Item H4BOARD of COUNTY COMAUSSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date:L4npM 16, 2013 Division} n th Mana ment
Bulk Item: Yes X No Department: Pi nk& Environmental Resources
Staff Contact Person hone # : Christine Hurley x 2517
AGENDA rMM WORDING: Approval of the Eighth (8") Amendment to the agreement for professional
services with Keith and Schnars (K&S), P.A., for additional services to evaluate the Coastal Barrier Resource
System (BR) Comprehensive Plan policies to determine whether they add any additional, protection to land over
and above Comprehensive Plan and hand Development Regulation (LIAR) policies that govern, Tier 1 land,
including an analysis of the percentage of land and number of parcels within the CBRS areas by Tier Designation
and whether xnfrastructuu extension to outlying neighborhoods. or other platted areas increases a parcel's likelihood
of being able to obtain, a favorable recommendation, based on Tier criteria to change a tier classification from Tier I
to Tier IL III, or IRA.
ITEM BACKGROUND: K&S was retained to complete an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the
Comprehensive Plan (CP). The EAR was completed; however, on 12-1 -1 , the Commission requested
complete an addendum to the EAR as stated above. See shed minutes from 12-12-12 agenda item P3 .
PREVIOUS RELEVANT 13OCC ACTION:
Decemher 16, 2009 — BOCC approved contract to update the Monroe County Year 2010 Technical Document,
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), Comprehensive plan Amendments, and Rand Development Code.
Septe her 15, 2010 — BOCC approved Amendment No. 1 which amended the work program and deliverable
schedule.
ocher 20, 2010 — BOCC approved Amendment No. 2 amending Master Schedule `III" referencing the work
proms timeline and deliverable schedule.
May 18, 2011 — BOCC approved Amendment No. 3 amending Exhibit "N' Scope of Services for Phase II to
include services relating to the Environmental Impact Statement.
A ugmt 17, 2012 - BOCC approved Amendment No. 4 amending Exhibit "A" Scope of Services and Exhibit ,"B" to
increase compensation 96,183.00, for additional services related to data collection, development of existing
conditions to prepare the technical document (prn'nan"ly existing land use mapping and acreage/density/intensity
information), population projection approval by the Department of Community Affairs, and timeline
adjustments due to rent statutory amendments to Chapter 163, F.S. 7207).
June 20, 2012 — BOCC approved Amendment No. 6 amending Exhibit "'A" Scope of Services, for additional
services identifying any potential deficiencies in the County Comprehensive Plan policies and land development
code relative to State regulations on mining operations, including minimum permitting requirements for mines
and the minimum legal requirements for remediation and restoration air a mine if officially abandoned and an
increase in compensation by $7, 00.00.
epte her 21, 2012 — BOCC approved Amendment No. 7amending the timeline for processing the EAR based
Comprehensive Flan and Ind Development Code amendments to be simultaneous.
O TRA TEA REE MENT CHANGES:
STAFF RE OI1 NIENDATION : Approval
TOTAL COST; $18.360.00 estimated fey with rnax hourly rate of 1 0. oo Grand total estimate of
entire contract 1,1 48,10)
IND E T COST: BUDGETED: Yes No(but antioi ated to be absorbed in b of
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: N/A
COST To OUNTYt,l.. 1,12 #1,o8.00 _ SOURCE OF : 148-51000-530340
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes � No x AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty x OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION, ENTATION, Included x Not R uired
DI F O ITI ON O AGENDA ITEM 4
M NR E COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COUNfiSSIONERS
CONTRACTSUNHAARY
Contract with: Faith & Schnars, F.A. Contract ##
Effective Date: 0 111 61 2 0 1
Expiration Date:
Contract Purpose/Description:
Amendment No. 8 to the contract with Keith & Schnars (K&S) to evaluate the tier
criteria in relation to protection of the coastal barrier resource system, fee shall not
exceed /jr,_ 4rvio
Contract Manager: Christine Hurley 2517 11
(Name)(Ext.) (Department/Stop #)
for BOCC me in on 01/16/2013 Agenda Deadline: 01 /0 / 01
Total Dollar value of Contract:
Current Year Portion:
CONTRACT COSTS
1 1 AR 1 (1R
;�Zcv,vuv
Budgeted? Yeses No Lj Account Codes:
Grant: $ NIA
County Match: $ NIA
Estimated Ongoing Costs: —
Tot included in dollar value above
1 48- 1 0oo-3o3 4o-
ADDITIONAL COSTS N/A
/yr For:
(eg. maintenance} udlltieS} ,
NTA 1 1IEW
Changes
Date In Needed Reviewer
Division Director Yes❑ No[:]
Risk Management 'Yes[]] No[�
l
4.M.B./Purchasig qWYes[] No[�
ti
County Attorney 4"In
',YesNo[:]
Comments:
Old Form Devised 2/27/01 MCP #2
itorial# salaries, etc.)
Date Out
EIGHTH AMENDMENT
to
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
with
EITH AND S HNARS, P.A,
This Eighth Amendment (Amendment) to the Contract for Professional Services dated
December 16, 2009 between Monroe Counter (County) and Keith and Schnars, R.A.
(Consultant) is made and entered into this day of r 2013.
WITN ESSETH:
WHEREAS, Consultant was retained to update the County's Comprehensive Plan
Technical Document (Phase I), complete an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of
the Comprehensive Plan (Phase If) ,complete Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments
(Phase ill) and EAR based Lanc! Development Code amendments (Phase IV) over a
four year period; and
WHEREAS, the Counter has requested an amendment to the Contract to determine
whether the ounty's existing Coastal Barrier Resource System ER olicies add
any additional protection to land over and above these policies and code provisions that
govem Tier 1 land,
NOW9 THEREFORE, the parties agree that:
Section 1. The scope of services listed on Exhibit A of the contract shall be amended
as follows
1, Under PHASE 11 -, EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT, add a new
task:
TASK 13, COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE SYSTEM (CBRS) ANALYSIS —
13t 1: K&S will evaluate the percentage of land and number of parcels within
the Coastal Barrier ier Resource System (CBRS) areas that are designated Tier
l or other Tiers such as: ll, ill, or lllA;
1 .: Using existing tier criteria, determine whether extension of
infrastructure to outlying neighborhoods or other platted areas increases a
Amendment #8
Page 1
parcel's likelihood of obtaining change in tier class if icatio n from Tier I to Tier
III III, or l l I; and
1 .3: Review the existing Comprehensive Plan policies and/or Land
Development Code provisions related to CBIOS and determine whether the
existing CBRS policies add any additional protection to land over and above
those policies and code provisions that govem Tier 1 land.
Consultants Fee for this task will be on a Time and Material basis. The maximum
hourly rate shall not exceed $150,00. Consultants estimated fee for this task is
$18.F360. The only materials bided shall be those provided to the County or to
others as authorized at the ounty's request.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Eighth Amendment.
ATTEST:
AMY HEAVILIN9 CLERK
Deputy Clerk
Witness
Witness
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Mayor George Neugont
KEITH AND SCHNARS, P.A.
IL
Michael L. Davis, Vice President
Z �
Dot
MONRglq COUNTY A ORNEY
AP I T M:
STE YE-N T. lid LL tAMB
A9618TANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
Date r-J7
Amendmeat #8 Page 2
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update Exhibit 1 to 8`" Amendment
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A exhibit A to Agreement
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16, 2013
PHASE I -TECHNICAL DOCUMENT
TASK 1-PROJECT INITIATION
1.1 K&S Team will meet with the project managers from the County to review
work tasks and the project schedule, establish reporting relationships and
review expectations of the project. The development of the Public
Involvement Plan (PIP) will also be discussed at this meeting, including: key
issues, audiences, communication materials, communication venues, and the
County/I roles, including how comments will be managed; and the key
messages that need to be communicated in all communication materials.
1.2 K&S will initiate data collection, including a data gap analysis. County staff
will work with K&S to identify and gather the necessary data.
1.3 K&S will develop a database of information or resources, including source
and status.
1.4 K&S will, in coordination with the County, identify stakeholders and potential
candidates for interviews; develop an Intergovernmental Coordination Plan
(ICP) and Public Involvement Plan (PIP); and, establish the project website.
The PIP will address public participation/input and include a media outreach
plan relating to the Comprehensive Plan Update, the Evaluation and
Appraisal Report, the Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and the
development of the revised Land Development Code.
Based on the meeting in Task 1.1 above, K&S wi 1 l prepare strategies for
identified audiences and phases.
A draft public participation plan will be prepared for County review. K&S will
support the County staff to present the public participation plan at the
Planning Commission and the BOCC briefings, noted in Tasks 2.2 and 2.3.
Following County review, and teleconference coordination as needed, a final
public involvement plan will be prepared.
The ICP will identify the applicable agencies and other jurisdictional bodies
as stakeholders and establish the primary contact and/or board members. It
will also identify the appropriate stages of the process in which they will be
engaged and how they will be notified.
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16,2013
'ask 1 Deliverables:
* Meeting agenda;
0 Kickoff meeting between County and
1p
Detailed Project Schedule;
0 Information data base, updated throughout Phase 1;
0 ICP;
0 PIP;
Written meeting summary; and
Establish project website.
Consultants Lump Sum Feefor Phase I Task 1 ........................................ , 0 0. 00
TAT -MEETINGS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
ENT
2.1 For the duration of Phase 1, K&S will participate in up to two (2) meetings per
month, either in person or via telephone, with County staff to discuss the
statusof the project and to solicit comments and feedback.
2.2 1S will provide one briefing of the BOCC during Phase 1.
2.3 K&S will provide one briefing of the Planning Commission during Prase 1.
2,A K&S will maintain and update the project website monthly, at a minimum.
2.5 K&S will conduct one (1) general public/stakeholder outreach event
/program during Phase 1.
This outreach event shall include a presentation at three locations, to be
determined at a later date with County input. As part of Task 1.4, K&S will
establish a specific event strategy that will include a Commissioner greeting
and comments at each location; County and K&S staff will be available to
discuss the upcoming activities, take feedback and answer questions,
.6 K&S will prepare monthly project progress reports.
'ask 2 Deliverables:
• Meeting participation;
• Meeting agendas;
• written meeting summaries;
• Update project website;
2
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16, 2013
• General public/stakeholder outreach event; and
• Monthly progress reports.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase I Task2 ............................. 65t560. 00
TASK 3 - DRAFT UPDATED DOCUMENT
.1 K&S will analyze existing conditions to update the Comprehensive Plan
components listed below:
* Population and Housing;
0 Community Facilities and Services, including the Public Education and the
Public health Systems;
The capital Improvement Program;
Wastewater, Solid waste, Stormwater and Potable and Declaimed water
Services;
• Transportation, including Ports and Aviation services;
• Land Use;
Planning Areas and the Areas of county critical Concern;
Coastal Management and Natural Resources;
* Economics and Employment; and
Historic Structures and Sites.
The analysis will determine trends that are emerging; the suitability of
existing land use regulations, relevant growth management laws and rules,
public/private facilities and services to meet the changing needs of the
population; and, where public and/or private initiatives will be necessary to
maintain and improve services and facilities. This task shall involve an
examination of the intergovernmental organizations that the county
participates in with regard to regional affairs. The analysis will also identify
and evaluate the consistency among and between local plans, studies and
ordinances, as identified in Task 1.
3.2 K&S will prepare a Draft Technical Document, updated to the 010- 030
planning period, meeting the requirements of 9j=5 F,A.c.r chapter 16 . 177,
F.S. and chapter 380.F.S. for each element. The Technical Document will
establish the appropriate level of standard for each service/infrastructure
and; will identify the projected needs, based upon population projections and
level of service standards, in five (5) year increments throughout the
planning period.
3
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16,2013
will retain the same element headings and subheadings, as may be
appropriate, within the existing Technical Document, and will include those
that may be required by Statue or Rule in order to be current and consistent
with new requirements.
3.3 K&S will conduct up to two (2) meetings with County staff to review the Draft
Technical Document. These expanded meetings will be a part of the regular
bimonthly meetings identified in Task 2.1.
3.4 K&S will organize and participate in one (1) County/DCA joint workshop to
review the draft Technical Document noted in Task 3.2, above.
.5 K&S will participate in one (1) public presentation with the Planning
Commission (LPA) to review the Draft Technical Document.
3.6 K&S will participate in one (1) public presentation with the BDCC to review
the Draft Technical Document.
Task 3 Deliverables:
• Draft Technical Document (20 copies with 1 electronic file);
• Meeting agendas;
• Meeting participation;
Written meeting summaries;
• One full size (11"x 17") and one reduced copy (8.5 jp x1l") of each map; and
• All text, tables, charts, and maps provided in digital format. Mapping shall
be prepared in format compatible with the Counts CIS.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Task 14, 730.00
TASK 4 - FINAL TECHNICAL DOCUMENT
4.1 Utilizing the results from Tasks above, K&S will prepare a Final " 010- 0 0
Technical Document". This document is the basis for the remaining phases of
the Evaluation and Appraisal Deport (FAR) and the future Comprehensive
Plan update.
4.2 Prior to the presentation of the Final Technical Document to the BOCC in
Task 4.3 below, K&S will submit the material to the DCA for a Courtesy
Review.
4
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Kelth and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16, 2013
4.3 K&Swill participate in one (1) public presentation of the Final Technical
Document before the BBC .
Task 4 Deliverables:
• Meeting agendas;
• Meeting participation;
Written documentation of Commission direction items-,
D CA Courtesy Review;
Final 'technical Document Update (20 copies with 1 electronic file);
# One full size (11-11 x 17") and one reduced copy (8.5-11 11') of each map; and
e All text, tables, charts{ and maps provided in digital format. Mapping shall
be prepared in a format compatible with the Cuunty"s GIS.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee or Phase I Task 40ii+a0aa d 0 aaraa.r.t.rraw .rr.r■eraar.r.a..rr.r.ara 40,4 0r00
TOTAL LUMP SUMFEE FOR PHASE I off 6i6*0 ■ii■ 9 p8 OiOO
Optional Services (not included in total)
Additional Public Our* c 6_yents: K&S staff will utilize the Mobile Information
Station (MIS) for additional events, at locations as selected by the Counter, to obtain
feedback, encourage public participation and answer stakeholder questions.
Consultant's Lump Sum Feefor each event shall not exceed,,,,.,,. gas gem mM0&m$9f9 0r00
Other iCoordinated urn t l &S staff (up to 2 persons)
attendance at additional meetings/hearings before the Planning Commission (LPA)
or BOCC for all tasks included in this Phase.
Consultant's Lump Sum Fee each meetingl rearing shall not exceed. -,-,,.....ran $3.1760.00
kA
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16,2013
PHASE II - EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR)
TASK 1-ASSESSMENT OF MAJOR ISSUES AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The purpose of the public information workshops will he to discuss and receive
public input on the key local 'major's planning issues that will he addressed in the
EAR.
&S will meet with key County staff and officials t gather input Ott on major
. � � l
issues affecting the County.
1.2. K&S will coordinate and conduct three (3) public prepare
workshops, and r are
presentation and handout materials for the workshops, which may include
comment sheets, descriptions of the EAR process, and mounted aerials,,
1.3. For the duration of Phase ll, K&S will participate in up to two meetings
per month, either in person or via telephone, with County staff to discuss the
status of the project and to solicit comments and feedback (Originally 30 staff
meetings scheduled; addition of 10 staff meetings; for a total of 40 staff
meetings). This subtask is an ongoing activity and is not subject to the
reta inage clause in Section 4.2 of the Contract for Professional Services
between the County and St
1.4. K&S shall conduct other coordination efforts to include meetings with
elected officials, appointed officials, County staff, and other government
agencies, including the D A.
1.5. S will update the proj
lect wehsite monthly, at a minimum. Progress
reports shall include details of website updates completed every month. This
s u )task is an ongoing activity and is not subject to the retainsg a clause in
Section 4.2 of the Contract for Professional Services between the County and
S,
`asks 1 Deliverables:
Meeting participation;
Meeting agendas;
Written meeting summaries;
i Information data base, updated throughout Phase ;
* Updated project wobsito;
Public involvement materials such as comment sheets and handouts
outlining the EAR process;
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16, 2013
Presentation materials for workshops (e.g. PowerPoint presentation.,
mounted aerials);
An issues matrix providing details on the identified major issues; and
Monthly progress reports.
Consultants Lump Sum # ee foi Phase 11 Task l .a.rr�ar• r..;■■ e�� ■..+.aar.r�rrrra.. 145 5e00
TASK 2- INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING AND COMPILATION REPORT
Interagency coordination is a critical component to the success of the EAR process.
Agencies that are part of the coordination effort during this Task (and throughout
the process) will include, but not he limited to: adjacent municipalities; FDOT
S RPC, N.A.S. - Key west, SFWMD, Monroe County Public Schools, FKAA, rational
Park Service, the DCA, and other agencies identified by County staff.
.1 K&S will coordinate and conduct an interagency scoping meeting with adjacent
local jurisdictions and State, regional and county agencies to receive their
input on the key issues that have been identified, and to identify additional
issues that should he addressed. In addition, this meeting will serve as an
opportunity to identify and collect the data that needs to he received from
these agencies in order to conduct the EAR.
2.2 K&S will prepare a compilation report that summarizes all issues identified for
further research and updating. This report will he submitted to the County for
review and consideration.
.3 After County approval, the compilation report will he provided to DCA in order
to receive a Letter of Understanding. Any and/or all of the issues identified in
this task will he addressed in the EAR document (see Task 5).
Tasks 2 Deliverables:
Meeting participation;
Meeting agendas;
Written meeting summaries;
Presentation materials for workshops (e.g. PowerPoint presentation,
mounted aerials);
An Issue Compilation Report, composed of: a Scope of work that outlines
the identified major issues, and the manner in which these issues and the
other EAR statutory requirements, will he addressed;
An issues matrix providing further details on the identified major issues;
Monthly progress reports.
OA
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16, 2013
Consultants Lump Sum i ee or Phase i 1 Task aaa.!!lrlddr..■ ■ea ■rrt.rr*0e......rr.ama 14 60.00
f x
TASK - REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAID
.1 K&S shall perform a comprehensive review on an element -by -element basis
of the Comprehensive Plan in order to identify successes or shortcomings in
achieving �
eving the County, s goals{ objectives and policies and identify
a
goals, objectives and policies with old dates or outdated tasks.
Task 3 Deliverable:
A report summarizing., in tables and text, progress in achieving the
Comprehensive Plans objectives since the date of the last EAR and goals,
objectives and policies which include old dates or outdated tasks . This
report is not intended to he a stand-alone document, but will he
incorporated as a Chapter in the draft EAR (see Task 5 Deliverable).
Consultants Lump Sum Fee or Phase H Task .�.. .F.1*00624agomadqmma!!.l.M 1 560.00
TASK PUBLIC MEETINGS
4.1 The K&S Team will conduct one (1) presentation to the Planning Commission
to obtain feedback on the report generated during Task 3.
4.2 The K&S Team will conduct one (1) presentation to the BOCC. This
presentation will provide the BOCC with a "report card" of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Task 4 Deliverable:
0 Meeting agendas., if necessary;
Meeting participation; and
o written documentation of Commission and BOCC direction.
Consultants Lump SumFeefor Phase 11 Task
as 4.......... @#lfear■■aaraaa..i.asea ....aa.la 16,520.00
TASK 5 - DEVELOPMENT AND PREPARATION of EAR
The purpose of this Task is to develop and prepare, in coordination with County un
staff, an EAR (an evaluation and appraisal of the 2010 Monroe County
Comprehensive Plant
8
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16, 2013
The issues identified in Tasks 1 and 2 will be: described., analyzed, and
evaluated by K&S for potential social, economic, and environmental impacts.
S-2 Along with the statutory requirements, US shall prepare a series of
Comprehensive Plan amendment recommendations to address these issues.
S.3 In addition, the EAR prepared by US shall include:
Description of the process used to ensure public participation;
Updated population estimates;
Changes in Land Area;
1. vacant land for future development
2. Demands of growth on infrastructure
3. Location of development, including infill and redevelopment needs
Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA)/Property Rights Assessment;
List of charges needed in the comprehensive plan due to changes in State
law, in particular HB 7207, and the results of the Element by Element
Assessment and an analysis of the major issues; and
Other issues as may be required by County staff.
S.4 K&S will organize and attend two (2) meetings of the Planning Commission
(LIMA) on the EAR for the purpose of obtaining comments on the EAR, one
(1) Planning Commission meeting to present the 1st portion of the EAR and
one (1) Planning Commission to present the 2na portion of the EAR.
5.5 K&S will organize and attend two (2) meetings of the BOCC on the EAR for
the purpose of obtaining comments on the EAR, one (1) BOCC meeting to
present the 1st portion of the EAR and one (1) BOCC to present the 2nd
portion of the EAR.
Tasks 1 through 5.3 will result in the development of the EAR. This draft will
be submitted electronically to the County for preliminary staff review. Any
comments or suggestions received from the scoping meeti n& the public
meetings, the Planning Commission and BOCC meetings noted in Tasks S.4
and S,5 will be addressed prior to K&S submitting the final version see
Deliverable section below) of the EAR to Monroe County. The final version
will be submitted to the BOCC for adoption as data and
analysis for potential
y
comprehensive plan amendments and for submission to the state planning
agency and appropriate agencies, as data and analysis when transmitting
proposed co rn p comprehensive plan amendments,
meats.
9
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16, 2013
Task 5 Deliverable:
Meeting ng agendas;
Presentation materials;
Meeting participation;
Written summary of PC and BOCC direction;
1 electronic copy of the EAR for preliminary internal staff review; and
1 electronic copy and 20 hard copies of the EAR for the Planning
Commission and EO C meetings noted in Tasks 5.4 and 5.5.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase 11 Task ,err...rra..r.a.'..r.r■..r.ea■ar..#r..�. 47P460.00
TASK 6 - FINAL PUBLIC MEETING ON EAR
6.1 K&S will organize, attend and coordinate one (1) adoption meeting before
the EOEE:
The purpose of the BOLE hearing is to adopt the EAR,
'ask 6 Defiverables:
Meeting and hearing agenda coordination;
Presentation materials;
Meeting participation; and
1 electronic copy of the EAR and 20 bard copies of the Final EAR for the
EOEE adoption hearing in Task 6.1.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee or Phase 11 Task F�I,r. �e■■.a s.�arl #fera�.t. �..a 5p40 .O
TASKS 7 and OPTIONAL TASKS 8. 9.o 10., and 11 were deleted by the 4th
AMENDMENT to the SCOPE OF WORK (Exhibit A) on AUGUST 17, 2011,
TASK 1 - MILITARY COMPATIBILITY COORDINATION
12.1 K&S shall provide support to the County's Environmental Impact Stud
Oversight Committee (EIS Committee) and for all activities related to NASKW
for NEPA issues affecting the County. This includes participation in El
Committee meetings or other meetings as authorized by oun . This
support will he provided primarily by US vice President Michael L. Davis.
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16,2013
Consultant's Fee for this Su rbtask will be on a Time and Material basis, billed
monthly. The maximum hourly rate shall not exceed 1.5.00, The only materials
billed shall be those provided to the Counter or to others as authorized at the
Coun 's request
12.2 shall assist the EoC , County Administrator and the EIS Committee in
the review and preparation of comments in response to two Draft D EIS and
two Final EIS (FEIS) documents published by the Navy that potentially affect
the Counter. This may include organizing the Counter's review and comment
response team and drafting the official Counter response to Navy NEPA
documents. Consultant shall provide copies of all documents to County.
onsultant's Fee for this Subtask will be on a Time and Material basis, billed
monthly. The maximum hourly rate stall not exceed $215.00. The only materials
billed stall be those provided to the County or to others as authorized at the
ounty's request
12.3 S may use sub -consultants as appropriate to collect and analyze data from
the DEIS and FEIS. Specifically, K&S will utilize a sub -consultant to collect
and/or review noise data, including noise monitoring at various County
owned locations which may include: Stock Island, Rockland, Big Copp itt,
Shark Key, and/or Key Maven, as applicable to the 2007 AIEUZ, review of the
Navy EIS, and/or EAR. Consultant shall provide a copy(ies) of any data and
analysis report from a sub consultant and one electronic copy.
Consultant's Fee for this sabtask will be on a Time and )Material basis, billed
monthly. The maximum hourly rate shall not exceed $235,00. The only materials
billed shall be those provided to the County or to others as authorized at the
ounty's request
12.4 K&S as requested by the BOCC or County Administrator shall represent the
County with State and Federal agencies in matters relating to the draft and
final EIS documents or other Navy NEPA documents that potentially affect
p Y
the Counter. K&S will attend a Navy Public Hearings concerning these
documents, as authorized by and at the Counter's request.
Consultant's Fee for this .dub task will be on a Time and Material basis, billed
monthly. The maximum hourly rate stall not exceed $215.00. The only materials
billed shall be those provided to the County or to others as authorized at the
County's request
1 Work performed under this `cask (Task 12) shall not be subject to contract
provisions in section 4.2 and are to be paid monthly with no retains e.
11
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16, 2013
12.6 The parties acknowledge that this task is not shown on Exhibit B and will
exceed the time frame for Phase II.
Task 12 fees shall not exceed Ninety Six T iousa dDoffarrs ($96,,000,00) and
are not included in the Lump Sung Phase II total.
The hourly fees include Consultant's expenses and reimbur abler other than
the deliverables (materials) stated above. Travel outside of the Mate of
Florida shall be reimbursed according to County policy and ordinance
governing travel.
TASK 13. COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE SYSTEM (CBRS) ANALYSIS
13.1 K&S will evaluate the percentage of land and number of parcels within the
Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) areas that are designated Tier I or
other Tiers such as: II, III, or IIIA;
13.2 Using existing tier criteria, determine whether extension of infrastructure to
outlying neighborhoods or other platted areas increases a parcel's likelihood
of obtaining change in tier classification from Tier I to Tier II, III, or l IIA; and
13.3 Review the existing Comprehensive Flan policies and/or Land Development
Code provisions related to CBRS and determine whether the existing CBRS
policies add any additional protection to land over and above those policies
and code provisions that govern Tier 1 land.
Consultants Fee for this task will be on a Time and Material basis. The maximum
hourly rate shall not exceed $150.00, Consultants estimated fee for this task is
$18,360.00. The only materials billed shall be those provided to the County or to
others as authorized at the County's request.
Task 13 fees shal l not exceed E Meer Thousand Three Hundred and Fri Dollars
($18,360-00) and are not included in the Lump Sum Phase II total
TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE FOR PHASE Il as0seen aaas man as0000 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a aa600aame Nme meaage Gas 866 46,93 5,00
Additional PublicQutreach Een ts. K&S staff will utilize the Mobile Information
Station (MIS) for additional events, at locations as selected by the County, to obtain
feedback, encourage public participation and answer stakeholder questions.
1
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16, 2013
Consultant's Lump Sure Feefor each event shall not exceed..:•l......l........l.i.tt.t...l��
1
Othgr Meetjflg,&1Hggnnas as r S staff to 2 persons)
attendance at additional meetings/hearings before the Planning Commission LPA
or BOCC for all tasks included in this Phase.
Consultant's Lump Sum Fee each meetinglhearing shall not exceed............ $3o760.00
13
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16, 2013
PHASE III -COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2010.2030
TASK I - PHASE III KICKOFF
1.1 K&S will meet with the project managers from the County to review work tasks
and project schedule, and establish expectations of Phase III.
1.2 K&S will update the Public Involvement Plan (PIP).
'ask 1 Deliverables,
Meeting agendas;
* Meeting participation;
Written meeting summary; and
Updated PIP.
Consultants Lump sum Fee or Phase III Task ��....■■.■s■.a■.......,■■■.■r■■..r.r�.■.�..■.■ 580..00
f
TASK 2 - MEETINGS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
2.1 K&S will participate and coordinate meetings (in person and telephonically)
p
with county staff up to two times per month for the duration of Phase 11I. This
suhtask is an ongoing activity and is not subject to the retains a clause in
Section 4.2 of the contract for Professional Services between the County and
1.
.2 K&S will participate and coordinate (a total of 4 hours m with the state � meetings g ate
land planning agency during its informal and formal review roces p s
(telephonic).
.3 K&S will update the project website monthly, at a minimum. or Progress reports
p is
shall include details of website updates completed every month. This subta
sly
is an ongoing activity and is not subject to the retainage clause in Section 4.2 of
the Contract for Professional Services the Monroe County and .
'asks 2 Deli ver ab les:
• Meeting agendas;
• Meeting and public event participation;
• Written meeting and public event summaries, including the state land
planning agency recommendations and comments;
14
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment., January 16, 2013
Information data base, updated throughout Phase 3;
• General public/stakeholder outreach events; and
• Updated project website.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee or Phase III Task2 ..... ....... man Res son 4*......1....... &dr$ 875700
TASK 3 - PREPARATION of DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
.1 [utilizing the recommendations contained within the EAR; and input gathered
p � erect
through the public involvement process and preliminary meetings with the
p �
state land planning agency,, K&S will draft amendments to the Plan to
implement the goals of the Counter, that meets the requirements of Chapter
380 and Chapter 163, Part Il, F.S,, and Rule E- o F.A.C., and all other
applicable studies or plans. During the drafting process, iS will work
closely with County staff, the Planning Commission, the Board of County
Commissioners, the state land planning agency, and other agencies as
necessary, to assure that the amendments are acceptable and to worm
through issues prior to submission of the final amendments.
3.2 K&S will provide additional amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Policy
Document based upon the updated Technical Document and any impending
n
p g
statutory requirements- and shall delete any goals{ obj
which
and policies
-
h are out-of-date date or no longer applicable.
3.3 K&S will participate and coordinate three meetings with the
Development Review Committee (DRC) to review the draft amendments.
These expanded meetings will be a part of the regular bimonthly meetings
identified in Task 2.1.
3.4 K&S will coordinate and participate in three (3) meetings before the Planning
Commission to review the draft amendments.
'ask 3 Deliverable'
DRC meeting agendast
0 Meeting participation;
* Comment response Form documenting comments and direction from the
Planning Commission and DRC; and
20 copies and 1 digital file{ in draft ordinance and striethrou h and
underlined format of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments,
Such amendments shall include those based upon the results of the
Evaluation and Appraisal report; the updated Technical Document;
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16,2013
impending statutory requirements; and, the deletion of, or revision to an
goals, objectives and policies which are out-of-date or no longer applicable;
Consu Itan is Lump Sum Fee for Ph ase III Task 3......+ ...............+............+.. n..Rpm $ 062. 00
TASK 4 - PREPARATION OF FINAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
4.1 Incorporating the comments and feedback received on the draft amendments
during Tasks 2 and 3, K&S will develop a final set of amendment In
underline-strikethrough to be reviewed during the public hearing process by
l� �
the Planning Commission (LPA) and the BOCC during both the transmittal
and adoption hearing process.
4.2 K&S will participate and coordinate one public hearing before
ethe
Planning Commission (LPA).
4.3 K&S will participate and coordinate two (2) public hearings before the B
l� � card
of County Commissioners for the review, transmittal and adoption of the
amendments to the reviewing agencies pursuant to 163. 184 b 1 F.S.
Task 4 Deliverable:
Hearings participation;
e comment Response Form documenting the direction from the hearings
before the LPA and the BOCC;
# 20 copies and 1 digital file of the proposed Comprehensive PIan
Amendments in Final ordinance and strikethrough and underlined format
which incorporates recommendations received from the LPA during Task
4.2.
* 35 (15 for distribution to agencies identifled under ch. 16 F.S.and 20
copies for Monroe county use) copies and 1 digital file of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendments in Final Ordinance and stri ethrou h
and underlined format for transmittal.
Agency and municipality comments are due to the County within 30 days
after receipt of a complete comprehensive plan transmittal package. uch
comments will be forwarded by the County to the state land planning a
l� g agency
y
no later than 30 days after receipt of the complete transmittal package b t l� p � y he
state land planning agency.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee or Phase III Task �'�...■........r.r..+r..a..r.....�....s. '32p015*00
16
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16, 2013
TASK 5 a FOLLOW-UP AND MODIFICATION
5.1 K&S will analyze the state land planning agency response in its objections
Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report to the transmittal of the
Flan amendments and, shall prepare a written response to each item.
5.2 If necessary, K&S shall make the necessary adjustments or modifications at
the direction of the County and will be provided in underline-strikethrou h
for ` � mat. K will participate and coordinate a public hearing before the Board
of county Commissioners for the adoption of the amendments, as specified in
ubtask4. .
Task 5 Deliverables:
0 written response to the o RC addressing each item; and
0 35 copies (15 for distribution to agencies identified under Ch. 163, F.S. and
20 copies for Monroe county use) and I digital file of the final
Comprehensive Flan Amendments, in strikethrouh and underline format
for adoption and enactment.
1 digital file and 20 tabbed copies (for Monroe County use only), without
strikethrough and underline, of all of the goals, objectives and policies of
r
the complete fi 2o10- o o comprehensive Plan".
Consultants Lump Sum Fee or Phase III Task �ra■ rara�rrrrrr.rr.rr■ eae..+rrrr..rrsrrarra� i 55r00
a
TASK 6, Mining Regulations Consultation- K&S will summarize existing State
r
regulations (FDEP and SF D) regarding mining. K&S will compare the
County Comprehensive Ilan policies and land development code to the
State regulations with the goal of identifying potential deficiencies in the
County Comprehensive Plan policies and land development coder l&S will
provide recommendations on how to reconcile differences between the
Comprehensive Plan (CP) and the Land Development Code (LIB . K&S will
provide recommendations on how to improve the CP and LDCs with
respect to mining operations, including minimum permitting requirements
for mines and the minimum legal requirements for remediation and
restoration after a .mine is officially abandoned. K&S will participate in u
P p
to three (3) teleconferences with County staff. Scope does not include
developing an inventory of existing or abandoned .nines. The update to the
CP policies and LDC to address mining permitting and reclamation
determined through this consultation will be on completed based upon
p
existing contract provisions and fees In Phase III and Phase IV.
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE of SERVICES -- EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and I elth and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16,2013
Consultants Fee for this task will be a lump sL[■ ....rr+irirr:Bray■ ■t+Rrirrr.. $7,r5004 00
Task 6 lump sum shall not exceed Seven thousand Five hundred dollars . ,500.00
and is not included in the Total Lump Sum Feefor Phase III total}
TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE FOR PHASE III..tgo* mosses iii.*wow off *move off off ***govoss000 221,779,00
Note: If further proceedings are necessary (erg., mediation, litigation), it is
anticipated that K&S will he available, pursuant to an amendment to this contract to
provide additional services.
Optional Services (not included in total)
Additional Public, Estaff will utilize the Mobile Information
Station (MIS) for additional events, at locations as selected her the County., Co obtain
feedback, encourage public participation and answer stakeholder questions.
Consultant's Lump Sum Fee for each evert shall riot exceed.rr rrRRrrraeeR.Rrr++arrr...r:+Rr$9 960.00
01ber-&etinaslH 1-as Coord'12ated: i&S staff (up to 2 persons
attendance at additional meetings/hearings before the Planning Commission LPA
or BOCC for all tasks included in this Phase.
Consultant's Lump Sum Fee each rri eeting1h earTin g shall not exceeds.. or r r pir r rr $3,760.00
is
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16,2013
PHASE IV - REVISED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, INCLUDING
AMENDMENTS REQUIRED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TASK I - PHASE lv KICKOFF
1.1 K&S Will meet With the project managers from the County to review Worm tasks
and project schedule, and establish expectations of Phase IV.
1.2 K&S will update the Public Involvement Plan (PIP).
'ask 1 Deliverables:
• Meeting agendas;
• Written meeting summary; and
• Updated PIP
Co S+-+4R ■tLiRri ts Lump Sum Feefor Phase IV Task 1 ■........ rm.I/ r l...rd. as a me. var. m. F#., e...s..$ 14,535. 0
TASK 2 - AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
.1 K&S shall prepare a report that Will include recommended revisions and
amendments to create LDCs based on existing code, Comprehensive Plan and
Florida law. The results of this analysis Will establish the focus for drafting
the new land development code. The draft Recommendations and revisions
Report (R&R. Report) shall be provided in electronic form to the County staff
for review and input. The final report shall incorporate the input received
during Task 2.2, below. K&S Will submit twenty (20) hard (1)
one co ies andp
digital file of the final R R Report for PC and BOCC reviewt
2.2 K&S Will conduct up to two (2) meetings With County staff to review and
provide input on the Recommendations and Revisions Report generated in
Task 2.1, above
2.3 K&S Will coordinate up to two (2) presentations before the Planning
a
Commission to obtain input on the issues and recommendations identified in
Task 2.1.
.4 K&S will coordinate one (1) presentation before the Board of County
Commissioners to obtain input on the issues and recommendations
identified in Task 2.1.
Task 2 Deli verable.
19
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16,2013
Meetings agendas, as necessary;
Meetings participation;
Presentation materials;
Comment Response Fora documenting comments and direction received
from County staff, the Planning Commission and the BOCC; and
Recommendations and Revisions Analysis Deport 0 copies and 2
electronic files).
ConsultantsLump um i ee for Phase IV Task ■.■era■■r■ ar..ra■a�rra.■■■r•ea■■■■�rY' �y5 'ice ,04r 00
TASK 3 - MEETINGS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
.1 For the duration of Phase ITT, K&S will participate in up to two mee
tings
per month (for up to a total of 14 meetings), either in person or via
telephone., with County staff to discuss the status of the project and to
p � solicit
comments and feedback. This subtask is an ongoing activity and is not
subject to the retainage clause in Section 4.2 of the Contract for Professional
Services between the County and ■.
3.2 K&S will participate in one (1) general public outreach event/program
during Phase Iv.
3.3 K&S will update the project website monthly, at a minimum. Progress
dress
reports shall include details of website updates completed eve month. This
i• i i
subtask s an ongoing activity and s not subject to the retains a clause i
Section 4.2 of the Contract for Professional Services between the County and
Task 3 Deliverables:
Meeting agendas;
Written meeting summaries;
Monthly progress reports;
General public outreach event; and
Project website update.
Consultants i ump SLAT+i Fee for
Phase IV Task3aa*hiss&■■sire .tt■tr.■■R■as..rfrarrrit ..rre 5 8 1•00
TASK 4 ; PREPARATION of DRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
20
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16,2013
4.1 Utilizing the results of the Tasks 2 and input gathered through th l� � � e
community involvement process and scoping and review meetings with
County staff, US will prepare amendments to the Coun {s LI)Cs. The
ty
regulations shall be reorganized to unify the various requirements and
consolidate subject matter into a user-friendly, simple to administer and
enforce, land development code that will implement the adopted
Comprehensive Plan; the EAR.; Chapter 380 and Chapter 16 , Fart iI F.S.•
and mule 28- o F.A. ., and conform with other applicable studies and plans.
4.2 During the drafting process, � will work closely with Count Staff th
. y t e
Planning Commission, the Development Review Committee(DRC),the BBC
the state land planning agency and other agencies as necessary, to assure
that the amendments are acceptable and to work
through issues prior to
g
submission to the County of the final amendments,,
4.3 K&S will coordinate three (3) presentations before the DRC to review and
discuss the draft amendments as noted in Task 4.1
4.4 Subsequent to the DISC meetings, US will coordinate one meetingwith the
DEo to review and discuss the draft amendments as noted in Task 4.1
Task 4 Deliverable
* Comment response Form documenting the comments received duringthe
D RC r
presentations and the state land planning agency Informal Review
a 20 copies and 1 digital file of the proposed LDC amendments.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee for Phase IV Task �. 90 � ,00
I.f+...tet■rrrt��..f.■•a■Ma.rart.I/.r.
TASK S -PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOCC HEARINGS/ INITIAL REVISIONS
5.1 K&S will present and provide an overview of the planning and regulatory
p g
documents prepared in Task 4 at up to three (3) public hearings of the PlanniJy�[
* F g Planning
Commission; solicit the comments of the Commission members; and develop a
. � � p list
of the concerns and suggestions provided at the meetings. will coordinate with
r th
the County regarding public notice of the meetings,
5.2 US will present and provide an overview of the planning and regulatory
p g g atory
documents prepared in Task 4 at up to three (3) public hearings of the Boar
p g d of
County Commissioners, solicit the comments of the Commission members;
. ,and,
develop a list of the concerns and suggestions provided at the meetings.
. g � will
coordinate with the County regarding public notice of the meetings,
21
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, R.A.
Amendment, January 16,2013
'ask 5 Deliverables:
s Meeting agendas, as necessary;
0 Presentation materials;
0 20 copies and 1 digital file of the proposed LDC amendments incorporating
direction received at the Planning Commission hearings during "ask 5. •
and
Comment Response Form documenting the comments received during
PC and BOCC presentations.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee or Phase IV Task 5......eaf/lFNor ...seam/l6i0a...ar....fMFie■ 18,328,00
TASK 6 as FINAL DRAFT ORDINANCES
6.1 Based on the comments provided in `task S, K&S will a final prepare draft of
the proposed LDC amendments,
'ask 6 Deliverable:
20 copies and 1 digital file of the proposed LDC amendments.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee or Phase If Task 6i/f......mop all l Nor was... of itilimow .a... be... L
TASK 7 as PUBLIC HEARING
7.1 K&S shall present the final land development code at a one (1) public hearing
before the Planning Commission and two (2) public hearings before the
Board of County Commissioners for adoption and enactment
'ask 7 Deliverables:
• Hearing participation;
• Presentation materials; and
Comment response Form documenting comments and direction receiv
ed
from the PC and the BOCC at the public hearings.
Consultants Lump Sum Fee forPhase IV Task ........P .a.*am ........ee
,664.00
'I'o'I'AL LUMP SUM FEE FOR PHASE iii i#*ev■ was ■e@ 040*4*... ■N* iii ***00 2661,554,00
Note: If further proceedings are necessary mediation liti ati� litigation), it is
anticipated that K&S will he available, pursuant to an amendment to this contract, to
provide additional services.
2
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
SCOPE OF SERVICES - EXHIBIT A
Monroe County and Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Amendment, January 16, 2013
Optional Services (not included in total)
A r' ' -Public t&eats* K&S staff will utilize the Mobile Information
Station (MIS) for additional everts, at locations as selected h the County
, , to obtain
feedback, encourage public participation and answer stakeholder questi
ons.
ins.
Consultant's Lump Sum Fee for each event shall not exceed............ � �t........... 6
Qlher eaC,.Qordinr l &S staff (up to 2 persons)
attendance at additional meetings/hearings before the Planning Comm Fission (LPA)
or BOCC for all tasks included in this Phase.
Consultant's Lump Sum Fee each meetinglhearing shall not exceed..,..,,...,.. $3,760.00
TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE......■4, see..o.eir ry■s.,s..sea ■rR fs, ■.■ ■.R Rose.+ti...sr L12%108.00
23
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Meeting
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Item Pw3
Consideration of settlement proposals in Monroe County v. Utility Board of
the City of Key West, dba Keys Energy Services, Case No.: CA-Kw12-549;
Roemmele-Putney, et al. v. Monroe County., et al., Case No.: 3D12-333,
Lower Tribunal Case No.: CA-K-11m342-& Reynolds v. Utility Bd, of the City
of KW, dba Keys Energy Services, PSC Docket No.: 120054-EM; An
Administrative Appeal by James D. Newton re: Property at 2047 Bahia
Shores Road, No Name Key, Planning Dept. File No.: 2012-096..
County Commissioner Danny Iohlage I: Can we have Christine come forward, because
I'd like to ask her a couple questions.
For the EAR process, our evaluations, are we required to do by law and are in the process of
omng now...
Can we have our consultants look at this in terms of....T'he question that Comnussioner
Carruthers has asked and that we've been talking about, in other words, has, has the county" s
adoption of the tier process ... has that eliminated or replaced the necessity of the whole CBRS
regulation?
Growth Management Division Director Christine Hurley (CH)} we can have them look at
that. Both tines that the evaluation and appraisal report was brought before the commission over
the past year, relative to the CBRS policies, we were told not to address that until the litigation is
over. But if you want us to put that back on the evaluation portion, urn, the EAR is done. I think
we could probably issue some type of addendum to that, or just do a separate analysis, to include,
as part of the comprehensive plan, amendments that are coming forward.
ILK: I mean, we have to go about it in a methodical way
H: Uh huh. t .
DK: The litigation is going to go on anyway, and yet we want to finish our evaluation process in
fourteen, right? is that fight?
H: Fight. Yes. Based on the direction, though, that we were given, we would have ignored
those policies.
DK: And we're not dictating to the consultant, what to come back to us with, in terms of the
evaluation, but we can at least have them look at it, as part of the process, can't we?
H: Yes.
County Mayor (GN): And why did you say we can't dictate?
D: we want them to review it, and tell us as part of the evaluation, so we're not going to
dictate the outcome of that, before they do it. They're going to look at it, and see, OK, here's
how it works.
N: So you're speaking specifically of the EAR. W. .
ICI* Yes, I'm talking about the EAR... which is the way we're going to have to amend the comp
plan.
Gib* well, if the, ghat I'm hearing is that now we're going to have to create an addendum to
what has been done. Is that correct.
H* Yes.
D: well how else are you going to come up with the information to change the policy?
GAT: Has the EAR been submitted? To DEO?
H: There's no longer a requirement in the statute for an official evaluation and appraisal report
like there used to be, as there was before last year. I think what Commissioner Kolhage is asking
is, can we ask the consultants to evaluate, and compare, the CBRS policies as they were
originally intended to discourage development, compared to the tier system and how it works
now,, to see if we still need to use the CBRS to discourage development, or if we have adequate
protections in place under the tier system. And that -
County Commissioner Heather Carruthers (HC): I'd also like to knew if extension of
utilities changes tier designations of any of these, and what the implications for us are if that
happens.
CH: And we can do that, with, even internal staff, show you what portions of that are relative to
full infrastructure.
DID: will this be going on while the litigation is going on, . +
H: o...
GAT: well, and, I would ask the question, of this commission, is, is there a majority who wish to
see "Prohibit"' removed from our land development regulations?
H : Is an alternative changing "discourage" to `'prohibit" in the comp plan?
H: Can I go get my notebook? Because I want to read something to you.
County Administrator Roman Gastesi (RG): And while she does that, I tank it's important}
you guys are really 'n a really interesting situation right now. And I think Commissioner
ohlage, you're right on. I think what you need is some kind of data., and some kind of study, to
be able to, what I mil, update, the comprehensive plan... And if you're going to update 'it if
you're going to take that discouragement and do whatever you want to do, I mean, times have
changed now. Yes, we have the tier system now, and we have Fish and wildlife saying `"it
doesn't matter guys", so, I think what you want to do is get some more data and backgrou nd-
N: Fish and wildlife did not say it does not matter.
RG: well, you know ghat I mean, I'm being flippant about it, it is six o'clock, but,. , 1 didn't
mean to be flippant about it. But, it's a different time of day, different times that we're living in,
and I think you want updated information, and, I think we can do that, but we ,just want to be
clear about ghat we ask our consultants as we move forward, so that's why she's being so
diligent.
DID: OIL. Can I ask one more question to the lawyer, relative to the litigation? The suit that we
have, versus Keys Energy, about the aerial easement,
B : Yes.
DID: I've been told that that whole issue is really diminimus. Is that right, or not`
B : when Christine, when she comes back she can give us more specifics as to the scope of it,
but my understanding is that it's relatively a small encroachment.
D : Then, how much money do we want to spend on that.?
B: I mean it's in house, so you're talking staff time.
DID; well t . .
B: I mean, which is money.
DID: Yeah. I know.
B * So, Christine, the question was, how much of an encroachment are we talking about, over
the county...
H: The aerial line?
B: Yeah,
D: Is it material, Christine?
H* OIL. You're asking me ... what question?
B: How much is the encroachment?
H: It's not a large encroachment.
B: I can't sit here and quantify it for you. I don't know if its six inches, six feet. And I was
hoping you had that information.
HQ Does it matter. Does size matter?
ILK: well, within the scope...
H: Gentlemen...,
B: To some. . t
DID: You know, I, we, we're involved in so much litigation here, do we really want to spend a
lot of money on something than I have received two answers here now, that say it's not really
material. whether staff s doing it or not, why do we have to complicate this issue more than, it
already is?
H : well, why is it not material? Is it not material because it's a little hit, or is it not
material... but, is it material because even that little bit has 'implications about...the extensions of
infrastructure... I don't know. I mean, I don't know.
GAT: It's never been an issue. I mean, once it's run or something to the left or right...
H : well, if that's the case, why don't they just stick another.. ,
DID; well, they might, they might do that after we've spent $250,000 to litigate it.
H .# well, how much have we spent on that well, according to the state not much.
GAT: Come on, let's...
H: OY, could I go back to answer the question that Mr. Kohlage...
DID: You were going to read us something.
H: Yes. It is troubling to planning staff that there is a conflict between the code and the comp
plan. Of course, no planners that have to render professional opinions can appreciate that. And,
policy # 10 .2.4 of the comprehensive plan, written before the prohibition, in the code, reads,
"Upon adoption of the comprehensive plan, Monroe County shall require that the following
analysis be undertaken prior to finalizing plans for the citing of any new public facilities, or the
significant expansion greater than 5% of existing public facilities. Colon, number one:
Assessment of needs. Dumber two: Evaluation of alternative site and design alternatives for the
selective sites. And number three: Assessment of impacts on surrounding land uses and natural
resources. The assessment of impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources will
evaluate the extent to which the proposed public facility involves public expenditures in the
coastal high hazard area and within envirom nentally sensitive areas. Including disturbed salt
marsh, buttonwoods, wetlands, undisturbed beach burn areas, units of coastal barrier resource
system, undisturbed uplands, particularly high quality hammocks and pinelands, habitats of
species considered to be threatened by the state and or federal governments, offshore islands in
conservation land protection areas. Monroe County shall require that public facilities to be
developed on the least environmentally sensitive lands, and shall prohibit the location of public
facilities on north Ivey Fargo, unless no feasible alternative exists, and such facilities are required
to protect the public health, safety, or welfare."
In the item that we had before you with Margaret Blank and the Key Largo wastewater
Treatment District, the staff' cannot even use this policy, because the code prohibits us from
allowing the extension to or through CBRS areas. Clearly, when the original policies were
developed in the comprehensive plan the vision was that you would conduct an analysis to make
a determination on whether or not it was better for the environment or not. And each one would
be considered on its own merit. But then the code went further reaching into the prohibition of
all of it. So-
HO So, OK...
* As part of what you're ... I'm sorry-
H: I'm sorry, my question was do they both have to be prohibit, do they both have to be
discourage? In other words, we don't want to change the comp plan to say prohibit?
H: But the comp plan already would let us analyze it if we didn't have the code that said
prohibit.
H: Exactly. So, o.
DID: So that, that lame. + . if we didn't have the prohibition.**
CH* In the code?
ICI: In the code. That language would allow the county to do that evaluation.
: That's accurate.
DID* Ok. So. so, that's the kind of thing I want you... I would like you and our consultant to
look at. Part of the EAR process is... Is our plan working` Does it need to be updated`
IBC} Apparently it's not working.
DID: So. come back with a recommendation. And that language could've the key to it. The only
issue then is, do we have CBRS areas that would not be affected, would not be covered by the
other environmental conditions that you just named.
H: Right. I understand that other part that you're aking. And I can"t answer today. So, is it
my understanding that the commission would like us to engage Keith and Schnars to assist us
with this, and bring that back as part of an analysis?
D} I ' d like to make that motion, Mr. Mayor, if I could.
IBC: Second.
I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Any opposition:
DID: And, Christine...
CH: Yes, I know what the motion waill he ..X 11 email it to her.
GAT: OIL. Any more action necessary.?
B: No. I mean if you're not going to accept the proposal, just not taking action is a dismissal
of the proposal.. .
GIST: You told us not to.
BS : Right. Now do you want us to negotiate a counter proposal? Is there a motion to? I would
require a motion to do that.
GIST} Do you feel that you can discuss a counter proposal that you could then offer us to either
vote up or down`
B: At this very moment? Or do you want me to go and see if I can negotiate something with
some specifics? what I would suggest, in a counter proposal, that, at most you do, is agree to
initiate the process to consider changes in the comp plan and the code.
GAT: I see what ... l see one comnussioner saying no, so I have to ask the rest of the
commission... Do we want Mr. Shillinger to address, or see if there are some things that can be
negotiated and bring back at the next commission meeting.? There's talk about a trial, . -19M not
trying to make either side happy here, I'm just trying to work in the most efficacious manor here.
To move things forward.
S: Is there an interest in exploring something like that?
GAT*# Orly question to you is, do you thinly you could bring something hale to this commission
that would interest at least the majority of the con fission? And I would think that you would
have to talk to Mr■ to determine that.
BS: Mr. Smith and Mr. Tobin and Mr. Hartsell and you know, I have to tally to everybody.
Right.
BS: But, I'm understanding that I have two commissioners that don't want to see a policy
change, two commissioners, that, in the end don't want to see the lines torn down.# or is there
three commissioners that don't want it?
ICI: well, what I ' m interested in is the motion we just passed
BS- OK. So, I could always negotiate and bring something back and attempt to get a position
on it.
1: I think it was prey clear, Bob, to me, that there is a maa ority of the commissioners want an
end to this.,
H : I thinly everybody wants an end to it. t . how it ends is the difference.
N: well, find an end for us to get this over with.
I_1111sl ��
H: Either way, we can get this over with. t .
DI : That's not going to happen.
N: Well'. it should happen on their dime, and not the county commission's dime.
BS: I will endeavor to that direction.
r
Of the twenty-two NNKPOA
members who paid a pro-rata share to KES, only SEVEN live on NNK. Of those,
FOUR bought after the 1996 highly publicized County Comprehensive Land Use Plan restricting utilities,
leaving only THREE NNK residents
expecting
commercial electric --- however, all three live in the CBRS area.
Sale Date
But...
Homestead
Eaken
not on tax roll
built 1988
NNK
Brown
4-1-1989
built 1991
NNK
Fletcher
6-1-1990
built 1994-1997
NNK
Newton
10-1-1988
built 1996-1997
MOVED 12-19-2012
Bakke
11-1-1997
NNK
Lenti n i
10-15-2001
N N K
Hochberg
10-24-2003
N N K
Vickrey
11-1-2006
NNK
Pichel
4-1-1986
vacant lot 2006
Medley, FL
only vacant lot on record
Bone
7-1-1990
Boynton Beach, FL
Coleman
7-1-1990
built 1991
Coconut Creek, FL
Morris
8-1-1989
built 1992
Pompano Beach, FL
Druckman-leanneret
3-1-1994
Switzerland
Ebner
7-1-1995
Broomfield, CO
Kamm
6-1-1994
built 1996
Oyster Bay, NY
Appignani (Louja Realty)
5-21-2004
Boynton Beach, FL
McCurdy (Marginella LLC)
8-18-2005
Fairland, IN
4 vacant lots/commercial
Reynolds
10-4-2005
Pinecrest, FL
Raser
3-30-2006
Pottstown, PA
Turkel
8-2-2007
Pinecrest, FL
Licht
12-1-2008
Boca Raton, FL
Phillipp
4-1-2010
plus 3 vacant lots
From: Kandy Kimble dceyfortwo@gmail.com>
Subject: The Travesty Allowed to Take Place on No Name Key
Date: January 8, 2013 3:14:00 PM EST
To: Danny Kolhage dcolhage-danny@monroecounty-fl.gov>
► 1 Attachment, 14.9 KB
Dear Commissioner Kolhage,
On the chance that you have not seen the attached 12/21 /2012 editorial in the News Barometer, we have attached it to this email. Please consider what
Mr. Estes is saying. It makes so much sense.
If the County "looks the other way" with regard to the work that was done on NNK illegally and is therefore willing to change its Comp Plan to
accommodate that work, then why wouldn't and other homeowner in the Keys go ahead and do something currently illegal on their property and then,
after the fact, either get it overlooked/permitted or ask to have the law changed to accommodate their illegal actions. They could simply cry, "But we've
already spent all this money ... feel sorry for us".
Logic dictates that any monies spent on an illegal project should be (as it always has been) totally irrelevant to any decision made by the County, any
court or other mandating agency. The members of the NNKPOA chose to spend their money before the proper approvals were obtained. They did so
willingly and at their own risk. They should not be rewarded. To do so will set a dangerous precedent.
In their own words, they were banking on just what is happening... that since it's in place, the powers that be will "back down and let it stay".
Also, please consider the following:
Of the 22 NNKPOA members, who are so certain that they need to have commercially generated electric, only seven live on NNK and four of those
purchased after the highly publicized 1996 Comp Plan change (see attached NNKPOA Homestead List). For the County to change a long-standing
and utterly necessary code under these circumstances would be a mistake. If the code is changed at all, the part which "discourages development should
rather "not allow" development.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Harold and Kandy Kimble
(full-time NNK residents)
1909 Bahia Shores Road
No Name Key, FL 33043
kevforlwo@amail.com
NNKPOA Ho ... ocx (14.9 KB)
NEWS
BAROMETER: OPINION
December 21, 2012
MONEY SHOULDN'T BE A THOUGHT
It seems as though there is always an unintended consequence attached to a statement made that at
first glance appears to carry a great deal of common sense.
Such is the case with a statement made by new District One County Commissioner Danny Kolhage at
last Wednesday's Board of County Commissioner's meeting.
The board was debating the issue of (commercial) electrification of No Name Key. That's a subject
that has consumed a lot of time and effort from a lot of people over the last 20 years, probably a lot
more time and effort than the tiny, remote island off the northeast shore of Big Pine Key warrants, with
its herd of endangered Key Deer and 43 homes.
So let us set the stage.
The BOCC was debating whether to move forward on attempting to approve a settlement of the
myriad of legal cases currently surrounding the electrification issue. The settlement offered by No
Name Key homeowners was an obvious non -starter, mostly because it required the BOCC to come to
a final conclusion to ignore or change its current prohibition against public utilities on the island for a
payoff of ending the legal disputes surrounding the power grid on island.
That grid is already there. Using a state statute that exempts utilities from county oversight in public
rights -of -way, and using funding supplied by 25 (22) of the 43 homeowners, Keys Energy Services put
up power poles and strung lines to service (half) the 43 homes. In doing so, the utility strung wires
across county -owned lots without benefit of an approved easement by the BOCC, and for its trouble
has now been hit with a civil trespass suit by the county.
But the 25 (22) residents of the island who desperately want power" put more than $600,000 in Keys
Energy's pocket to build that grid that at the moment goes nowhere. "Note: NNK has power. Most
of the homes there have all the modern electric appliances (TVs, A/C, microwave, dishwasher, etc.). If
anyone is lacking anything, it is at their own choosing. Speaking of "common sense," for far less
than their approximate $30K, they could have upgraded their solar systems, eliminated their
generators entirely and been 100% green--- oh, and not solicit a monthly utility bill.
The lines don't energize homes because the county has a valid ordinance on its books that prohibits
the extension of public utilities to or through areas designated as a federal Coastal Barrier Resource
System. No Name Key carries that designation for much of its acreage, and none of the grid would be
possible without going through a CBRS area somewhere along the way.
So the county is claiming it cannot legally issue building permits for the residents to hook into the lines.
And Kolhage says that common sense should prevail and because the poles and lines are
there, running within feet of some of the homes, and the residents put more than $600,000 out
of pocket to put those things where they are, the county should simply back down and give the
folks their permits If doing so wouldn't significantly cause other problems in other areas.
His common sense approach was that it seemed like a huge waste of money to deny permits with a
working grid already in place. And would be a huge waste of money to force the grid to be
removed. Note: This is exactly the reaction they expected and have stated that they knew the
"County would back down."
Commendable sentiments those.
Here come the potential unintended consequences.
Keys Energy put up the grid without county permission (also against their own attorney's advice,
against their advice to the NNKPOA and at the insistence of the NNKPOA who acknowledged
responsibility for any consequences). It had a right to do that in established rights -of -way, but it didn't
stay in those rights -of -way. That makes the grid potentially unlawful under county code and state
statute. Issuing permits without changing the prohibition would be an unlawful act under county code
and state statute.
Let's think for a moment about other areas of land use where the county cares not one iota about the
money invested by a property owner before the lawful nature of the action has been determined.
During the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, thousands of homeowners built enclosures under their
homes. Many of them were built without first obtaining the requisite approvals.
And regardless of the thousands of dollars those homeowners may have spent on constructing an
enclosure below base flood, even if just for storage and a rec room for the family, or a man cave, or
some other innocuous purpose, because those homeowners built without prior approval, the county
forced them to spend sometimes tens of thousands more to tear out those enclosures to bring the unit
into compliance with county code.
Multiply the number of times that scenario has played out, and the $600,000 spent for No Name Key's
power grid pales greatly in comparison. It is estimated that tearing out enclosures, often purchased
with the house by someone who didn't build it, has been a cottage industry in the Keys worth millions.
So where's the justice in that?
We have a group of people who often unknowingly bought something in existence, paying a hefty
price for it, too, with the intent to use it, only to be forced to get rid of the unlawful space at their own
expense.
And we have another group of homeowners who may have paid for a power grid that is potentially
unlawful, and were told by the county that they couldn't get the final hook up and (knowingly) went
ahead and spent the money anyway, and we want to reward them for that action by changing the
policy.
That leaves common sense out in the cold.
If how much one spends on an unlawful enterprise is a gauge for fairness, or how much one spends in
preparation for an act that can't be consummated is a checkpoint for making decisions, then the Keys
will be lost to the deep -pocketed sooner rather than later.
We would think that telling 4,000 people they must, at their own expense, rip out a unit that at one time
was probably lawful, just because they did it without the requisite permissions in place, or, in many
cases someone else did it without the requisite permissions in place accounts for a much larger
expenditure of taxpayer money than Kolhage is currently concerned about on No Name Key.
We like Kolhage. He will be a good commissioner. But this was not his finest hour.
The Solar Community of No Name Key
1934 No Name Drive
No Name Key, Florida 33043
~ N N N N N /V N N N N N N N N~ N~ N N~~ N N N N N N N~ N~ N
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting
January 16, 2013, Key West, Florida
Agenda Item H-4
Mayor Neugent and Fellow Monroe County Commissioners:
The original draft of our remarks cautioned the BOCC not to ask questions of Keith and
Schnars that are too narrow in scope ---that limiting the questions asked to the Tier System, as
this agenda item does, could be viewed as an attempt to dictate the outcome of the legislation
process. As Mr. Shillinger warned, the directives of this Board need to be structured to
ensure "no particular outcome because that would prove fatal to the [success of the
comprehensive plan amendment] process." It is imperative that the questions asked of Keith
and Schnars include all of the protections that are now offered by the existing CBRS language
in the Comp Plan, that they be comprehensive in nature and take into consideration the
location and density of future development, hurricane evacuation, the protection of
community character, aquatic and upland resources. Etc. Limiting the questions ask of Keith
and Schnars to the Tier System is a mistake. � e- d' ►'ee ��� K 5 h�`� � � (-�'
1'-e- ,,,t
ry) a}r L C o 1— VC 2 hQ r� S i J`-C� 1 S e� P � .
But, after hearing the oral arguments at the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami on
Monday, where the County's presentation was stellar, and learning that the USFWS is
interested in reviewing the letters they wrote to Keys Energy Services (KEYS) in 201o, we
decided to convey a more fundamental, and personal, message.
I have been a resident of Monroe County for over thirty years. I have spoken on many Keys -
wide issues. I would be saying the same thing I am about to say even if I did not live on No
Name Key and even if I was not President of The Solar Community of No Name Key.
I care about Monroe County. I care about the future of Monroe County. I care about the
reputation of Monroe County. I remember when we had a tarnished reputation for caving
into the pressures of those who ignored the laws. That was a long time ago and I thought
those days were over. Now, I am not so sure.
Your steadfast adherence to the Comprehensive Plan's protection of the 24 CBRS areas since
the Plan's adoption in 1996 is admirable. Monroe County triumphed with favorable rulings at
the local level in 1998 and 2012 and in Circuit Court in 2002. Currently you are actively
litigating this issue. And, right now, you are winning.
A small group of homeowners who want the rules changed to allow commercial power to be
extended to No Name Key pressured Keys Energy Services of Key West to break County law
and to ignore Monroe County's warnings precisely to get the County to back down, to reverse
its position, and to allow the extension of commercial power on No Name Key.
1�q
Backing down because Monroe County is sick and tired of this issue, or because it would be
wasteful to remove the poles and lines, are not valid reasons to reinforce illegal behavior.
Changing the rules to legitimize an illegal activity is a waste of all the time and money spent
by those who have not broken any rules. It is a waste of the money the County has been
forced to spend on legal fees, and, it is a waste of the money The Solar Community of No
Name Key has also been forced to spend on legal fees to protect the status quo ---our fully
permitted and functioning solar homes.
Backing down will make the County look foolish at best ... and corrupt at worse. Taking such
an action is a bad thing to do. The County should be proudly standing up to those who
blatantly and intentionally disregard the rules. That is what good government does. It
rewards those who follow the rules and punishes those who do not.
Please reconsider the direction this agenda item would take you. Please consider the
precedent it would set. Please delay amending the Comprehensive Plan or the County Code
until a court of law tells you that is the right thing to do.
There is no harm in waiting until you hear from the Court on this issue.
There is no downside to doing the right thing by upholding the laws.
Please do the right thing for all of the upstanding citizens of Monroe County who rely on you
to do so.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
at
Alicia Roemmele-Putney, Presiden