pelican Bay residents, via the taxing structure (MSTBU) that
the PBSD represents.
Commissioner, the PBF is confident that your deliberations and approaches with respect to
Clam Bay matter are well-intentioned, but they require much more inclusive thought and
discussion before arriving at a proposed "way forward". The last two years of cooperative and
collaborative interaction with the County, the City of Naples, and the Pelican Bay Foundation
have resulted in a mutually acceptable resolution to, 1) The marking of Clam Bay, 2) A
t
1OAC1OX1OY
responsible and well-documented approach to water quality, and 3) A dredging permit process
that has focused upon the health of the system above all other considerations.
It does not seem prudent that these recent significant accomplishments are discounted in favor
of a return to a structure that was ineffective in opposing dredging for beach renourishment,
unable to counter plans for marking Clam Bay for navigation, and unable to resolve
controversies over water quality issues and biological concerns..
Some may argue that monitoring and management of Clam Bay is not the purview of the
Pelican Bay Foundation. However, the PBF is obligated as the Declarant under the protective
covenants and restrictions for Clam Bay to step in if there are threats to the Conservation Area.
That responsibility is why the Pelican Bay Foundation has fought for a "seat at the table"—a say
in management decisions up front, rather than a divisive and expensive legal battle at the end.
The Foundation has worked in good faith with the County and the City of Naples to assure that
all affected parties have a voice in the management of Clam Bay. Please, we urgently ask you
to withdraw your current BCC agenda itemslO.X, 10.Y, and 10.AC and work with our community
to develop an approach that will provide a pro-active role for the County, the Foundation and
PBSD that builds upon what we have, rather than reverting to a proven inadequate and
inefficient structure.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
Sin ely,
72/( Jim Hoppenstea
4✓President
Chief Operating Officer
Page 1 of 5
1141 •
w •1 O
1 X../. p
1 r11110 CIL
From: Ted Raia<tedraia @gmail.com>
To: Jim H<JimH @pelicanbay.org>
Cc: Alan Daum<alormar @comcast.net>;annice gregerson <nannice @comcast.net>;Anthony Mazzeo
<ajmaz56 @yahoo.com>;Art Ritas<aritas540 @aol.com>;Arthur Chase<arthur @checkernet.com>; Bill Klauber
<waklauber @aol.com>; Bob Mazzola<bobmazzola @centurylink.net>; bob naegele<ronjr @naegelenet.com>;
Carla Grieve<cmgfl @naples.net>;dave trecker<djtrecker @yahoo.com>; David Roellig<dsroellig @naples.net>;
David Supan<davidsupan @yahoo.com>; dougklakulak<dougklakulak @gmail.com>;Elaine Chase
<elaine @checkernet.com>; estelle fishbein<efishbein @jhu.edu>;Floyd Smith<floydsmith @aol.com>; Frank
Burkosky<furkosky @aol.com>; Ginny Lee<ginnylee @ginnylee.com>;Gunther Grevlich
<Gunther1928 @gmail.com>; Herbert Greenberg<jacoranda @aol.com>; Irving Lipton<liptonsoup @rogers.com>;
Irwin Kroskin<imkroskin @kdgpl.com>;Jayne Merrill<msjaynemerrill @ aol.com>;Jeanne Findlater
<findlater @comcast.net>;Joe Bawduniak<chbawduniak @comcast.net>;Joesph Chicurel<jchicurel@gmail.com>;
Johan Domenie<hobodory@comcast.net>;Josef Kuhn<jos_kuh @msn.com>;Joyce Galli
<joy.sea @hotmail.com>; Kathleen Iwasyk<kobil @attglobal.net>; Kathy Ripin<kathy.ripin @gmail.com>; Kay
Potter<akpotter0l @comcast.net>; Kenneth MacAlpine<tophetco @aol.com>;Kenton Sicchitano
<kensicc @aol.com>; Kevin Burke<papainbuffalo @yahoo.com>; Len Rothman<Judylenr22 @aol.com>; Lilisa
Bruce<ljbruce @msn.com>; Linda Roth<lor3lor3 @aol.com>; Marcia Cravens<goldandrose @me.com>;
margaretbrodeur<margaretbrodeur @gmail.com>; Martha Shearer<marthashearer @yahoo.com>; mary bolen
<marybolen59 @aol.com>;Mary McLean Johnson<mlmassocaicp @aol.com>;MD Robert
<rnvanson @yahoo.com>;Merry Diberardino<pdiberardino @comcast.net>; noreen murray
<noreenamurray @gmail.com>;pat bush<pjbushwork @comcast.net>; peggy lynch<Iynchhsd01 @yahoo.com>;
Phil Chinn<Lhillchinn @aol.com>; Philip Busch<jmbusch817 @aol.com>; Phyllis Christensen
<phyllismail @cox.net>;rdjarvis1469<rdjarvis1469 @gmail.com>; Rick Galli<gallibuilders @hotmail.com>;Robert
Schultheis<rschult @siue.edu>;Sheri Arnold<sheriarnold28 @comcast.net>; Steve Gregerson
<sdgregerson @hotmail.com>; Susan Calkins<calkritas @aol.com>;Ted Raia<tedraia @gmail.com>;Ted Raia
<tedraia @yahoo.com>;Todd Bolen<toddbolen @aol.com>;Tom cravens<nfn16799 @naples.net>;Vernon
Gasket!<vmgaskell @aol.com>;Walt Rogers<Walt @kovrcicv.com>; bill carpenter<wrcjks @gmail.com>; bob uek
<rwuek7 @gmail.com>; Gerry Moffatt<g.moffatt@comcast.net>;Gerry Moffatt<g.moffatt41 @gmail.com>;Robert
Pemdergrass<robpender @comcast.net>; Ronnie Bellone<vbellnpls @yahoo.com>;Geof Gibson
<josiegeoff @aol.com>; Hunter Hansen<hhansen @luxuryresorts.com>;John Baron
<jbaron @watersideshops.com>;john iaizzo<iaizzo @comcast.net>; Keith Dallas<keithdallas @comcast.net>;
Mary Anne Womble<Teedupl @aol.com>;mike levy<mikelevy @embargmail.com>;Susan OBrien
<naplessusan @comcast.net>;Jim Hobin<downbucket @comcast.net>; Lee Canning
<leecanning1930 @gmail.com>; merlin lickhalter<mlickhalter @comcast.net>; Stanley Farb
<stan4mignon @earthlink.net>;susan boland<johnsusanboland @aol.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 10,2012 9:23 pm
Jim,
Your email to Commissioner Hiller begs clarification.
Commissioner Hiller,
First,I want to express my appreciation for the graciousness with which you have always received and interacted with me,
including our meeting of November 30thand our phone conversation of December 5`h. Since our time together during the
Productivity Committee meetings,we have always been able to disagree without being disagreeable. In that spirit,please
know that while the contents of this letter will articulate a position different from the one you are advocating,the Pelican
Bay Foundation(PBF)feels it is important to share our concerns with you.
I also would make you aware that this letter has been reviewed and endorsed by the Pelican Bay Foundation Board and is
consistent with the PBF Board's enormous expenditure of time,resources,and talent to professionally understand,and set
a responsible course for,the well-being of the Clam Bay estuary.This includes assembling a top-flight legal and scientific
team which has played an important part in reversing plans to install red and green navigation markers,satisfying the
expectations of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection regarding water quality,and developing a dredging
permit which allows for inclusive participation for determining when dredging events should occur.Therefore,the
references to the"Pelican Bay Foundation(PBF)"should be understood to mean the views of the Pelican Bay Foundation
Board of Directors and the President.
http://mail.aol.com/3 7261-111/aol-6/en-us/mail/PrintMessage.aspx 12/10/2012
Page 2 of 5
' t ..•?* .
la M. Y-.<- I
n t e red/green marker dispute, the PBF legal and scientific team contributed more to the problem than the solution.In
2008 Seagate claimed the 1998 ten-year permit required the placement of red/green navigation markers. The county
commissioners supported Seagate. The PBSD would not cooperate.It was in the mist of preparing a new ten-year permit
that was 90%completed and paid for. The county exercised its authority and removed the responsibility of Clam Bay from
the PBSD. The Foundation responded to protect the interests of Pelican Bay but decided to exclude the PBSD,MAG and
other interested residents. Instead the Foundation engaged in closed-door meetings with the county to resolve the
problems by negotiation.However the navigation markers were never a negotiable item. The permit did not require their
installation. The Foundation asked the PBSD to stand down which it did and ignored MAG and other interested parties.
The USCG now required the county to do an Environmental Impact Study which would add 40,000 dollars more to the
project. The county dropped its support for which you wish to take credit. Seagate in turn sued the county for failure to
comply with the permit. The county decided not to defend itself in the suit. The Foundation, left with no alternative, has
agreed to fund the defense of the county. The legal-scientific team is responsible for putting us in this position.
Specifically,what the Pelican Bay Foundation would ask you to reconsider are the elements of the December 11,2012
Board of County Commissioners(BCC)agenda,Items 10.X, 10.Y,and 10.AC:
• 10.X establishes the Pelican Bay Services Division as the"exclusive"source of recommendations to the BCC for
managing Clam Bay.It establishes the one entity within Pelican Bay that is completely dependent on the BCC as
the only source of input.As you know,the PBSD Board is subject to appointment by the BCC.The PBF Board is
directly elected by Pelican Bay residents and is an important representative body for our community that this
ordinance would exclude from decision-making.Also,it appears that if the PBSD is the exclusive advisor on
dredging and the health of Clam Bay,that the PBSD would bear the entire financial burden as well.
• It is true that the PBSD Board is appointed by the BCC but they are first elected by the residents similar to the
PBF Board. Members who serve on the PBSD are more prone to be interested in the ecology of the community in
which they share an expertise. You are not qualified to state that you represent the community when it comes to
Clam Bay since you have excluded the residents who share this interest.
• 10.Y unilaterally removes the current PBSD-elected Chair and Vice Chair,mandates a one-year term limit for
leadership,and gives the Foundation a non-voting seat at the table of an organization that advises the BCC.Since
the Foundation maintains specific approval rights and responsibilities for the Clam Bay Conservation Area,this
latter requirement raises the potential for conflicts of interest.
Term limits opens the process. The PBSD chairman should not have acquiesced to the PBF Board when told not
to defend the contents of the permit. When the PBSD board finally voted to send a letter to the BCC that the
permit did not require the navigation markers the vote was 8 to 1. The chairman cast the negative vote. It was
unfortunate that the PBF coerced the PBSD Board not to officially notify the BCC that the permit, which the
PBSD drafted and therefore most qualified to state that their permit did not require the markers.
• 10.AC disregards the time,energy,and expense the Foundation has invested in representing the community on
dredging matters,water quality management,and other Clam Bay environmental issues.It would remove the
structure and"triggers' for dredging we had in place with the County through Coastal Zone Management,and
completely excludes the Foundation from input on the work order. It is also unclear whether a plan that was
prepared in 1996-1998 for mangrove restoration and that expired in 2008 can be"updated"or whether it needs to
be completely rewritten.
• The Foundation always had their rights and obligations but chose not to exercise them. Dredging can only be
performed for the health of the mangroves and the county needs the approval of the PBF to dredge. Yes, a
considerable amount of time, energy, and expense has been wasted mostly due to the PBF refusal to listen to the
members it claims to represent. Was this on advice of counsel? The county/PBF dredging permit is based on a
2007 dredge that was performed contrary to the requirements of the existing permit. The PBF refuses to listen or
allow a direct meeting between their attorney and science representatives.
When we met with you last week,Ronnie Bellone(Chair of the PBF Board)Mary Johnson(Director on the PBF Board)
and I expressed our concern that using old structures,plans,and responsibilities to address today's circumstances is not an
effective approach for managing Clam Bay.At the meeting,we discussed at length why the intrinsic structure of a
httrr//mail.aol.com/37261-111/ao1-6/en-us/mail/PrintMessage.aspx 12/10/2012
.� Y + i
m ..�� � • Page3of5
t � � a 10 X
� + OIL
Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit(MSTBU)fails to fully represent the interests of the community of Pelican
Bay in our relationship with the County.
It failed because the PBF coerced the PBSD not to act as an advisory board. Contrary to your statement the PBSD did
represent the interests of the community when it comes to Clam Bay. The PBF would never have had the time and
knowledge to successfully manage the mangrove problem. The PBSD did. Hiring high priced attorneys and consultants
is no substitute for experience, knowledge of the area and dedication. This is an expensive cop out and deprives the
community of the expertise that exists.
As you know,the community has past experience with how the Pelican Bay Services Division(PBSD)can be
marginalized by a sometimes unsympathetic Board of County Commissioners,such that the Pelican Bay Foundation has
had to enter the fray,even at its political risk and disadvantage,to represent our community's legitimate interests. Specific
examples include the Foundation's legal action in the Cap D'Antibes matter,necessitated in part because the PBSD had
been compromised by approving the stone water plan that moved that undesirable project forward.A more recent
example is when the BCC reassigned the roles and responsibilities of the PBSD to a Clam Bay Advisory Committee that
endorsed red and green navigational markers in Clam Bay. It has been repeatedly demonstrated,that as an advisory entity
to the BCC,the PBSD Board lacks the independence,autonomy,or authority to consistently represent the interests of the
community in situations where the BCC might differ with the PBSD's approach or recommendations.
There is much more to the Cap d'Antibes story and it involves attorneys. The case was adjudicated, not on violation of
water management or the Land Development Code(LDC) but on violation of the Waterpark Place covenants.At this point
the developer turned and sued the Foundation because it would not allow realtors to advertise in the Post if they were
selling Cap d'Antibes. Developer also sued because the covenant violation case had to be filed by residents of Waterpark
Place yet the Foundation funded the suit. Did the Foundation do this on advice of counsel? Rather than defend
themselves the Foundation signed an agreement with the developer that they would approve and support a new plan that
no longer had the one 650 foot building but two buildings larger than in the original plan. These had reduced setbacks
and other code violations and did not conform to the water management plan which now had 82%impervious instead of
the required 46%. I did not agree to the settlement and appealed the approval of the plan but the Foundation testified
against me.
Although you have advocated for a stronger voice for Pelican Bay's community institutions and for active community
input,the proposed changes to the MSTBU enabling ordinance--which neither the PBSD Board nor the Pelican Bay
Foundation Board sought--results in neither a stronger Pelican Bay voice,nor a more inclusionary process.In fact,the
proposed changes were developed without consulting with the affected MSTBU advisory board or the master property
owners association of the community for which the MSTBU was created. Ironically,these proposals highlight exactly how
vulnerable the MSTBU is,and has been,to political forces.
The Pelican Bay Foundation has taken a thoughtful,professional approach to making decisions about the management of
Clam Bay and Clam Pass. We had sought to memorialize the comprehensive,science-based and collaborative approach to
dredging that has been pursued with the County over the last two years,building on the Foundation's involvement in the
successful resolution of the marker issue and efforts to develop a collaborative process for managing Clam Bay's water
quality.
This dredge is based on the 2007dredge that was done to obtain sand for Clam Pass Park Beach. The dredges that are
authorized and that had been successfully performed were at 30 feet not the 80 feet being requested It is not right to
memorialize this collaborative approach when it was executed behind closed doors purposely at the exclusion of the
people you claim to represent.
What you have proposed is not only a return to the structure that resulted in many undesirable consequences,but
additionally,you have suggested an arbitrary limitation on Chair and Vice Chair tenure(1 year)which undermines the
leadership continuity vital to any organizational structure.Also,the term limits would be retroactive so that the current
leadership would be immediately replaced,which ignores the wishes of the PBSD Board who elected those individuals to
their positions.Further,compelling the Pelican Bay Foundation to designate a nonvoting appointee to the PBSD Board
accomplishes nothing with respect to increasing the PBF's community voice or representation given the inherent
limitations of the PBSD itself,as noted above.
Please know that the Pelican Bay Foundation Board members and staff,and the Pelican Bay Services Division Board
members already regularly attend each other's meetings and make their views known during the appropriate comment
httn-//m ail_anl.com/17261-111/ao1-6/en-us/mail/PrintMessage_asnx t')n wool
Page 4 of 5
LOX-iGi
5113 v, t -
periods,at workshops,subcommittee meetings,or via joint working groups.There already exists a strong cooperative
working relationship.
At the December 5,2012 PBSD Board meeting,when David Trecker delivered news of your surprise ordinance
resolutions,everyone in the room was stunned.Keith Dallas,Chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division had no advance
notice or conversation with you about this proposal;none of the Pelican Bay Foundation Board members had any advance
warning that you had planned this approach; Susan Boland,Chair of the Pelican Bay Property Owners' Association has
also communicated her shock. It is difficult to understand how the goals of collaborative and cooperative decision-making
can be achieved without the leadership of the affected entities being included in the discussion.
The PBF has serious concerns that dismantling the current structure and process for managing the dredging of Clam Pass
could have unintended consequences that could jeopardize the ability to move forward in a timely manner with the much
needed dredging of the inlet,which is rapidly closing.
The PBF should demonstrate concern that the BCC turned the care of the mangroves to residents of Marco Island and the
Naples. There should be a body of knowledgeable residents to interact with the consultants and attorneys in dealing with
all ecological issues. The PBF Board is not that body.
Further,a number of tangential and complex questions arise from your proposal.There should be an opportunity for these
to be raised and discussed.The consequences and impacts,both financial and in terms of accountability,must be fully
understood.At the very least,it would be highly improbable that shifting all the responsibilities of management that had
previously been shared by the PBSD and Coastal Zone Management over to the PBSD,would not result in cost
consequences to the PBSD,that is,Pelican Bay residents,via the taxing structure(MSTBU)that the PBSD represents.
The only complexity is why you have taken the position to obstruct progress in bringing fair, honest and transparent
government to Collier County. The residents of Pelican Bay voted her to office with over 70%vote to do exactly what she
is doing. She is representing us. It is obvious that the PBF Board is not.
Commissioner,the PBF is confident that your deliberations and approaches with respect to Clam Bay matter are well-
intentioned,but they require much more inclusive thought and discussion before arriving at a proposed"way forward".
The last two years of cooperative and collaborative interaction with the County,the City of Naples,and the Pelican Bay
Foundation have resulted in a mutually acceptable resolution to, 1)The marking of Clam Bay,2)A responsible and well-
documented approach to water quality,and 3)A dredging permit process that has focused upon the health of the system
above all other considerations.
Anyone familiar with the original permit understands that the new county permit is designed to obtain sand and improve
navigation. The dredging is excessive with triggers geared to increasing frequency that will create hazardous conditions
for bathers, canoers and kayakers.
It does not seem prudent that these recent significant accomplishments are discounted in favor of a return to a structure
that was ineffective in opposing dredging for beach renourishment,unable to counter plans for marking Clam Bay for
navigation,and unable to resolve controversies over water quality issues and biological concerns..
Some may argue that monitoring and management of Clam Bay is not the purview of the Pelican Bay Foundation.
However,the PBF is obligated as the Declarant under the protective covenants and restrictions for Clam Bay to step in if
there are threats to the Conservation Area.That responsibility is why the Pelican Bay Foundation has fought for a"seat at
the table"—a say in management decisions up front,rather than a divisive and expensive legal battle at the end.
No one is denying the right and obligation the Foundation has, but you have not exercised this in the best interest of the
community when you should have. As a result time, money and energy have been wasted and will continue to be wasted
as long as you ignore the members who have proven knowledge and dedication. The Foundation could exercise its
responsibility by seeing that this knowledgeable body performs and conservatively uses consultants as needed.
The Foundation has worked in good faith with the County and the City of Naples to assure that all affected parties have a
voice in the management of Clam Bay.Please,we urgently ask you to withdraw your current BCC agenda items 10.X,
10.Y,and 10.AC and work with our community to develop an approach that will provide a pro-active role for the County,
the Foundation and PBSD that builds upon what we have,rather than reverting to a proven inadequate and inefficient
structure.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
httn://mail.aol.com/37261-111/ao1-6/en-us/mail/PrintMessage.aspx 12/10/2012
Page 5 of 5
iOX'l01 ' '&
Sincerely,
Jim
Jim Hoppensteadt
President
Ted
httn://mail.aol.com/37261-111/ao1-6/en-us/mail/PrintMessage.aspx 12/10/2012