4.A. Proclamation for The Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) Constitution Week. (Teresa Heitmann, Mayor)

[13.H. Discussion Item related to Clarifying the Process of City Council’s Review of the Airport Utilization Plan and Site Plan Approval Process for the C4 Airport Commercial District by Implementing Resolution 2025-15651 Pursuant to its Section 6, Administration. (Gary Young, City Manager)]

MR. YOUNG THANK YOU, MAYOR. AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, THIS THIS ITEM HERE, AS YOU KNOW SINCE I TOOK OVER THAT THE UTILIZATION PLAN SITE PLAN AT THE AIRPORT WAS A SIGNIFICANT CONVERSATION.

AND THEN IT WAS DETERMINED THAT WHILE OUR WE, OUR RESOLUTIONS HAD UTILIZATION IN SITE PLAN IN THE DOCUMENT A SECOND REVIEW BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND OUR INTERNAL PROCESSES, AND THE COMP PLAN REVEALED THAT IT WAS IN STRICT COMPLIANCE OR IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN AS WRITTEN. SO THAT PUTS PUT A MISALIGNMENT BETWEEN OUR CODE AND THE COMP PLAN.

AND SO IT WAS SET OUT AT THAT TIME TO SAY OKAY, WHAT CAN WE DO.

AND AS YOU KNOW WHEN YOU YOU IN MAY THIS COUNCIL PASSED A RESOLUTION THAT TRIED TO SET THE TABLE FOR THAT TO HAVE A MORE DEFINED OR ROBUST UTILIZATION PLAN THAT COMPLIED WITH THE COMP PLAN AND THAT THE SITE PLAN REVIEW WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE THE THE COMP PLAN AS WELL. AND TO THAT END, IT DIRECTED STAFF AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF TO CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY MANAGER TO WORK TOWARDS ALIGNING THOSE TWO ITEMS, THE CODE AND THE COMP PLAN. SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ATTEMPTING TO DO.

NOW, THE PART OF IT IS, IF YOU'VE SEEN THE RED LINE VERSION NOW, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR IT NOT COMING OUT WITH THE ORIGINAL PACKET.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS GAUGE THERE'S A LOT OF PLACES WHERE THERE'S SO MUCH ADDED THAT IT'S KIND OF DIFFICULT TO READ THAT.

SO IT WAS IT WAS A GIVE AND TAKE. WHICH VERSION DO WE GIVE THEM BUT HAVE IT READY? SO WE SENT THAT OUT LAST NIGHT. I UNDERSTAND IT MAY BE A LITTLE WONKY WALKING THROUGH THIS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU KIND OF CONTEXTUALLY, I GOT YOU TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

NOW FROM THE STANDPOINT OF HOW DID WE GET HERE? OBVIOUSLY IT WAS ME AND MATTHEW WORKING WITH BRUCE, BRUCE AND ERICA.

HAD THEY, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I'LL SAY BRUCE AND ERICA DID A HEAVY AMOUNT OF THE LIFTING IN TERMS OF VERBIAGE.

[02:15:01]

AND THEN ME AND MATTHEW CAME IN, WE HAD OPPORTUNITIES TO DISCUSS.

AND AS THE AGM SAID, WE THEN MET WITH THE AIRPORT BECAUSE THE INTENT IS NOT TO IS TO GET SOMETHING THAT ALIGNS, THAT WE CAN HAVE A UTILIZATION PLAN THAT GIVES YOU MORE SPECIFICITY, THAT YOU CAN HAVE COMFORT ADOPTING, AND THAT SITE PLANS COME BACK TO YOU ON INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENTS OR REDEVELOPMENTS.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE WERE WORKING TOWARDS. SO WE GAVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY AND WE HEARD BACK FROM THEM.

WE HEARD SOME BACK. AND ANYONE HERE WHO CAN CORRECT ME, BUT WE HEARD SOME IMMEDIATE FEEDBACK.

THAT DOESN'T WORK. YOU KNOW, YOU UNDERSTAND WE HAVE FAA REGULATIONS.

AND SO THERE WERE SOME CONCESSIONS WE MADE AT THAT POINT EARLY ON.

AND THEN WE ALLOWED THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, WELL, GET BACK TO US IN WRITING TO CONFIRM IT.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE STAND TODAY. OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO HIT SOME HIGHLIGHTS AND THEN WE CAN LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL DOCUMENTS.

BUT I WANTED JUST TO KIND OF LET YOU KNOW. AND WHAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO IS BRING A RESOLUTION RED LINE AND SAY HERE IT IS.

WE WANTED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION. ARE WE ON THE RIGHT TRACK? DO WE AGREE? YOU KNOW, WE'RE STILL HOPEFULLY GOING TO HAVE MANY, YOU KNOW, WON'T SAY MANY MORE A COUPLE MORE MEETINGS WITH THE AIRPORT TO FINALIZE THESE THINGS AND WITH YOU. BUT TO GET THIS DONE SO WE CAN GET THE PROCESS ALIGNED WITH THE COMP PLAN AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THESE THINGS WITH THE SURETY THAT EVERYONE IS COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROCESS. SO WITH THAT, AND I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON THE UTILIZATION PLAN FIRST AND GO THROUGH A COUPLE HIGHLIGHTS ON THAT.

AND THEN AND THEN KIND OF TAKE A PAUSE THERE AND LET YOU KNOW WHERE, WHY WE LANDED, WHERE WE DID ON IT, AND THEN WE'LL KIND OF GO FROM THERE. SO FIRST THING IS 58 681.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS CLEAR IS THERE WASN'T DEFINITIONS DIDN'T ALWAYS ALIGN.

EVEN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S MEMO INDICATED THAT THERE WAS YOU KNOW, CERTAIN THINGS THAT WERE REFERRED TO AS AKA, ALSO KNOWN AS. SO WE TRIED TO GET THAT NOMENCLATURE DOWN BUT ALSO DEFINE IT.

AND SO SPECIFICALLY IN THIS, THE VERSION THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU, THE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN AND THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN, THE, THE N.R REQUESTED THAT WE UTILIZE KIND OF THE FAA AND THE STATE VERSION OF THE DEFINITION SO THAT IT DIDN'T GET CO-MINGLED WITH OTHER THINGS.

SO WE THOUGHT HAVING A DEFINITION SECTION WAS IMPORTANT.

AND FOR PURPOSES OF OF DISCUSSION, THERE WAS NO REASON TO ARGUE OVER OVER WHAT DEFINITION, JUST AS LONG AS WE KNEW GOING IN. SO WE ADOPTED THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE NAR AS TO THOSE DEFINITIONS ON THOSE TWO ITEMS. AND THEN THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN IS REALLY IT'S THE CITY'S ITEM.

SO WE WORKED ON THAT DEFINITION. AND THEY, THEY, THEY OPPOSE CERTAIN PARTS OF IT.

AND ONE IS THE WHERE IT SAYS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE.

AND YOU'LL HEAR THAT THEME A LITTLE BIT THROUGHOUT.

THIS IS WHEN WE USE THE PHRASE IT WAS ALREADY IN OUR UTILIZATION PLAN.

WE USED THE SAME PHRASE AND SAID, IT'S TOUGH TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AND SOMETHING THAT'S A TEN YEAR OUT WINDOW, AND THIS IS A MUCH SMALLER ONE WAS IT'S A NUANCED IN SOME REGARDS, BUT I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT FROM THE STANDPOINT.

BUT THE LANGUAGE HASN'T CHANGED FROM WHAT IT PRESENTLY SAYS IN OUR CODE.

AND THEN THE OTHER ONE WAS THE THE REPEATED THE EXISTING LANGUAGE OR THE SUBMISSION OF THE UTILIZATION PLAN.

SO IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IT HAD TO BE THE FIRST DRAFT.

WE SAID, WELL, YOU SHOULD, YOU KNOW, EVERY YEAR YOU LET US KNOW WHAT A UTILIZATION.

THEN WE WE AGREED KIND OF IN THE MEETING. WELL WE'LL DO IT EVERY TWO.

BUT THE LANGUAGE IT REALLY IT CAME DOWN TO TWO OR MORE FREQUENTLY AS MAY BE NEEDED.

BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE THE SPECIFICITY IN TWO YEARS IS SOMETIMES A SHORT WINDOW TO GET SOMETHING DONE.

SO WE CHANGED IT TO THREE YEARS. SO IT'S REQUIRED EVERY THREE YEARS OR MORE FREQUENTLY AS MAY BE REQUIRED.

SO SITE PLAN COMES UP AND THEY NEED IT DONE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE MOST RECENT UTILIZATION.

THEN THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. SO THAT'S THE OTHER PART. AND AGAIN WE CHANGED IT TO TO THE THREE YEARS.

AS LONG AS THE BACK END WAS THERE OR MORE FREQUENTLY AS MAY BE REQUIRED.

OKAY. SO THAT IS A CHANGE IN THAT WAS 58 682.

AND THEN AGAIN, 58 682 SAYS REQUIRES ALL FUTURE BE IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE UTILIZATION RATHER THAN STRICT COMPLIANCE. AND SO IT'S A PLAY ON WORDS.

WE'LL GET THROUGH THAT. BUT I DID WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT IS ANOTHER ITEM THAT THEY SAID. IT'S JUST THERE'S A NUANCE TO THEM THAT THEY BELIEVE BASED ON THE I GUESS THE EXACTNESS OF THE UTILIZATION AND JUST WANTED TO PLAY WITH THOSE WORDS STILL.

SO WE'RE STILL GOING BACK AND FORTH ON THAT A LITTLE BIT.

58 682 WHERE IT SAYS REQUIRES ALL FUTURE PROJECTS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT.

IT IS ACTUALLY. 4D IT SAID THAT THERE'S A COUPLE PLACES WHERE BUT THAT'S THAT'S ONE OF THEM WHERE IT SAYS SUBSTANTIALLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND APPROVED.

SO IT'S THAT NUANCE LANGUAGE. AND THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER ON 58 682 FIVE OR

[02:20:07]

C5H WHERE WE ADDED DECKS AND ASSOCIATED CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUND BECAUSE THEY'VE HAD ONE THERE, YOU KNOW, TO THE OUT TO THE FLIGHT DECK. AND THEN THEY HAD A CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUND THAT THEY'RE GOING TO REPLACE, AND IT WAS NEVER REALLY THERE. SO IT WAS THEY HAVE AN AIRPORT THEME TO IT, AND IT SEEMED RELATIVELY BENIGN TO THE, THE, THE AVIATION DECK. SO WE BELIEVED AND WE WANT WE ADDED THAT JUST FOR, YOU KNOW, TO, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THEM AT THEIR REQUEST AS WELL.

AND THEN LET'S SEE. WE SHOULD MAKE SURE MODIFIED TO ENSURE THEIR PROJECTS COMPLETE UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR PROJECTS WITH CITY APPROVAL, BUT NOT YET UNDERWAY. OR PROJECTS NOT IN THE CITY PIPELINE ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED ON THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN.

WE GO TO ELABORATE LENGTHS ON THERE TO KIND OF GIVE IT SOME SPECIFICITY IN HOW WE WANT THEM TO BE OUTLINED AS WELL.

AND CLARIFYING THAT IF YOU LOOK AT IT UNDER WHERE IT SAYS AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN.

THIS IS ALL NEW LANGUAGE SAYS WE'LL BE PRESENTED USING SCALE DRAWINGS WITH DIMENSIONS AND SHOWN AND CONFIRMED GEOSPATIAL POSITIONING TOOLS WITH ACCOMPANYING NARRATIVE AND CLEARLY CLEAR IDENTIFIERS. SO THAT'S THE OBJECTIVE IS TO GET THE CRITERIA THERE.

IT'S NOT SUBJECTIVE ANYMORE, BUT THAT THEY AGREED WITH WITH SOME OF AND IT WAS US IN THAT ROOM AND, YOU KNOW, THE FOUR OF US AND THREE OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES SAYING, WHAT'S THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE TO PUT HERE SO THAT YOU CAN GIVE US ENOUGH VALID INFORMATION THAT OUR COUNCIL FEELS THEY HAVE WHAT YOU'RE INTENDING TO TO TO BUILD ON THE UTILIZATION PLAN BEFORE YOU EVER GET TO THE SITE PLAN.

SO THEY, THEY WERE SOMEWHAT IN FAVOR OF THAT AND HAD NO OBJECTIONS.

AND THEN THE LAST THING WAS CLARIFY THAT THE UTILIZATION PLAN PETITIONS WILL BE PLACED ON THE NEXT REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA, BUT NO MORE THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE CITY MANAGER FINDS THE UTILIZATION PLAN INSUFFICIENT.

WE ORIGINALLY WROTE IT THAT IT'D BE 120 DAYS.

THEY ASKED FOR IT TO BE 90 DAYS, WHICH WAS FINE.

AND IT GIVES AGAIN, IT GOES WITH SUBSTANTIALLY UTILIZATION PLAN IS FOUND TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY SUFFICIENT BY THE CITY MANAGER.

SO IN THE EVENT THEY PUT IT FORWARD AND WE SAY, WELL, WAIT A MINUTE, THESE ARTICLES DON'T I DON'T THINK YOU'RE SPELLING IT OUT CORRECTLY.

IT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO SAY NO, WE NEED SOMETHING MORE ROBUST BEFORE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE IT TO COUNCIL.

AND THAT WAS THE THEORY BEHIND THE DISCUSSION.

SO WITH THAT, I'D RATHER STOP THERE. BEFORE WE GET TO THE SITE PLAN, I WOULD ASK ANY OF THE FOUR PEOPLE THAT SAT IN ON THE MEETING WITH ANY TO ADD ANYTHING FIRST, IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT I MISSED AND THEN ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE? THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FIRST? YOUR TALK FOR STAFF.

EITHER WAY, IT WAS. YEAH. GO AHEAD. MATTHEW, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED? NO, I THINK THAT'S THAT'S A GOOD SUMMARY. I MEAN, THE ONLY AND I THINK MR. YOUNG PREFACED THIS CONVERSATION VERY WELL AND ACCURATELY.

THIS IS REALLY A DISCUSSION FOR DIRECTION. WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW WILL LOOK SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.

THE LANGUAGE MAY NOT, BUT THE ORDINANCE WILL BECAUSE IT WILL HAVE TO BE AN ORDINANCE FORMAT WITH RECITALS.

AND JUST SO EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THE APPROVAL PROCESS, THIS IS AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

SO IT WILL HAVE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING BOARD FIRST, WHO WILL PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS AS YOUR LPA TO CITY COUNCIL.

AND AS WE GO THROUGH THIS DISCUSSION, I WOULD ALSO LIKE, BASED ON THE WILLINGNESS TO WORK TOGETHER FROM MR. ROZANSKI AND HIS TEAM SOME CONSENSUS AND DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL TO ACTUALLY HAVE THE NAR REVIEW THE ORDINANCES FIRST TO PROVIDE THEIR COMMENTS BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD DOES. BECAUSE IF WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER, THEN I THINK WE SHOULD ALL BE IN THIS TOGETHER.

AND I THINK WE IT WOULD JUST REALLY HELP THE PROCESS TO HAVE THEM, THE BOOTS ON THE GROUND, THE ONES THAT ARE DEALING WITH THE LEASES AND TENANTS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THE FINAL FORM BEFORE THE CITY DOES.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. MR.. I WOULD JUST YEAH, I THINK THAT'S ALL WONDERFUL AND CONSISTENT WITH US SAYING THIS WASN'T THIS IS THAT WASN'T THE FIRST MEETING WE NEED TO HAVE WITH THEM.

WE NEED TO HAVE MANY MORE. SO I'LL TAKE A AT THE END OF THIS.

I'D LIKE SOMEBODY TO MAKE A MOTION THAT REFLECTS THAT.

THE AIRPORT WILL REVIEW IT AND FEEDBACK ON EXACTLY WHAT THE ATTORNEY HAS JUST SAID, THAT THEY'RE IN AGREEANCE WITH THIS. I HAVE I KNOW SOMEBODY OVER HERE. CHRISMAN.

SO. SO STEPPING BACK FROM THIS BIG PICTURE THE WHAT YOU JUST REVIEWED MR.

[02:25:03]

YOUNG REALLY HAS TO DO WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE THE PROCESS FOR APPROVING THE UTILIZATION PLAN.

YES, SIR. AND MY INTENT WAS TO STOP HERE AND THEN GO TO THE SITE PLAN NEXT.

SO I DON'T WANT TO GET AHEAD AHEAD OF YOU, BUT I JUST JUST ONE QUESTION IS THAT IS THE IS THE OBJECTIVE HERE TO HAVE, IN EFFECT, A GOING FORWARD A TWO PART PROCESS WHEREBY EACH TIME THE AIRPORT DEVELOPS A NEW UTILIZATION PLAN, WHICH IS REALLY A COLLECTION AND AGGREGATION, A COLLECTION OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS, RIGHT, THAT THE UTILIZATION PLAN WOULD BE APPROVED THROUGH THE PROCESS SUGGESTED HERE OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO IT. BUT THEN WHAT WE WILL BE GETTING TO WITH THE SITE PLAN REVIEW WOULD BE THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL PROJECT WITHIN THE UTILIZATION PLAN WOULD THEN SUBSEQUENTLY, AS IT'S READY FOR DEVELOPMENT, HAVE TO COME THROUGH FOR A SITE PLAN, REVIEW PROCESS, APPROVAL PROCESS FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL PROJECT WITHIN THE UTILIZATION PLAN THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED OR IS SOMETHING ELSE ENVISIONED? NO, IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE AND WITH WHAT THE THE ATTORNEY'S OPINION WAS, WHICH IS THAT THAT THE SITE PLANS SHOULD COME BACK TO COUNCIL.

SO THIS IS ACHIEVING THAT. NOW, THE, THE THE REASON THAT WE WANT TO CODIFY IT IS BECAUSE IF THERE'S NOWHERE IT'S PRESENTLY SAYS WHAT IT SHOULD BE. SO SO I'M SORRY I SOMETIMES DO THIS MR..

SO THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES. AND WHEN WE GET TO THE SITE PLAN PART, IT'S TO PUT CERTAIN CRITERIA.

SO THIS COUNCIL ISN'T SEEING EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, AND HAVE A REASONABLENESS TEST TO THOSE THINGS THAT SHOULD NOT REQUIRE THAT.

SO THAT'S WHY WHEN WE GET TO THAT PIECE, IT'S NOT A SIMPLE YES ANSWER, BUT IT'S THE INTENT THAT THOSE THAT WE DEEM APPROPRIATE TO COME TO YOU.

BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THAT'S WHAT'S ENVISIONED WITH THE SITE PLAN.

YES, SIR. TO CREATE A PROCESS FOR COUNCIL REVIEW OF SOME, BUT PERHAPS NOT ALL PROJECTS INCLUDED IN THE UTILIZATION PLAN. THAT IS CORRECT. WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN A SECOND.

THE OTHER COMMENT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED, IS THAT I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THAT. THAT WE, WHATEVER WE END UP APPROVING, BE SOMETHING. ALTHOUGH THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A CITY APPROVAL.

RIGHT. WE'RE APPROVING PROVING ORDINANCES ULTIMATELY THAT APPLY TO US, BUT THAT THE, THE, THE THAT THAT THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY WOULD ALSO BE IN SOME SORT OF A FORMAL ACTION SUPPORTING AND ENDORSING THIS NEW PROCESS. I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THAT OCCUR, YOU KNOW, FOR ALL KINDS OF REASONS GOING FORWARD FROM THE STANDPOINT OF MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE TOGETHER.

I MEAN, THE THE OTHER YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE MANY CONVERSATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS AROUND THE NAPLES JET CENTER AND, YOU KNOW, CONCLUDED WHAT WE CONCLUDED AND AGREED THAT WE WERE GOING TO LOOK FORWARD IN TERMS OF IMPROVING THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD.

YOU KNOW, IT SEEMED TO ME THAT IT WAS, IT WAS AS MUCH TO THE BENEFIT OF THE AIRPORT THAT THIS OCCUR AS IT WAS TO THE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE AND THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE GOING TO BENEFIT FROM MORE CLARITY AND CERTAINTY IN TERMS OF HOW THE PROCESS WORKED.

AND AND, AND SO YOU KNOW, HOPE THEY THEY CONTINUE TO AGREE AND ULTIMATELY NOT JUST STAFF, BUT THEIR BOARD WOULD YOU KNOW, HAVE THEIR INPUT, BUT ULTIMATELY WE END UP WITH A PRODUCT THAT'S COMFORTABLE ON ALL SIDES FOR PEOPLE ON ALL SIDES. FINAL THING I'LL ASK NOW, AND YOU CAN ANSWER IT NOW, MR. MCCONNELL, OR YOU CAN ANSWER IT LATER IN THE DISCUSSION.

BUT YOU KNOW, ONCE AGAIN, WE ARE DEALING WITH A PIECE.

WE'RE DEALING WITH ORDINANCES THAT RUN RIGHT UP AGAINST CURRENTLY AND STILL SENATE BILL 250 AND SENATE BILL 180.

AND WE NEED TO YOU KNOW, HAVE HAVE THAT BE PART OF OUR DISCUSSION TODAY.

[02:30:07]

SO I AGREE ESPECIALLY AFTER THE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED AND, YOU KNOW, THE LATER DISCUSSION RELATED TO POTENTIALLY JOINING A LAWSUIT ON SB 180. SO WHEN I INITIALLY SAID THAT THESE WILL LOOK SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT, I THINK THE RECITALS MATTER.

I THINK THE PURPOSE AND POLICY BEHIND THIS MATTER.

BUT EVEN WHEN WE WERE PREPARING OUR OPINION LETTER AND WHEN WE WERE PREPARING THE RESOLUTION, THERE ARE SOME IMPORTANT, IMPORTANT THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND WHEN IT COMES TO THE APPLICABILITY OF OF BOTH 250 AND 180.

ONE OF THEM BEING THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS CITY PROPERTY AND THE NA IS IS A TENANT OF THAT PROPERTY.

BUT THERE WAS NO SITUATION IN WHICH I COULD SIT HERE AND GUARANTEE THAT WE WON'T BE SUED, AND THAT THESE ARGUMENTS WILL WORK IN COURT, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THAT WILL BE UP TO HOW GOOD WE ADVOCATE AND WHATEVER THE JUDGE DECIDES IS APPLICABLE OR NOT APPLICABLE.

AND WITH THE LACK OF CASE LAW ON SB 250 AND ESPECIALLY SB 180 SINCE IT WAS JUST IN ENABLED THERE'S NO WAY TO SAY THIS IS GOING TO BE GOOD OR NOT. IF WE GET SUED, IT'S GOING TO BE UP TO THE JUDGE AND THE COURT OF LAW TO MAKE A RULING ON WHETHER OR NOT THESE ARE MORE BURDENSOME OR RESTRICTIVE. BUT I DO FEEL COMFORTABLE BECAUSE I'M INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS AND I'LL BE INVOLVED IN DRAFTING THE ORDINANCES TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS UNIQUE WITH IT BEING OUR PROPERTY AND THEM BEING A TENANT WITH OUR OPINION LETTER ESSENTIALLY STATING THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED THIS WAY THE ENTIRE TIME, WE WERE SIMPLY CLARIFYING THAT.

SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF PROS IN THE ARGUMENT DEPARTMENT FOR THE CITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT'S JUST IN PURELY NARROW LEGAL TERMS ENOUGH OF AN ARGUMENT TO CARRY THE DAY.

I HAVE NO IDEA. BUT BUT IT GOES BACK TO WHAT I SAID A MOMENT AGO ABOUT GETTING ENGENDERING THE SUPPORT AND COLLABORATION OF THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, BECAUSE WHO IS LIKELY TO SUE US IF.

AND THAT WOULD BE SOMEONE WHO IS A TENANT OR A CUSTOMER OF THE AIRPORT, SOMEBODY WHO HAS OPERATIONS THERE AND, AND, YOU KNOW, FEELS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, OBJECTS TO THIS ON LEGAL GROUNDS OR JUST IN TERMS OF HOW IT MIGHT IMPACT THEIR OPERATION IN THE FUTURE. IF IF YOU HAVE AN AIRPORT AUTHORITY THAT HAS COLLABORATED IN THE FULLY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE ORDINANCES AND EMBRACED IT AS A BOARD IN APPROPRIATE FASHION FASHION THROUGH THROUGH BOARD ACTION. AS AS GOOD PUBLIC POLICY FOR THE CITY AND FOR THE COMMUNITY.

I THINK THAT JUST CREATES DOESN'T, DOESN'T PROTECT YOU ENTIRELY, BUT IT IT SENDS A MESSAGE.

IT SENDS A MESSAGE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ALL AGREE THAT WE NEED TO IMPROVE THIS PROCESS, MAKE IT BETTER, AND AND MAKE GOOD PUBLIC POLICY. AND THIS IS NOT SOMETHING BEING FORCED ON THE AIRPORT.

IT'S SOMETHING THE AIRPORT WELCOMES AND HAS PARTICIPATED IN.

SO THAT'S WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT FROM MY STANDPOINT.

SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO SHARE. MAYOR IS IT POSSIBLE I COULD JUST RESPOND TO SOMETHING THAT MR. CRISP? YES. MR.. SABLAN, JUST ONE POINT. THE AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVIDES FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW AT THE AIRPORT, BUT THERE'S NO BRIDGE TO GET THERE.

AND THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE UTILIZATION PLAN.

THE DOCUMENTS FROM MR. ROZANSKI REFERRED TO THE MASTER PLAN, AND THE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN ARE FAA GENERATED DOCUMENTS THAT SERVE THE FAA'S PURPOSES FOR SAFETY. OUR GOAL HERE WAS TO CREATE FOR YOU AN AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN THAT MEETS THE CITY'S NEEDS TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS A BRIDGE TO GET TO THE SITE, PLAN, REVIEW, AND THE WAY WE STRUCTURED IT AT THIS MOMENT, SUBJECT TO YOUR GUIDANCE, IS AS A GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT UTILIZATION PLAN WOULD NOT GO THROUGH THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD REVIEW, BUT THE SITE PLANS WOULD BECAUSE THOSE WOULD BE LEGAL ENTITLEMENTS.

SO THE WAY WE'VE SET IT UP IS THRESHOLD WITH THE CITY STAFF TO CERTIFY THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN AND THEN TO CITY COUNCIL SITE PLANS WILL GO THROUGH THE PAB. SO I JUST WANT TO AMPLIFY THE THE OVERALL CONCEPT WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO.

THANK YOU. AND I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR.

CHANGING THE WAY THAT THIS IS INTERPRETED FROM THE COMP PLAN TO THE CODES AND BRINGING THAT PROCESS INTO CLARITY IS WHAT WE'RE

[02:35:09]

DOING. SO I, A LAWSUIT ON 250 OR 180 THAT THIS IS MORE BURDENSOME OR RESTRICTIVE IS NON NEGOTIABLE IN MY OPINION. ANYBODY CAN SUE SOMEBODY FOR SOMETHING, BUT IT'S FRIVOLOUS AS FAR AS AND I'M CONCERNED.

YEAH. I, YOU KNOW ANYBODY CAN SUE ANYBODY. THAT'S THAT'S FOR SURE.

BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT HAVING, HAVING SOMETHING APPRECIATED WITH MR. CELL PHONE, SAID, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT IS BEING DEVELOPED.

YOU KNOW TO ENSURE INTERNAL CONSISTENCY WITH OUR PLANS AND CODES, BUT ALSO HAS THE ENGAGEMENT, INVOLVEMENT AND ENDORSEMENT OF THE NA.

I THINK JUST PROVIDES AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF NOT JUST INSPIRES CONFIDENCE AND CREDIBILITY IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT PROVIDES AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF PROTECTION SHOULD ANYONE SUE US.

AND THAT WAS REALLY THE POINT I WAS MAKING. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF. MR. SULLIVAN, CAN YOU GO THROUGH THAT APPROVAL PROCESS ONE MORE TIME? WHAT WHAT DOES PBC AND WHAT DO THEY DO? ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT THEY DO NOT SEE BECAUSE THEY'VE CAUGHT A LOT OF THINGS THAT THEN GO THROUGH STAFF AND GET APPROVED. SO, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE PEOPLE ON PAB ARE MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY.

THEY LIVE IN OUR CITY. AND THEY YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOT GREAT BACKGROUND.

OBVIOUSLY, I WANT, YOU KNOW, I WANT THE PAB TO SEE AS OUR ADVISORY BOARD AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

SO WHAT WHAT ARE THE PIECES THAT DO NOT GO THROUGH THERE? JUST. I TRIED TO GET MISS MARTIN TO ANSWER, BUT SHE DECLINED.

SO THE THE THE THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN, WHICH IS NOW BEING PLACED IN THE CODE, AS MR. YOUNG SAID, IS NOT CURRENTLY MENTIONED IN THE CODE.

IT'S MENTIONED IN THE COMP PLAN. IS THE BRIDGE TO GET TO THE SITE PLAN REVIEW.

THE SITE PLAN REVIEW IS THE LEGAL ENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE DOCUMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW THE INDIVIDUAL PETITIONERS TO APPLY FOR BUILDING PERMITS AND GET THEM APPROVED. THE SITE PLAN REVIEW WOULD BE A SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE AIRPORT PROPERTIES THAT WOULD GO THROUGH THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.

THE VERSION OF THE DOCUMENTS YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU NOW HAVE THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN, WHICH IS SPECIFIED HERE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF COUNCIL SO THAT YOU'LL HAVE A CONTEXT WHEN YOU SEE THE SITE PLANS IS INTENDED TO BE REVIEWED INITIALLY BY STAFF, THE CITY MANAGER, FOR CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU ULTIMATELY AGREED TO THAT MATTHEW PUTS TOGETHER. AND THEN THAT COMES DIRECTLY TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW, APPROVAL OR MODIFICATION, AND THAT BECOMES THE APPROVED UTILIZATION PLAN.

AS MR. YOUNG WILL TELL YOU IN A MINUTE. ALL THE SITE PLANS HAVE TO CONFORM TO THE UTILIZATION PLAN, BUT BECAUSE THE UTILIZATION PLAN COMES FROM A GOVERNMENT ENTITY, THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, TO A GOVERNMENT ENTITY, THE COUNCIL, IN THIS VERSION, WE DIDN'T ASK FOR THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD'S OPINION ABOUT WHAT THEY THOUGHT OF THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN SINCE THIS WAS BEING CREATED TO MEET YOUR NEEDS AS AS THE MAYOR SAID, SO THAT WE ARE CLARIFYING THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMP PLAN ARE ACTUALLY CODIFIED INTO A SITE PLAN. SO THE UTILIZATION PLAN IS A BRIDGE DOCUMENT.

AND TO TO PUT A FINER POINT ON THAT IS THAT UTILIZATION PLAN WILL ACCOMPANY THE SITE PLAN THAT THE PAB WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS TO HAVE OPINED BOTH AT THE UTILIZATION PLAN, THE SITE PLAN IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN COMPLIANCE OR WHATEVER THE EXACT WORDING WE COME UP WITH, BUT THEY'LL STILL SEE IT BEFORE ANYTHING GETS DONE ON IT.

THEY JUST WON'T SEE IT TWICE AND THEY DON'T SEE IT TWICE.

NOW THEY'LL SEE IT AT THE SITE LEVEL TO SAY WAS IT APPROPRIATELY DEPICTED AND IS IT APPROPRIATELY? SHOULD IT BE REFERRED TO COUNSEL FOR THE SITE PLAN FOR YOUR FINAL APPROVAL, BUT TO HAVE PAB ON BOTH LEVELS WHEN THEY SAW IT ONE TIME BEFORE, THE MOST MEANINGFUL TIME FOR PAB WAS, AT LEAST FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WAS AT THE SITE PLAN CONSISTENT WITH THE NORMAL SITE PLAN, WHICH IS, SAY, PAB AND THEN COUNCIL. THAT WAS WHY WE LEFT IT ON THE THE THAT ONE AND HAD THE GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT WITH PUTTING IN THE CRITERIA OF THE NEW EXPANDED, YOU KNOW, GEOSPATIAL POSITIONING AND ALL THE OTHER ATTRIBUTES TO IT SHOULD BE ENOUGH FOR

[02:40:06]

COUNCIL TO OPINE ON THAT PART OF IT. SO THAT WAS KIND OF OUR THOUGHT.

I MEAN, YOU CAN ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, AS A COUNCIL, DISAGREE AND SAY WE THINK THEY BOTH SHOULD GO TO PAB.

I'LL DEFER THAT TO YOU. BUT WE WERE TRYING TO NOT MAKE IT MORE BURDENSOME ON, ON THE AIRPORT, BUT ALSO BUT A FINER POINT ON IT. BRING PAB IN.

WHEN WE GOT TO THE POINT WHERE WE KNEW IT WAS A PROJECT.

NOW YOU SEE IT BEFORE IT GOES TO COUNCIL. SO THAT WAS THE THOUGHT PROCESS.

OKAY. WHEN WHEN YOU KNOW, THIS RASH OF OF DEVELOPMENT THAT IS, IS CURRENTLY GOING ON AT THE AIRPORT THAT WE DISCUSSED A FEW MEETINGS AGO, I BELIEVE YOU, YOU WHEN YOU WERE ON PAB MR. CELLPHONE, AS WELL AS MR. CROSS WHEN HE WAS BROUGHT UP, SOME VERY GOOD POINTS THAT THAT WERE FLAGGED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HANGARS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF HANGARS.

AND THERE WAS SPECIFICITY SAYING NO NEW HANGARS, AND THERE WAS SOME FOIA REQUESTS WITH PEOPLE SAYING, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE THAT WERE ON IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SAYING, YOU KNOW, I DON'T I DON'T THINK THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL DIDN'T WANT HANGARS. AND THEN WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THEY'RE ADDING HANGARS.

SO WOULD IT BE CAUGHT IN WITH ONE LOOK WITHIN PAB? I WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, WOULD YOU. WELL, I THINK IF I CAN COUNCILMAN PETRA, I THINK WHAT, WHAT I'D RATHER DO IS LET'S HAVE. MR. YOUNG HASN'T PRESENTED FORMALLY THE SITE PLAN CHANGES YET.

I WOULD JUST SAY TO YOU, I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR THE ABBEY.

IT WAS AN HONOR TO SERVE ON IT. IF I WAS LOOKING AT A UTILIZATION PLAN, I WOULD BE LOATH TO SAY MUCH ABOUT RECOMMENDING TO COUNCIL WHAT I THOUGHT THE AIRPORT WAS SAYING IN RESPONSE TO WHAT YOU WANTED, BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE THE COUNCIL'S PREROGATIVE.

AND THAT WAS MY THINKING. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE ABBEY WOULD ADD TO THE UTILIZATION PLAN.

AS MR. YOUNG SAID, WHEN THE PARK IS A SITE PLAN FOR A NEW HANGAR DEVELOPMENT OR A NEW HANGAR REDEVELOPMENT THAT TRIPS THE SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS, THEY WILL HAVE THE UTILIZATION PLAN. BECAUSE WE'RE NOW REQUIRING THE AIRPORT PETITIONERS TO INDICATE SPECIFICALLY WHICH UTILIZATION PLAN THIS PROJECT WAS COMES UNDER. SO THEN THEY'LL BE ABLE TO GO BACK AND MEASURE WHETHER THE SITE PLAN MEETS THE CRITERIA OF THE UTILIZATION PLAN BEFORE THEY GET TO THE SITE PLAN. AND I'M SORRY THAT, I MEAN, WE DECIDED TO DO IT SEQUENTIALLY, BUT THE SITE PLAN IS WHERE THE MEAT IS.

BUT THE UTILIZATION PLAN IS IS THE AMUSE BOUCHE YOU NEED TO GET TO BEFORE YOU CAN GET TO THE TO THE SITE PLAN REVIEW.

THAT'S WHERE WE WERE. ALL RIGHT. I HOPE THAT WAS HELPFUL.

YES. THANK YOU. I NEED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING. I HEAR YOU SAY THAT THE UTILIZATION PLAN IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE CODE, BUT IT IS MENTIONED IN THE CODE UNDER 4633 A.

IT MENTIONS A UTILIZATION PLAN. BUT IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT IT IS.

YEAH, IT DOESN'T DEFINE IT. OKAY. I JUST. OKAY.

I'M SORRY. YOU'RE RIGHT. MAYOR THE WHEN YOU WHEN YOU SEARCH.

WHEN YOU SEARCH THE CODE FOR AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN, NOTHING COMES UP.

THEY MENTION THE UTILIZATION PLAN, BUT THEY DON'T SAY WHAT THE UTILIZATION PLAN IS.

AND ON THAT BASIS, AND I DON'T WANT TO CAST ASPERSIONS ON THAT BASIS.

YOU'VE HEARD THE NEA COME IN FRONT OF YOU AND SAY, WELL, THEREFORE YOU'VE ALREADY APPROVED SOMETHING BECAUSE IT WAS MENTIONED IN THIS.

SO WE'RE WE'RE TRYING TO CLOSE THAT GAP. SO THIS AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN IN FRONT OF YOU IS POSITIVELY NOT IN THE CODE.

BUT YES, THERE WAS A MENTION OF A UTILIZATION PLAN.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY. I APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOES SAY THAT.

NAPLES CODE OF ORDINANCES, SECTION 4633 A ESTABLISHES THE INTENT OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH IS TO REVIEW NEW MULTIPLE FAMILY NONRESIDENTIAL PROJECTS AND CITY BUILDING CODES.

LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND REGULATIONS FOR SUBMISSION FOR ZONING PETITIONS.

AND IT INCLUDES THE C FOR ZONING. CORRECT.

ERICA. YES, BUT THE SITE PLAN REVIEW. YES IT DOES.

I THINK THE DISTINCTION IS THEY HADN'T PREVIOUSLY BEEN BROUGHT TO COUNCIL BECAUSE IN THAT SITE PLAN SECTION, WHICH IS WHERE THIS IS ADDRESSED, WHICH IS THE PROCESS THAT WAS IDENTIFIED, THE ONLY SITE PLANS THAT GO TO CITY COUNCIL AND CITY COUNCIL ARE IN A PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

OKAY. I JUST THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO CLARIFY FOR YOU TODAY.

WHAT IS THE ACTUAL PROCESS? SO JUST TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE I THINK THE MAYOR'S QUESTION AND I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS NO,

[02:45:06]

IS DOES 4633 A IN OUR CODE CURRENTLY LIST C4 OR UTILIZATION PLAN? IT DOESN'T LIST THAT SPECIFICALLY. NO. CORRECT.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. MAYOR, IS IT IN APPENDIX A OR BECAUSE IT SAYS WHEN I JUST GOOGLED IT THAT THE CITY OF NAPLES CODE OF ORDINANCES OUTLINES THE UTILIZATION PLAN FOR THE C4 TO C4 AIRPORT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, WHICH COVERS THE NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. THE REGULATIONS MANDATE AN OVERALL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE AIRPORT.

PROPERTIES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION OR LAND USE CHANGES CAN OCCUR.

SO IT'S NOT MENTIONED IN 4633, WHICH IS THE SITE PLAN SECTION OF YOUR CODE, BUT IT'S LISTED IT'S MENTIONED IN THE SIF IN CHAPTER 58, WHICH IS ZONING AND PROVIDES REGULATIONS FOR EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL ZONING DISTRICTS.

IT'S LISTED IN THE C4 SECTION. SO THE SITE PLAN PROCESS DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE IT IS IN THE CODE, BUT IT IS PROVIDED IN THE C4 DISTRICTS. THAT BUT IT AGAIN IS NOT DEFINED.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. THANK YOU.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WE'RE STRIVING FOR. OKAY.

THANK YOU. YES. VICE MAYOR. YEAH. JUST FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU BOTH FOR THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE ON THIS AND FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY AND PROBABLY MR. YOUNG AS WELL. WHEN I LOOK AT THIS AND JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M LEVEL SET, WE'VE GOT THE DEFINITIONS IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW, AND THEN WE HAVE SECTION 4633 A THE SITE PLAN REVIEW.

HAVE WE TOUCHED ON THE SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR DISCUSSION YET? NO, NOT TO COME. YES. RIGHT. SO I'M RESTRICTING MY COMMENTS TO THE DEFINITIONS.

AND FIRST I WANT TO SAY THAT IN MANY UP HERE WHO'VE DEALT WITH THESE MATTERS THEY PROBABLY SEE, LIKE I DO, THAT THIS IS A HUGE IMPROVEMENT JUST THROUGH THE DEFINITION.

MAN, THAT'S IT'S SUCH A BIG A BIG IMPROVEMENT.

IT'S AND IT SHOWS FOR ME IT SHOWS A COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND THE NA.

BUT THIS IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF NAPLES RESIDENTS AND THE NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT.

THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M THINKING IS GOING ON HERE.

AND AGAIN, I SAID IT'S A HUGE IMPROVEMENT COMPARED TO WHAT THE CITY WAS USING AS OFFICIAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND MORE SPECIFICALLY THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN. NOW, THE ONLY COMMENT I'LL MAKE, AND THIS IS OVERREACHING, BUT IT INCLUDES THESE DEFINITIONS. AND MY ASK IS THAT THE FIRST TIME A UTILIZATION PLAN IS BROUGHT FORWARD ADHERING TO THESE DEFINITIONS? RIGHT. THERE'S GOING TO BE A TIME WHEN A DOCUMENT COMES FORWARD AND IT ADHERES TO WHAT WE READ IN THESE DEFINITIONS.

BUT THE FIRST TIME THAT HAPPENS, THAT INCLUDES THE SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH WE HAVEN'T COVERED YET, COMPLYING THE ADHERING TO THE DEFINITIONS AND COMPLYING WITH A SUBSEQUENT ORDINANCE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE YET, BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE A TIME COMING WHEN THAT FIRST UTILIZATION PLAN WE NEED TO IT'LL BE, IN MY OPINION, IT WILL BE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO VERIFY THE DETAILS ASSOCIATED WITH ALL THE ELEMENTS I JUST DESCRIBED.

IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE CASTING NOW. WE'RE BEING VERY DEFINITIVE IN THROWING OUT THIS NET TO WITH VERY CLEAR DEFINITIONS. SO WHATEVER MAKES IT ON TO THE UTILIZATION PLAN, ADHERING TO ALL THIS, WE MUST BE APPROPRIATE. AND I WANT TO. ONE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS UNDER THE DEFINITIONS OF THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN ITEM TWO, ALL PROJECTS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE CITY OF NAPLES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN BEGUN CONSTRUCTION.

THAT'S JUST THE FIRST SENTENCE. AND IT TALKS ABOUT PROJECTS THAT ARE IN 0 TO 5 YEARS OR FIVE YEARS PLUS.

SO THIS IS WHERE WE FINALLY, THROUGH A UTILIZATION PLAN, WILL HAVE, I THINK, ONE PLACE TO IDENTIFY ALL THESE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND EVEN GOES.

IT DOESN'T SAY HOW LONG FIVE YEARS PLUS GOES, BUT IT, IT IT CAPTURES IT IN THE NET THAT WE'RE THROWING OUT BY USING THESE

[02:50:05]

NEW AND IMPROVED DEFINITIONS. AND I JUST DEEPLY APPRECIATE THAT.

AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT NOT JUST THE CITY OF NAPLES, BUT THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND COMPLIANCE WITH SB 250 AND I THINK 180 AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

I COME FROM OKLAHOMA ORIGINALLY, AND THERE WAS A GUY NAMED WILL ROGERS WHO CAME FROM OKLAHOMA, AND HE SAID, YOU KNOW, I DON'T MAKE JOKES. I JUST WATCH THE GOVERNMENT AND REPORT THE FACTS.

AND SOMETIMES YOU JUST CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP.

YOU JUST YOU LIVE AMONG IT AND YOU'RE LIVING WHILE IT'S HAPPENING.

BUT I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT'S GONE ON IN DEVELOPING THIS.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER, JUST REAL QUICK, I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THIS AND THAT AND AMPLIFY WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE FRAMEWORK, THAT ORIGINAL DOCUMENTATION, THAT UTILIZATION PLAN, WHICH WE THOUGHT WAS GOOFY AND LOOKED LIKE CLIP ART AND ALL THAT, THAT WE NEED TO AMPLIFY THAT, THAT FRAMEWORK, THAT SCAFFOLDING WAS PROVIDED BY THE FAA AND THAT WAS BETWEEN THE FAA AND THE AIRPORT.

AND SO I THINK THAT. HOPEFULLY AMELIORATES SOME OF THE HARD FEELINGS, TENSION WHATEVER TOWARDS THE AIRPORT WHEN THAT. THE WHOLE INTENT WAS THAT WAS NEVER TO BE IN FRONT OF THIS BODY, BUT IT WAS BETWEEN THEM AND THE FAA. AND I THINK THAT'S.

THANK YOU FOR AMPLIFYING THAT. WELL, YOU'RE LOOKING AT ME, BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

ERICA AND THE CITY MANAGERS SPENT A LOT OF TIME THINKING THIS THROUGH.

HE'S. AS SOMEONE SAID, HE'S A CLEAR THINKER. HE SAW THIS PRETTY CLEARLY.

YEAH, WELL, THANKS FOR DOING THE TALKING. YES.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DEFINITIONS THAT ARE CODE AND THAT THE COMP PLAN MENTIONED MENTIONED A MASTER, AN AIRPORT MASTER PLAN.

AND WE'RE CHANGING SOME OF THIS TO BE CONSISTENT SO THAT WHEN WE APPROVE THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND AS A COUNCIL AND THE UTILIZATION PLAN, THAT THOSE ARE OUR DOCUMENTS THAT THE CODE CURRENTLY SAYS WE APPROVE.

AND THEN THERE'S A. MR.. MCCONNELL AND THEN THAT THERE IS A AIRPORT MASTER PLAN DEFINITION, WHICH IS THE DOCUMENT THAT GOES TO THE FAA.

CORRECT? CORRECT. THE LATTER PART IS CORRECT.

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN IS AN FAA DOCUMENT ALONG WITH FDOT.

AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN IS STRICTLY AN FAA DOCUMENT.

AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN IS STRICTLY A CITY DOCUMENT.

SO THE CITY COUNCIL, TO YOUR FIRST POINT, MAYOR, I DON'T THINK THIS IS DRAFTED TO WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THE MASTER PLAN BECAUSE THE MASTER PLAN IS APPROVED BY FDOT AND FAA. I NEED CLARIFICATION ON THAT BECAUSE TO MY UNDERSTANDING, WE APPROVE A MASTER PLAN BECAUSE THAT IS THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IN THE CODE SAYS SHOULD ONLY BE 40% LOT COVERAGE.

AND THEN THERE'S A SEPARATE MASTER PLAN, AIRPORT MASTER PLAN THAT GOES TO THE FAA.

MR. YOUNG, I'M SORRY. I THINK. SO YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING OF WHERE IT'S REFERRED TO IN THE COMP PLAN AS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS THE. WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET.

YOU'RE CLEARING THAT UP BECAUSE. YEAH, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE OUT THE FACT THAT THEY PRESENT A MASTER PLAN TO US.

YEAH, RIGHT. BUT AS WAS ARTICULATED IN THE EARLIER PRESENTATION, IS THE MASTER PLAN ITSELF IS PRESENTED TO YOU, BUT NOT ADOPTED BY YOU. THERE WAS THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITHIN THE COMP PLAN.

AND IN CERTAIN LANGUAGES HERE THAT IS BEEN SYNONYMOUS WITH OR ACCUSED AS THE UTILIZATION PLAN AND WHY.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WE PUT THE DEFINITIONS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE TWO, WHICH WERE THE FAA TITLED OR LABELED PLANS, AND THEN WHERE OURS OVERLAPPED. AND THERE WAS A, AGAIN, YOU HAVE THE MASTER AIRPORT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND UTILIZATION PLAN BEING SYNONYMOUS AT TIMES, BUT BEING VOID AT TIMES IN CLARITY AS TO WHAT THEY WERE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT BEING VOIDED BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING THEY'RE THE SAME.

NOW THAT THERE STILL IS A MASTER PLAN. I'LL LET ERICA.

SHE KNOWS THERE IS. SO THERE THEY ARE, TWO SEPARATE THINGS, I THINGS.

[02:55:01]

I THINK WHERE THIS IS, THE CONFUSION COMES IN AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO CLARIFY.

SO THE WAY IT'S WORDED IN THAT 58 682, WHICH IS THE C-4 DISTRICT WHERE IT LAYS OUT THIS PROCESS, SAYS, PROVIDED THAT AN OVERALL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ALL AIRPORT PROPERTIES IS FIRST SUBMITTED TO THE CITY PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION AND IS THEN APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. BUT IT REFERS TO CHAPTER 46.

THAT'S THE UTILIZATION PLAN. SO THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT TERM MASTER PLAN IS USED THROUGHOUT THE COMP PLAN AND THE CODE TO BE APPLIED INTO A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS. THIS IS THE UTILIZATION PLAN.

SO THE UTILIZATION PLAN IS THE DOCUMENT THAT WE'VE WE'VE CLARIFIED HERE THAT WILL BE THAT SHOWS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE ZONING MAP FOR THE AIRPORT.

THAT'S THE UTILIZATION PLAN UNFORTUNATELY REFERRED TO HERE AS THE OVERALL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT IS SEPARATE AND APART FROM WHAT IS THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN.

THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN IS PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL, BUT IT ISN'T APPROVED TO YOU THAT WE HAVEN'T APPROVED A MASTER PLAN FOR THE AIRPORT.

I WAS JUST LOOKING TO SEE WHEN THE LAST TIME WAS.

THEY PROVIDED A DRAFT OF A MASTER PLAN UPDATE IN 2021.

NOT SPECIFICALLY FOR COUNCIL'S APPROVAL. THEY PROVIDED THE DRAFT.

I THINK BEFORE IT EVER GOT TO CITY COUNCIL, IT WAS PULLED BECAUSE THEY HAD JUST INITIATED THE NOISE STUDY.

AND SO THEY WANTED TO INCORPORATE ALL OF THAT AND COME BACK LATER.

SO THAT MASTER PLAN UPDATE IN 2021 WAS NEVER ACTUALLY BROUGHT TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

SO WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT THE LAST TIME CITY COUNCIL LOOKED AT A MASTER PLAN.

I CAN FIND OUT THE DATE, BUT THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE DOCUMENTS.

SO THE MASTER PLAN LOOKS AT AND I WOULD LEAVE THIS UP TO THE AIRPORT EXPERTS TO TELL YOU MORE ABOUT THIS, BUT THAT'S LOOKING AT STUFF WAY BEYOND ESSENTIALLY THE ZONING.

SO THAT'S NOT JUST DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S ALL SORTS OF FACTORS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT IN THE MASTER PLAN.

AND THAT IS THAT THAT IS THROUGH THE FAA. RIGHT.

SO WE THERE WILL STILL BE A MASTER PLAN AT THE AIRPORT, BUT IT IS NOT GOING TO BE THE DOCUMENT THAT IS BROUGHT TO YOU EVERY FIVE YEARS TO REFLECT WHAT HAS BEEN BUILT, WHAT MAY BE BUILT AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

OKAY, THAT'S THAT'S WHERE MY CLARIFICATION IS.

I JUST DON'T WANT THESE TERMINOLOGIES TO GO AWAY BECAUSE AND IF YOU CAN GET BACK TO ME ON THE LAST TIME THAT A MASTER PLAN WAS ACTUALLY APPROVED BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT RIGHT NOW UNLESS.

OKAY, CAN I MAKE A COMMENT ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID? YES. SO THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO RELY ON DEFINITIONS, RIGHT? SO THAT WE'RE VERY CLEAR. AND JUST IN THIS DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE MAYOR AND AND ERICA, THE TERMS USED WERE UTILIZATION PLAN, AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

OKAY. SO NOW I GO TO THE DEFINITIONS AND IT HAS AN AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN.

IT HAS AN AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND IT HAS AN AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN.

I DON'T SEE A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AND WHAT THAT MEANS AND WHO HAS AUTHORITY ON IT.

BUT WHAT I DO SEE IS THIS. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN A DOCUMENT PREPARED BY THE NAA IN WHICH IT CONFIRMS IT, IN WHICH IT CONFIRMS, I THINK WE MEANT CONFORMS OR IS IT CONFIRMED? EXCUSE ME. I INTEND TO CONFIRM. IT'S CONFIRMS. YEAH, BUT. OKAY. PLEASE FINISH. YEAH. AND WHICH IT CONFIRMS IS IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN AND SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

SO IT SAYS AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

ARE WE ACCURATE WITH THAT? NOW THEN THAT'S IF THAT WASN'T THE INTENTION OF THE DRAFTING THE.

I'M GOING TO BACK UP FOR A SECOND. ONE OF THE POINTS WE HAVEN'T AGREED TO WITH THE AIRPORT IS THE AIRPORT SAID THEY WOULD PREFER THAT WE NOT ASK THAT THE UTILIZATION PLAN THAT YOU'LL SEE CORRELATES BACK TO THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND THE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN, BECAUSE THEY'RE FAA DOCUMENTS IN THE DRAFT IN FRONT OF YOU SO FAR AS THE DRAFTER HERE. I DECLINED TO AGREE WITH THEM.

I FELT THAT THEY SHOULD ATTEST, AT LEAST, THAT WHAT THEY'RE PRESENTING IN THEIR UTILIZATION PLAN CONFORMS TO THE FAA DOCUMENTS, BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK WE WERE COMPETENT TO SAY THAT THE MASTER PLAN, AIRPORT MASTER PLAN, OR AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN CONFORM TO THE FAA AND IS, AS THE COUNCIL SAID, THE FDOT REQUIREMENTS.

BUT I FELT IT WAS PERTINENT FOR YOU TO HAVE THAT ASSURANCE, AT LEAST FROM THE FAA.

IT WAS NOT MY INTENTION THAT YOU WOULD APPROVE THOSE DOCUMENTS, BUT THAT THAT THE THE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN AND THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN WERE IN FACT SOURCE DOCUMENTS THAT THE FAA WAS RELYING ON WHEN THEY SUBMITTED THEIR AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN.

[03:00:02]

AND I APOLOGIZE IF THE DRAFTING IS NOT CLEAR.

AS THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID, IT WILL BE IMPROVED IN THE NEXT VERSION.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. SILFEN. THAT THAT CLEARS THAT UP.

BUT RIGHT NOW, WHAT I SEE IN FRONT OF US, UNLESS IT CHANGES BOTH THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND THE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN ARE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL. SO IS THAT ARE WE SAYING THAT'S CHANGED? YEAH, IT'S IT'S A RESOURCE, RIGHT? GOT IT. EVERY ONE OF THESE DOCUMENTS HAS A DIFFERENT PURPOSE AND A DIFFERENT BODY TO SUBMIT IT TO.

YEAH. FROM THE AIRPORT'S POSITION, THE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN IS SOMETHING THAT CHANGES PRETTY REGULARLY.

RIGHT? BUT IT'S AMENDMENTS TO IT. IT'S NOT SO.

SO THE REALITY IS IS THESE TO MR. CELLPHONES POINT THESE SHOULD BE UTILIZED AS RESOURCES BECAUSE THEY MAY BE ABLE TO PULL INFORMATION FROM THESE THROUGH THE UTILIZATION PLAN PROCESS. WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE ON THE BURDEN OF SAYING THIS COMPLIES OR NOT, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT FDOT AND WE'RE NOT FAA.

AND TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION ABOUT OVERALL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE REASON IT'S NOT HERE IS BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE NEED TO CLEAN UP THE CODE, BECAUSE THAT ACTUALLY MEANS UTILIZATION PLAN.

AT LEAST THAT'S THE WAY THE CITY'S BEEN INTERPRETING IT. BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T, THEN THERE IS NOTHING IN 58, SIX, 82 THAT EVEN REFERENCES UTILIZATION PLAN.

RIGHT? SO THAT'S PART OF THE CLEANUP THAT WE'RE DOING IS WE WANT THESE THREE DEFINITIONS TO BE IN THE COMP PLAN AND THE CODE.

SUPER CLEAR. NO CONFUSION. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

SO THE ENTITIES THAT WE DEAL WITH ARE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY, THE FAA, I GUESS WILL THEY CONTINUE TO USE ALL THREE TERMS UTILIZATION PLAN, MASTER PLAN, MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

NO NO, NO. NOT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. MASTER PLAN.

OKAY. WILL BE THE TERMS. ALL RIGHT. I JUST NEED TO BE CLEAR ON WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THAT.

THANK YOU. I WOULD JUST SUGGEST THAT WE GO BACK TO THERE WERE MANY SECTIONS OF THE CODE CHANGED, AND I NEED TO CONFIRM THAT IN 98, THERE WAS A RESOLUTION THAT SAID GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN PETITIONS.

SO WHAT DID THAT MEAN? AND ARE WE NOT? IS GENERAL DEVELOPMENT VERSUS MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT? BECAUSE WHEN THAT CODE CHANGED, IT SAID CONSIDER GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF THE NAPLES AIRPORT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO THIS GOES WAY BACK.

THANK YOU. ERICA. I TO ME THAT'S THE UTILIZATION PLAN BECAUSE THAT IS THE PLAN THAT REFLECTS EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

OKAY. SO IT IS AN AIRPORT MASTER PLAN IS MUCH MORE THAN A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

AN AIRPORT MASTER PLAN REVIEWS. AND I CAN AGAIN, I'M NOT EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO AN EXPERT ON ANY OF THIS STUFF, BUT I HAVE A DOCUMENT HERE THAT THE FAA PROVIDED ME IN 2019 WITH RESPECT TO THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN.

THAT GIVES A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION ON WHAT A MASTER PLAN IS.

BUT LIKE I SAID, THE DEVELOPMENT, THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT IS JUST A SMALL PART OF THAT.

THAT IS WHAT YOUR AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN PROVIDES TO YOU.

DEVELOPMENT. CURRENT. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ALL INTENDED TO BE CAPTURED ON YOUR UTILIZATION PLAN.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THE TERM UTILIZATION PLAN WAS NOT ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED IN THE C4 DISTRICT, OR I CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU. I WASN'T I WASN'T HERE WHEN THOSE WERE WRITTEN.

BUT THAT IS THE DOCUMENT. THE WHAT WE REFER TO AS THE UTILIZATION PLAN IS, IS THAT GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE AIRPORT? OKAY. AND THE EMPHASIS. MADAM MAYOR. FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IS TO NOT DISCOUNT WHAT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE, BUT TO SAY IF IT WAS WRITTEN AND IT LED YOU TO TWO WORDS BEING USED, SYNONYMOUS WITH ONE ANOTHER, THAT THEY DO NOT EXIST ANY LONGER, AND THAT THE CLARITY IN THE DEFINITIONS TELLS YOU WHAT IT WAS REPLACED WITH.

AND SO TO YOUR POINT, AND I THINK WHAT YOU WERE SAYING IS, IS MAKE SURE THERE'S NOWHERE ELSE IN THE CODE THAT IT REFERS TO SOMETHING THAT IS NOW NO LONGER GOING TO BE USED IN THAT WAY, BECAUSE IF IT WAS USED, IF WE FOUND WHERE ONE WORD WOULD USE SYNONYMOUS WITH ANOTHER, THAT SAME WORD COULD BE USED FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT SOMEWHERE ELSE.

AND JUST MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NOTHING THAT MISALIGNS THAT BY THAT DEFINITION GOING AWAY.

SO I HOPE THAT I'VE SUMMARIZED THAT IN, YOU KNOW, WE WILL CONTINUE TO TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT THAT IS THE CASE.

THAT'S EXACTLY IT. I'M GLAD THAT AFTER 56 YEARS, WE'VE GOTTEN CLARITY.

[03:05:05]

OKAY. SO ARE WE GOOD TO GO ON TO SITE PLAN? IS THERE ANY OTHER THINGS? YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO FROM THE SITE PLAN PERSPECTIVE, WE ALREADY DID TOUCH ON THIS PART, WHICH IS THAT THAT THE SITE PLAN PETITIONS GO TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL.

BUT THAT THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION WOULD NOT GO TO PAB FIRST.

THAT WAS THE ONE ITEM 46. I NEVER USED THE WORD BUT I DID THAT TWICE NOW.

4633 C3 ELIMINATES RESTRIPING PROJECTS FROM THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL.

THIS WAS A REQUEST FROM NAR NA, AND THAT THE RESTRIPING TYPICALLY IS MORE RELEVANT TO CITY SITE PLANS TO WATCH FOR PETITIONERS, RESTRIPING, PARKING LOTS AND CREATING SPACES.

WE DIDN'T THINK THE STRIPING WAS THAT SIGNIFICANT TO REQUIRE THAT TO GO TO PAB AND THAT TO GO TO THE OTHER.

SO THAT WAS THAT WAS THEIR REQUEST. AND QUITE FRANKLY, WE AGREED WITH THAT.

I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT STRIPING HAD TO DO WITH THE RUNWAY.

WELL, THERE'S THERE'S A SEPARATE COMPONENT TO THAT, ADDING A SENTENCE CONFIRMING THAT THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL IS NOT REQUIRED FOR REOCCURRING MAINTENANCE PROJECTS MANDATED BY THE FAA. SO BOTH CAN HAPPEN.

YOU CAN HAVE MANDATED STRIPING AND SIGNAGE AND VARIOUS THINGS.

IT'S JUST DEPENDS ON HOW IT GOES. BUT WE JUST BELIEVED AT LEAST AT DRAFT, THAT THERE WAS NO REASON NOT TO CONCUR WITH NA ON THOSE ITEMS. THEN MADAM MAYOR, IN IN BEFORE WE'VE LEFT IN THE.

EXCUSE ME, MR. YOUNG ANY MODIFICATION OR EXTENSION OF ANY RUNWAY OR WHERE TAXIWAY IS STILL UNDER SITE PLAN REVIEW.

THAT'S HOW WE ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF OF PAINT ON THE ON THE PAVEMENT.

HOW WHERE IS THAT. BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE I WAS GOING.

IT'S IN C4 4633 A C4. ANY MODIFICATION OR EXTENSION OF ANY RUNWAY OR TAXIWAY.

THAT'S STILL WOULD COME TO YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

SORRY FOR THE INTERRUPTION. NO, NO, IT'S ALL RELEVANT.

MAYOR. THAT'S THE RESTRIPING OF A RUNWAY WAS A PROBLEM IN THE PAST, AND WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THAT.

BUT AS MR. YOUNG SAID, IN THE SPIRIT OF COLLEGIALITY, WE'RE TRYING NOT TO GET BETWEEN THE FAA AND THE FAA IN YOUR SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. AND THEN THE NEXT SECTION 4633 E IT JUST CLARIFIES THAT NO DESIGN REVIEW, BOARD FINAL APPROVAL OR BUILDING PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED BEFORE THE SITE PLAN PETITION IS APPROVED BY COUNCIL.

THAT'S JUST CONFIRMING THAT. AND THEN 4633 AGE ELIMINATE CLAUSE.

ENCOURAGING LOGIC AND IMAGINATION, INNOVATION AND VARIETY IN THE DESIGN.

AND AGAIN, IT'S CONSIDERED TO BE REDUNDANT WITH THE DRB STANDARD, SO THERE WAS NO REASON TO HAVE IT THERE.

AND THEN ADDED THE WORD EXPECTED TO THE CERTAIN CRITERIA RECOGNIZING THESE FUTURE PROJECTS.

AND THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE NA. AND THEN ADDITIONAL CLARIFYING LANGUAGE.

SO THE CRUX OF IT IS AND HERE'S WHERE IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO WHEN WE SAY ALIGNING THE CODE WITH THE COMP PLAN.

COMP PLAN SIMPLY STATED, SAYS SITE PLANS FOR AIRPORT WILL GO BACK TO TO COUNCIL.

AND EVEN THOUGH THAT WASN'T THE PROCESS AS IDENTIFIED BY THE ATTORNEY LETTER, BUT NOWHERE DOES IT REFER TO WHAT THAT PROCESS WOULD BE.

SO THIS ATTEMPTS TO TAKE THAT SITE PLAN THINGS THAT WERE THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS THERE, MAKE IT SPECIFIC TO THE AIRPORT WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT CERTAIN CRITERIA. REDEVELOPMENT UNDER 1000FT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME SO THAT IT WAS REASONABLE, BECAUSE IF YOU GO ON THE STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE COMP PLAN MANDATES AND WE DON'T DEFINE ANYTHING, WHAT AM I SENDING BACK? EVERYTHING. SO THIS IS A WAY TO SAY THERE HAS TO BE A REASONABLENESS TEST.

THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE WHILE PROVIDING A PATH FOR THOSE ITEMS THAT WE THINK ARE SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH OR MEET NORMAL BUILDING CRITERIA SPECIFIC TO THE AIRPORT. SO THAT'S THE ATTEMPT OF THIS, AND I'LL DEFER TO ANYBODY ELSE TO MAKE ANY OTHER STATEMENT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NO. YES. NO. I JUST AGAIN COMMEND EVERYONE FOR THE WORK ON THIS.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW THE SITE PLAN REVIEW.

RIGHT. AND SO THIS IS PART OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRIMARILY.

AND THE CITY MANAGER HAS A ROLE IN THIS. BUT ITEM D TWO.

NO I'M SORRY. THREE. AND I THINK IT'S D. YEAH.

D A B C D. AND THAT ONE READS. EXPECTED IMPACT BY AIR TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE

[03:10:02]

PROJECT ON FLIGHT PATTERNS AND OR NOISE. IMPACT OF FLIGHT OPERATIONS. SO WHAT I'M MY POINT HERE IS THIS.

THIS IS GOING TO BE THAT ITEM D THE EXPECTED IMPACT I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE GET THAT INFORMATION.

IS THAT COMING. IS THAT A COLLABORATION WITH THE AIRPORT.

THEY'RE GOING TO ATTEST. SO THESE ARE ALL GOING TO BE THE CRITERIA.

SO WHEN THEY SUBMIT THEIR PLAN THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROVIDE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS. THEY PROVIDE HOW THEY ARE MEETING THESE CRITERIA.

THEY'LL PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO THE CITY IN THEIR APPLICATION.

YEAH. THEY'RE THEY'RE THEY'RE GOING TO STIPULATE HOW THEY'RE GOING TO MEET THE CRITERIA.

SO THEY WILL PROVIDE WHAT THE EXPECTED IMPACT WILL BE OF THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT.

AND WHATEVER THEY PROVIDE. IS THAT THEN CRITICALLY REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, OR IS THAT FOR US TO DIGEST WITH MY EXPERTISE IN AIR TRAFFIC NOISE? YES WE WILL. I MEAN, REALISTICALLY, WE WILL PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO COUNCIL FOR YOU TO DETERMINE. THAT'S GOOD STUFF. THANK YOU. YEAH.

VICE CHAIR. IF IF IF VICE MAYOR. EXCUSE ME IF I IF I COULD WHAT? WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO HERE IS A DIFFICULT POINT, BUT WHAT WE THOUGHT COUNCIL WAS LOOKING FOR, WHICH IS SOMEONE TO LOOK AT HOW THEY USE THE HANGAR AND WHETHER IT'S A FLIGHT SCHOOL, WHETHER IT'S AN EXECUTIVE USER OR WHETHER IT'S A DESTINATION AIR TAXI OPERATOR, WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE TO TELL YOU WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE FROM THE PARTICULAR USER OF THE FACILITY SO YOU COULD EVALUATE IT.

NOT SAYING ONE'S BETTER OR WORSE THAN THE OTHER, BUT THAT'S THAT'S THE INFORMATION WE WERE ATTEMPTING TO TO CULL HERE, WHICH I UNDERSTOOD WAS WHAT YOU ALL WANTED WHEN YOU WERE REVIEWING SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS THERE.

SO YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT. AND THAT'S THAT'S SQUARE I THINK THAT'S SPOT ON.

AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STRUCTURES, YOU KNOW, AS AN EXAMPLE, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AIRPORT STRUCTURES AND STUFF, BUT RUNWAYS TOO, RIGHT. RIGHT. SOMEBODY'S GOING TO HAVE A RUNWAY.

WELL WHAT'S THE IMPACT GOING TO BE ON NOISE AND, AND ADDITIONAL FLIGHTS AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS.

SO WE'RE GOING TO LEARN MORE THAN WE'RE ABLE TO LEARN IN POLLUTION.

IF YOU WANT TO THINK OF EVERYTHING, THERE YOU GO. BUT AND THEY ADDED THE WORD, THEY ASKED US TO ADD THE WORD EXPECTED BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO GIVE THEMSELVES SOME WIGGLE ROOM. AND WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THESE ARE PROJECTIONS COMING FROM THEM.

WE THOUGHT THAT WAS A REASONABLE REQUEST. THANK YOU.

I WANT TO MAKE IT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I, I WELL, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.

YES. GO AHEAD. SO POINT OF OF INFORMATION ON ON THIS FROM A PROCESS STANDPOINT. YOU KNOW, I COULDN'T MAKE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS ON, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CRITERIA THAT WAS JUST REFERRED TO, BUT I'M ASSUMING THIS IS NOT THE MOMENT TO DO THAT.

WE'RE GOING TO BE THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE AT SOME POINT, WE'LL STAFF WILL BE GETTING BACK TO US WITH A DRAFT SET OF DRAFT ORDINANCES AND CODE CHANGES THAT WOULD INCORPORATE YOUR BEST THINKING.

WHAT'S HERE AND ADDITIONAL THINKING THAT WILL GO ON BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.

AND THAT WOULD BE THE TIME IN WHICH WE WOULD OFFER UP OUR REACTIONS TO SPECIFICS.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. IF WE CAN GET GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT THIS COUNCIL BELIEVES WE'RE HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION WITH THESE DRAFTS.

I THINK THAT IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT, AS A MEMBER OF COUNCIL, YOU WANT TO CONVEY, YOU'RE ALWAYS WELCOME TO, YOU KNOW, WRITE AN EMAIL, OF COURSE, TO, TO CORRESPOND SOMETHING TO US.

BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR US TO RECONVENE ONCE WE GET THAT DONE, TO HAVE ANOTHER ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION WITH NA AND THEN ALLOW FOR THAT OPPORTUNITY AND THEN BRING IT BACK TO YOU AND, AND HOPEFULLY GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE AT, YOU KNOW, EITHER, IF NOT THE FINAL VERSION, ONE VERSION AWAY FROM THE FINAL VERSION TO GET THIS MOVING FORWARD BY ALL PARTIES.

YEAH, I CERTAINLY THINK YOU'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK.

AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE TIME TO GET INTO MINUTIA.

SO YOU CERTAINLY HAVE MY SUPPORT. MADAM MAYOR.

FIRST, AS WE'VE ALL SAID, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE EFFORTS HERE.

THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF OF THE DETAILS AND NUANCES AND, AND LANGUAGE AND LEGALESE AND,

[03:15:02]

AND FRANKLY, THE MINUTIA THAT, THAT IT GOES IN TO TRY TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT WAS A RELATIVE GENERAL OBJECTIVE ON OUR BEHALF, TO TRY TO GAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTROL ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON AT THE AIRPORT.

WITH THAT SAID, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS JUST REAL QUICK FOCUS IN ON WHAT I FEEL LIKE ON THIS SITE.

PLAN REVIEW WHAT YOU GUYS DID REALLY WELL FROM A LANGUAGE STANDPOINT AND ACCOMPLISHING WHAT WE WANTED TO TO SEE ACCOMPLISHED AS A, AS A COUNCIL. AND THAT IS SPECIFICALLY SECTION 46 33A AND IF YOU READ THAT TO JUMP TO BE, THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL HAVE FINAL REVIEW OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE C4 AIRPORT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, ACCORDING TO THE BUILDING CODE, FIRE SAFETY CODE, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND OTHER APPLICABLE REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF PLANS FOR BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW, PETITIONS WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION PRIOR TO BEING PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL.

LET'S REALLY LOOK AT THAT LAST THOSE LAST TWO WORDS, FINAL APPROVAL, WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR AS A COUNCIL TO BENEFIT OUR COMMUNITY, BENEFIT OUR CITY. IN REFERENCE TO HOW THE THE THE AIRPORT IS THE FACILITY OVER THERE IS RUN.

AND IF WE IF WE JUMP DOWN JUST A BIT FURTHER IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME IF YOU JUMP TO NUMBER ONE THERE, UNDERNEATH IT SAYS A NEW PRINCIPAL BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, PERIOD.

WE WERE GOING TO PUT A SQUARE FOOTAGE THERE, BUT WE DIDN'T. A NEW PRINCIPAL BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. SO ANY STRUCTURE IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE A FINAL APPROVAL WITH US. THE NEXT ONE SAYS AN ADDITIONAL, AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE IS GREATER THAN 1000FT².

SO IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE CHANGING, THAT'S THAT'S THE VICE MAYOR HAD MENTIONED EARLIER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT. THAT'S REDEVELOPMENT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THEY'RE ADDING TO. AND IF WE'RE ADDING TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, IT MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED NEW CONSTRUCTION OR NEW DEVELOPMENT, AND WE MAY LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO GIVE OUR APPROVAL FOR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT NEW CONSTRUCTION.

SO AGAIN, WE'RE, WE'RE WE'RE FOCUSING ON REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS THERE, WHICH AGAIN, IS IS WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

SO AGAIN, I WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS SHOWS WHAT THE GRAVITAS OF THE SITUATION FROM THE STANDPOINT OF HAVING TO GO BACK INTO OUR, OUR CITY CODES AND, AND MAKING ALL SORTS OF CHANGES SO THAT WE CAN GET TO THE POINT OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE.

AND AGAIN, I THINK YOU GUYS ARE DEFINITELY ON THE RIGHT TRACK.

AND THIS IS THIS IS AT LEAST I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR ALL OF US. THIS IS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE SAY SO AS FAR AS WHAT WAS GOING ON OVER THERE, AND, AND I CAN'T EMPHASIZE ENOUGH FROM WHAT MY COLLEAGUE COUNCILMAN CUSHMAN HAD HAD ALREADY STATED, AND THAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT WITH THE NA.

WE ABSOLUTELY NEED TO HAVE THAT, BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO CHANGE THE CULTURE HERE BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE AIRPORT, THE CITY AND THE NA, SO THAT WE ARE ALL WORKING TOGETHER TO TRY TO CREATE A BETTER COMMUNITY THAT UTILIZES A VERY VALUABLE ASSET.

SO AGAIN, I YOU GUYS ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

AND AGAIN, WE CAN JUMP INTO THE MINUTIA. I KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME CHANGES, AND I HAVE A FEELING THE FRIENDLY THE MAYOR MIGHT EVEN WANT TO DELVE INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE RIGHT NOW. BUT NONETHELESS, YOU GUYS, IN MY OPINION, ARE PULLING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. SO THANK YOU.

NO, I'M WITH YOU. I THINK THERE'S GREAT DOCUMENTS.

THANK YOU. THE ONLY THING I'D SAY, THOUGH IS UNDER 4633 A THAT YOU POINTED OUT UNDER B THAT IT SHOULD SAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

DON'T FORGET THAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND I THINK THIS IS A GREAT START.

I DO THINK THIS IS WHAT WE WERE AFTER. THE ONLY THING THAT I THINK IT MIGHT BE A A POSSIBLE HOLE THAT YOU COULD DRIVE A TRUCK THROUGH WOULD BE ON 58, 680 WHERE IT SAYS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE VERSUS COMPLIANCE.

YEAH. CRACK ON THE OTHER. I DON'T SEE THAT. 58. 680 AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN, A DOCUMENT PREPARED BY THE NAIA, WHICH IT CONFIRMS IT IS IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH.

YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT DEFINED. IT'S NOT YOU KNOW, WHAT IS SUBSTANTIAL? YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST VAGUE LANGUAGE. THE INTENT OF THAT IS BECAUSE IT'S SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN AND LAYOUT PLAN.

MY, MY SORT OF MY CONCERN IS JUST USING THE WORD SUBSTANTIAL BECAUSE IT'S NOT CAPITALIZED.

SO IT'S NOT DEFINED. JUST A LITTLE REASONING AND WE ABSOLUTELY WILL REVISIT THAT IS THOSE DOCUMENTS MAY CHANGE QUICKER THAN THE UTILIZATION PLAN OR AFTER THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE ON A DIFFERENT TIME FRAME AND A DIFFERENT APPROVAL PROCESS BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS.

[03:20:04]

SO THAT'S WHY WE USE THE WORD SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE IS BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SITUATIONS WHERE THE UTILIZATION PLAN DEPICTS FIX ONE THING, BUT THE LAYOUT PLAN HAS BEEN CHANGED, OR THE MASTER PLAN HAS BEEN CHANGED BECAUSE IT'S AN FDOT OR FAA DOCUMENT.

SO TO STAY STRICTLY COMPLIANCE WOULD ESSENTIALLY REQUIRE NAR TO UPDATE ALL THREE PLANS AT THE SAME TIME.

OKAY. TO SAY SUBSTANTIAL SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANCE OPENS UP THE TIME FRAME OR OPENS UP A, YOU KNOW, A HOLE THAT I THINK IS WIDER THAN JUST TIMING.

HAPPY TO REVISIT THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH, JUST THANK YOU.

GO AHEAD. NO, YOU GO AHEAD. SO JUST TO RECALL THE NAR OBJECTIVE HAVING IT COMPLY AT ALL.

SO IN THAT SPIRIT OF COLLEGIALITY, WE TRIED SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE, BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO REVISIT IT.

I MEAN, EVEN IF IT'S DEFINED, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE A DEFINED TERM BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL TO ME IS PROBABLY DIFFERENT THAN SUBSTANTIAL TO YOU. WELL, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO REVISIT IT, BUT THAT'S THE THAT'S THE REASON IF IT SOUNDS WEASELLY, THAT WAS PROBABLY WHERE I WAS. THANK YOU. I IF THAT'S IT, I DO WANT TO THANK EVERYONE. MR.. AND MISS MARTIN AND MR. YOUNG AND MR. MCCONNELL AND THE TIME THAT THE NA CAME OR THE EXECUTIVES CAME AND WORKED WITH YOU ON CLARIFYING THIS UNCLEAR PROCESS, ACCORDING TO SOME BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GET A MOTION THAT WE TAKE THIS TO THE AIRPORT AND GET THEIR FEEDBACK AND ANY THEIR ACTUALLY ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PROCESS SO THAT WE'RE IN THE SPIRIT OF WORKING TOGETHER.

AND IF THERE ARE CONCERNS, THEN THEY'LL SHARE THAT WITH US.

YEAH. MAYOR, IF I COULD, MAY I? YES. JUST FOR, JUST FOR.

AND I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH THAT APPROACH.

BUT BASED ON WHAT MR. YOUNG JUST SAID AND THE COMMENTS THAT COUNCILMEMBER KRISEMAN SUGGESTED IS THIS IS GOING TO COME BACK PROBABLY IN A WORKSHOP WORKSHOP SETTING, NOT IN ORDINANCE FORM. RIGHT. BECAUSE WE CAN'T APPEAR TO HAVE FIRST READING YET, JUST BECAUSE IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS FOR ANY COMMENTS AT THAT POINT.

AND THEN I THINK AT THAT POINT WE WOULD MAKE THE MOTION, BECAUSE WHAT I'M ANTICIPATING IS THE ACTUAL ORDINANCES THEMSELVES, WITH THE TITLES AND EVERYTHING BEING PRESENTED TO THE NA FOR COMMENTS AND FINAL FORM PRIOR TO PLANNING BOARD, PRIOR TO ADOPTION AT CITY COUNCIL. AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

ALL OF THAT TAKES TIME. MEANWHILE, THEY'RE SELLING A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS THE LARGEST, SECOND TO THE LARGEST, IF NOT LARGER PROPERTY THAT WILL THAT BE COMING BACK TO US? I'M UNFAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY WELL AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW.

REGARDLESS, WE HAVE THE RESOLUTION THAT WE WOULD BE HONORING, AND THIS IS HONORING THE LAST PARAGRAPH, WHICH IS TO BEGIN TO ALIGN THE COMP PLAN AND THE CODE.

SO BASED ON THAT RESOLUTION THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED, IT WOULD BE COMING BACK TO YOU BASED ON THAT RESOLUTION.

AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, AS I'VE SAID STATED, IS THE MOMENT THAT THE AS YOUR CITY MANAGER, THE MOMENT THAT IT WAS STATED THAT THE COMP PLAN DOESN'T ALIGN WITH OUR PROCEDURES, I WOULD BE FORCED TO SEND IT BACK TO YOU BECAUSE, AGAIN, I WOULDN'T GO AGAINST OUR COMP PLAN AND NOT DEMAND IT BACK NO MATTER WHAT.

SO FROM MY STANDPOINT, I THINK THAT WE'RE COVERED WHILE WE CONTINUE THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

AND ASSURING YOU THAT IT WOULD COME BACK BY VIRTUE OF BOTH THAT OPINION AND PROCESS AND THE COMP PLAN AND ALSO THE RESOLUTION YOU PASSED BEFORE WE BROKE.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. STRONG WORK. THANK YOU.

I TRULY APPRECIATE. AND THE COMMUNITY APPRECIATES.

AND I'M SURE THE NEA AND STAFF THERE APPRECIATE THIS WORK THAT'S BEING DONE BY STAFF.

SO THANK YOU. AND NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. WE ARE.

THAT CONCLUDES 13 H. WE'RE GOING TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

MADAM CLERK. I HAVE NONE. OKAY. THAT WAS ITEM FIVE.

WE HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND THERE WERE ITEMS.

[APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA]

MADAM. MADAM MAYOR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM SEVEN J AND ITEM EIGHT A.

OKAY, SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISMAN AND A SECOND BY VICE MAYOR.

[03:25:04]

ALL IN FAVOR? SIGNED BY. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THANK YOU.

I'M WATCHING THE TIME THAT IT TAKES US TO. TOO MANY PAGES ON THE AGENDA. ALL RIGHT. END OF CONSENT AGENDA TO PUBLIC HEARINGS. THERE AREN'T ANY REGULAR AGENDA. WOULD BE ITEM TEN ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.

MR. MCCONNELL? YES, MAYOR. IF IF THE CLERK OR SOMEONE COULD JUST REMIND ME WHAT WAS PULLED FROM THE ITEM SEVEN J AND ITEM EIGHT A. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO I WILL READ THE RESOLUTION FOR SEVEN J.

[10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT AGENDA (If Needed)]

THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. RESOLUTION. FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT COMBINING EFFORTS TO ENHANCE EMERGENCY SERVICE WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY THROUGH AN INTERAGENCY TACTICAL MEDICAL PROGRAM TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES, THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT, AND INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, OPERATING PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2015191 LAWS OF FLORIDA, CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND MUNICIPAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GREATER NAPLES FIRE RESCUE DISTRICT, AND INDEPENDENT FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT OPERATING PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2014240 LAWS OF FLORIDA, AS AMENDED. IMMOKALEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT AND INDEPENDENT FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT, OPERATING PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2000-393 LAWS OF FLORIDA, AS AMENDED IN THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND INDEPENDENT CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. THE PARTNERSHIP PARTNERING AGENCIES, THE COUNTY, AND THE SHERIFF ARE KNOWN COLLECTIVELY COLLECTIVELY AS THE PARTIES, AND EACH A PARTY AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. I.

I. GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS WILL JUST TAKE A MINUTE BECAUSE I THINK I GOT MY I GOT MY QUESTION ANSWERED.

BUT WHEN I READ THROUGH THIS, YOU KNOW, IN THE WHEREAS CLAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT DEFINED A PHYSICIAN AS IN THE STATUTES AND IT COULD BE AN OSTEOPATHIC PHYSICIAN. IT COULD BE IT WAS VERY BROAD. IT COULD BE A GYNECOLOGIST, IT COULD BE AN ALLERGY SPECIALIST, ETC.. AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A TIER ONE OR TIER TWO HOSPITAL IN COLLIER COUNTY FOR THINGS LIKE, SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, AUTOMOBILE CRASH, I THOUGHT IT WAS IF WE COULD PUT MORE SPECIFICITY AROUND AROUND WHAT KIND OF A DOCTOR WE WANT TO HAVE OVERLAYING ON TOP OF OUR EMERGENCY SERVICES.

AND I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE MAYBE AN ER DOCTOR OR SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH THE DESIGNATION OF THAT SPECIALTY VERSUS JUST A BROAD DEFINITION OF A DOCTOR, ANY OLD DOCTOR. AND, YOU KNOW, BUT I THINK I GOT MY QUESTION ANSWERED THAT HE, THAT THIS PERSON THAT IS YOU KNOW, SERVES AS OUR MEDICAL TRAINER OVERSEER THAT WE HIRED, WHAT, THREE YEARS AGO IS A CERTIFIED ER DOCTOR.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND ALL THE ALL THE TRAINING HE PROVIDES IS, YOU KNOW, IS ADEQUATE WITHIN THE ER FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES.

YES. HE'S ACTUALLY A FELLOWSHIP. OKAY. PHYSICIAN FOR EMERGENCY MEDICINE.

OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS BUTTONED UP, BECAUSE I'D PREFER THAT KIND OF A DOCTOR VERSUS ANY, ANY OLD DOCTOR THAT WOULD SERVE OVER THIS. NO, I UNDERSTAND, BUT YES, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE LOOK AT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT WAS IT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THAT TAKES US TO EIGHT A. WE NEED A MOTION. OH, SORRY.

YES. THANK YOU. SIR. COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? MOTION TO APPROVE.

ITEM SIX J OR SEVEN J. IF IF WE COULD MAYOR FOR THE MOTION, IT'D BE A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE.

YES. THE HEADING OF THE SEVEN J. MOTION TO TO APPROVE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT COMBINING EFFORTS TO ENHANCE EMERGENCY SERVICES WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY THROUGH AN INTERLOCAL TACTICAL MEDICAL PROGRAM TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. NAPLES. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. YOU DON'T HAVE TO, ETCETERA. YEAH. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF AND A SECOND BY VICE MAYOR. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? THANK YOU. COUNCIL TAKES US TO EIGHT A.

[03:30:07]

MR. MCCONNELL. IT WAS. OH, I GUESS NOT. SORRY, SIR.

YEAH, SORRY ABOUT THAT. NO RESOLUTION. STAFF WOULD LIKE TO READ WHAT THE CONSIDERATION IS. YES. CHAD MERRITT, PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES DIRECTOR.

THIS IS CONSIDERATION FOR NEW EVENT APPLICATIONS AS YOU LISTED BELOW, WHICH IS CITY OF NAPLES.

HALLOWEEN HUSTLE, FIVE K, THE OPERATION, RETURN TO BASE, WALK, RUN AND RUCK.

THE PORT ROYAL. LAST CALL BEFORE THE FALL. THE WALK FOR LIFE.

THE WEDNESDAY. LIVE. MUSIC ON THE BEACH. A NIGHT IN PARIS FUNDRAISER.

GALA. HOMERS FOR HEROES AND HYATT HOUSE. BONGOS AND SINGER PERFORMANCE.

AND I GUESS. IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR EVENTS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO DISCUSS? AND I JUST IN LOOKING AT ALL OF THESE EVENTS NUMBER TWO, UNDER THE SUBJECT THE CITY OF OF NAPLES HALLOWEEN EVENT AT FLESHMAN. AND THEN I THOUGHT THERE WAS A POLICE HALLOWEEN EVENT IN THE PAST.

TRICK OR TRUNK OR WAS THAT THE ONE THAT WAS AT FLESHMAN, OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER ONE? THE NUMBER TWO? I DON'T I DON'T SEE IT. NUMBER TWO, IT'S ON YOUR NUMBER TWO.

FOR THIS IS OPERATION RETURN TO BASE. WALK, RUN AND RUCK.

ARE YOU. YOU MAY BE REFERRING TO HB. ARE YOU READING FROM THE AGENDA? YEAH, I'M LOOKING AT THE MEMO. YEAH, I'M LOOKING AT THE MEMO.

A A A B. YEAH. OH, YOU'RE SAYING THAT A A AND A B ARE ARE DIFFERENT.

HERE'S NEW HERE'S REPEAT. RIGHT. SO THE NEW UNDER NUMBER TWO UNDER THE MEMO IS CITY OF NAPLES HALLOWEEN EVENT.

SO, SO WELL IF IT'S A REPEAT THEN IF YOU GO DOWN TO REPEAT OF CITY OF NAPLES EVENT FLESHMAN, THOSE ARE THE SAME. YES. SO HB IS A IS A DIFFERENT ITEM.

SO AA IS WAS THE ONE THAT YOU HAD PULLED. BUT I CAN TALK ABOUT AP.

OKAY. WELL, WHEN I'M LOOKING AT IT AND I'M LOOKING AT IT AND BE TRYING TO LOOK AT WHAT'S A NEW EVENT VERSUS WHAT'S A REPEAT EVENT.

OKAY. SO MAYOR REAL QUICK. I KNOW IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO.

WE APPROVED A B ALREADY ON THE CONSENT BECAUSE IT WASN'T REMOVED.

SO THE ONLY THING UP FOR DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW IS ADA.

YOU WANT TO DISCUSS EIGHT B. GOT IT. SO WE HAVE TO MATTHEW I THINK SHE'S JUST ASKING THE DIFFERENCE.

SO I MEAN, IF I CAN EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NEW AND A REPEAT RIGHT HERE, THEN WE CAN.

AA IS NEW EVENTS, RIGHT? BUT THE LISTING I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS NUMBER TWO IS THE HALLOWEEN EVENT AT FLEISCHMAN PARK.

WHEN YOU KEEP SAYING WHEN YOU REFERENCE NUMBER TWO, BUT IT IS NUMBER ONE ON THAT NEW EVENTS IS THE THE FIVE K THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING. I THOUGHT WHAT YOU ASKED, WASN'T THERE ALREADY AN EVENT? I THOUGHT, BUT MAYBE I'M PARAPHRASING. VICE MAYOR? YEAH. SO I THINK TRYING TO SORT THAT OUT IS ONGOING, BUT SINCE WE DO HAVE A A POOLED AND UP FOR DISCUSSION YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NUMBER OF EVENTS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR COMMUNITY, RIGHT? AND AS PART OF THE DIRECTOR, WHAT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE BRINGING THIS STUFF TO US, THESE EVENTS FOR APPROVAL OR DISCUSSION. IF THESE ITEMS UNDER EIGHT A, THERE'S EIGHT BRAND NEW ITEMS NOT NOT REPEAT BRAND NEW NEXT YEAR, THEY COULD BE REPEATS.

SO THEY'RE GOING TO ADD TO THE LONG LIST OF THINGS THAT WE KEEP BRINGING INTO THE COMMUNITY.

WHY? I THOUGHT WE HAD GOT TO THE POINT WHERE WE WERE GOING TO BE REALLY CAREFUL ABOUT ADDING EVEN MORE.

COULD YOU JUST TALK ABOUT THE MAYBE OF THESE EIGHT ITEMS, HOW MANY OF THESE ARE IMPACTING PUBLIC FACILITIES VERSUS, YOU KNOW WHAT, THIS IS A PASS THROUGH. AND IT'S IT'S NOT GOING TO BE TYING UP OUR ROADS ONGOING.

[03:35:07]

THE IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY. COULD YOU TALK JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT? YEAH. SO YOU KNOW, JUST TO KIND OF SPEAK ON ON BEHALF OF EVENTS THAT ARE COMING FOR RIGHT NOW YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO PROCESS THE APPLICATIONS THAT COME IN.

SO WE DON'T HAVE WE'RE NOT ABLE TO GO THROUGH AND SAY, OKAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ADD THIS EVENT AND DECLINE THAT.

NOW THEY HAVE TO AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE CRITERIA WITHIN THE MANUAL, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY YOU ALL, WE PASS IT THROUGH AND IT'S UP TO THE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO ADD THIS NEW SPECIAL EVENT, NEW SPECIAL EVENT, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE IT CATEGORIZED AS NEW VERSUS REPEAT.

BECAUSE THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO OKAY, THIS IS WHAT THE NEW EVENTS ARE.

IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO ADD, WE NEED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION NOW.

AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T PASS THROUGH BECAUSE THEN IN FACT, IT WILL BECOME A REPEAT SPECIAL EVENT IN THE FOLLOWING.

BUT AS IN REGARDS TO THESE SPECIAL EVENTS ON HERE A LOT OF THESE THAT I LOOK AT.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE HALLOWEEN FIVE K, THAT'S GOING TO BE DONE WITHIN BAKER PARK.

SO THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A WHOLE LOT OF IMPACT ON ANYTHING.

IT'LL BE WITHIN THE PARK. YOU WON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF TRAFFIC ISSUES.

WE'LL HAVE SOME PARKING THAT HAS TO OCCUR WITHIN THAT.

THE AREA AROUND RIVERSIDE THE OPERATION RETURNED TO BASS ROCK, AND THAT ONE'S AT BAKER PARK, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY MINIMAL. PORT ROYAL, THEY'RE KEEPING THAT WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY.

THE WALK FOR LIFE IS AT BAKER PARK. THAT'S ALSO GOING TO BE PUT IN OR KIND OF BE MAINTAINED WITHIN BAKER PARK.

WE'VE TRIED TO KIND OF ENCOURAGE A LOT OF THESE NEW EVENTS TO TRY TO CONTAIN THEMSELVES WITHIN A PARK, SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF RESOURCES THAT GO TOWARDS IT.

AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO BE SUCCESSFUL WITH THAT.

THE HOMERS FOR HEROES PARK, THAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE BALL FIELD, THAT'LL BE CONTAINED WITHIN FLEISCHMANN PARK.

HYATT HOUSE, THEIR EVENT IS GOING TO BE CONTAINED WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY.

SO ON THIS LIST, I WOULD SAY THAT I COULD COMFORTABLY SAY THAT NONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE ANY HIGH TRAFFIC ISSUES OR CREATE ANY ISSUES FROM TRAFFIC. SO TO MY POINT WE ALREADY HAVE A HALLOWEEN EVENT AT FLESHMAN AND CITY. IF I UNDERSTAND THE APPLICATION, THE CITY HAS DECIDED TO HAVE ANOTHER SPONSORED EVENT AT BAKER PARK.

SO WE'VE GOT THE WE DO A EVENT AT FLEISCHMANN PARK, AND THIS WILL BE A5K EVENT THAT WE DO AT BAKER PARK.

AND THIS IS TRYING TO BUT IT'S A NEW EVENT. IT IS A NEW THAT THE CITY IS INITIATING.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S THAT WAS MY EXACT POINT.

AND THEN PET PARADE, THERE'S ALREADY A PET PARADE IN THE FUNDRAISING PROCEEDS GO TO THE HUMANE SOCIETY, AND NOW THERE'S ANOTHER ONE PROPOSED.

MADAM MAYOR. NOW WE'RE GOING BACK TO EIGHT B.

YEAH. I'M SORRY, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE. OH, I THOUGHT IT WAS UNDER.

OKAY. SO I'LL GO BACK TO THEN. SO THE HALLOWEEN HUSTLE IS A NEW EVENT.

THE OPERATION RETURN YOU'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED FOR THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAVE ABOUT THESE EVENTS IS IT SAYS THAT WE DON'T NEED SECURITY FOR THE NEW EVENTS SUCH AS? I THINK IT WAS AN OLD EVENT. JUST A RENAMED EVENT.

AN ANNUAL PARTY. WE DON'T NEED ANY TYPE OF SECURITY PLAN OR POLICE PRESENCE WHEN THERE ARE EVENTS HAPPENING AT HANGERS.

I CAN ALLOW THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO TALK BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE THE EXPERTS ON SECURITY.

SO IF I DON'T KNOW IF. SORRY, CHIEF, LIEUTENANT OR CHIEF.

I JUST SEE CHIEF HERE.

GOOD AFTERNOON. SIR. DOMINGUEZ. CHIEF OF POLICE.

AND I APOLOGIZE. I WAS READING SOMETHING WHEN YOU WERE SPEAKING.

OF COURSE YOU WERE. AND SO IF YOU CAN REFRESH ME ON WHAT THE QUESTION IS.

[03:40:05]

MY QUESTION IS ON ON THE APPLICATIONS AND WHERE IT SAYS THAT THERE ARE THERE'S A REPORT BACK SAYING THERE'S NO SECURITY PLAN. DOES THAT MEAN THAT WHEN THERE'S AN EVENT HELD AT A HANGAR, WE DON'T NEED SECURITY OR THERE'S NOT A POLICE PRESENCE FOR SPECIAL EVENTS? IT DEPENDS ON THE EVENT. AND WE CLEARED IT THROUGH OUR FOLKS.

SO DEPENDING ON THE SITE ITSELF. SO I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT EVENT.

IT'S ON AIRPORT PROPERTY. CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

CORRECT. AND IT IS A CLOSED EVENT, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT. AND AND SO THROUGH A SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND THE TENANT CAN GIVE YOU MORE DETAILS BECAUSE YOU REVIEWED IT, I BELIEVE. BUT WE LOOK AT EVERY PARTICULAR EVENT AND I'LL GIVE YOU THE MACRO ON IT.

AND HE CAN GIVE YOU THE MORE SPECIFIC. SO EVERY EVENT IS REVIEWED BASED ON CERTAIN POINTS AND TIERS OF THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT.

A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE ATTENDING. WHAT IS THE PUBLIC ACCESS OF IT? WHAT IS THE THREAT POTENTIAL AND ALL THOSE THINGS. SO ONCE WE PUT IT THROUGH OUR MATRIX, IF YOU WILL OR A RUBRIC, RUBRIC OF SORTS, WE'RE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT IS NEEDED.

BUT HE REVIEWED THE ORIGINAL PLAN, SO I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH IT.

GOOD MORNING, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL O'REILLY, SPECIAL OPERATIONS, NAPLES POLICE DEPARTMENT. ESSENTIALLY EVERYTHING THE CHIEF SAID IS HOW WE LOOK AT THE SPECIAL EVENTS. THE AIRPORT IS A DIFFERENT ENTITY.

IT'S A SEMI SECURE FACILITY. IT'S A RESTRICTED ACCESS FACILITY.

AND NEARLY EVERY EVENT AT THESE PRIVATE HANGARS IS CONTROLLED ACCESS BY THE HANGAR OWNERS THEMSELVES.

SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE EVENTS, WE NOT ONLY LOOK AT THE ATTENDEES FOR THE EVENT AND THE PROPENSITY FOR ISSUES, WE ALSO LOOK AT THE VULNERABILITIES. AND DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE EVENT, WE DETERMINE IF THEY NEED OFFICERS BASED ON THAT SCALE.

FOR THE EVENTS THAT ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA THAT WE SAID THERE'S NO POLICE PRESENCE NEEDED, WE'VE DETERMINED THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE PROPENSITY FOR PROBLEMS INTERNALLY, AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE VULNERABILITIES THAT WE WOULD NEED TO ASSIGN AN OFFICER.

EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED. OKAY. AND JUST FOR FOR A LITTLE CLARIFICATION.

SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS, THE BIGGEST DETERMINANT FOR US IS OPEN AIR EVENT AND ACCESSIBILITY VERSUS A CLOSED, CONTAINED ENVIRONMENT. SO IF SOMEONE WAS TO HAVE, LET'S SAY, A, A SPECIAL EVENT AT THE HYATT AND IT'S SECURED, THAT WOULD TAKE LESS PEOPLE. ACCESS WISE, AS HE MENTIONED, THE AIRPORT HAS CONTROLLED ACCESS.

CONVERSELY, A PLACE LIKE CAMBRIA PARK IS OPEN ACCESS AND WIDE OPEN AND MUCH MORE VULNERABLE.

SO THAT'S HOW WE KIND OF LOOK AT IT. THANK YOU.

OKAY. VICE MAYOR. YEAH. THANK YOU, CHAD AND CHIEF FOR EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS ON THIS.

WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE NEW SPECIAL EVENTS MY ASK IS THAT AGAIN? FIRST OF ALL, DO YOU REMEMBER HOW MANY EVENTS WE BEFORE THESE NEW EIGHT EVENTS ARE GOING TO BE ADDED? HOW MANY SPECIAL EVENTS WE HAVE WITHIN THE CITY THAT WE'RE RECOGNIZING? WE USED TO TRACK THAT. WE TRACK IT. I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER RIGHT OFF HAND, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE'RE STILL TALKING A COUPLE HUNDRED AT LEAST THAT WERE PERMITTED.

YEAH. NOW WE'VE GOT VENUES. THREE OF THESE AT LEAST, WERE AT BAKER PARK.

AND WE'VE GOT A NEW PLAYHOUSE THERE THAT HAS FUNCTIONS, AND IT'S GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON TRAFFIC.

I DON'T KNOW. I DIDN'T SEE COMMENTS ON HERE THAT IT WAS THAT THESE ALL THESE EVENTS ARE BEING COMPARED TO DATES OF SIGNIFICANCE AT THE GULFSHORE PLAYHOUSE, BUT JUST ADDING A LAYER OF, OF CONSIDERATION, MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE NOT CONTRIBUTING BY ADDING CONTINUING TO ADD EVENTS THAT WERE NOT SNARLING TRAFFIC IN AND AROUND OUR COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY IN THAT BAKER PARK AREA. SO MY ASK IS THAT YOU JUST GIVE IT SOME CRITICAL THINKING BEFORE WE JUST KEEP ADDING THESE THINGS.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YEAH. WHEN I, WHEN I WENT THROUGH THIS MATERIAL PREPARING FOR THE MEETING. WHAT WHAT WAS REASSURING TO ME WAS THAT NONE OF THESE EVENTS IN ADA WERE DOWNTOWN OR IN CAMBIER PARK, AND NONE OF THEM WERE IN SEASON.

AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, BUT YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE CALENDAR OF EVENTS I DON'T THINK IT'S IT MAY BE TECHNICALLY ACCURATE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S REALISTIC, IF YOU

[03:45:04]

WILL, TO SAY THAT WE HAVE A COUPLE HUNDRED EVENTS A YEAR.

I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO COUNT THE. DO YOU WANT TO COUNT THE FARMER'S MARKET AS ONE EVENT OR 52 EVENTS? IF YOU WANT TO COUNT IT AS 52 AND AND THEN THAT HELPS YOU GET TO 200, RIGHT? AND AND I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE AGAIN, AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN WHEN WE GET TO AN ITEM LATER IN OUR AGENDA, THE ISSUE WE HAVE IS BETWEEN CHRISTMAS AND EASTER IN DOWNTOWN AND CAMBIER PARK.

AND WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT ADDING ANOTHER NEW SPECIAL EVENT LATER IN THE AGENDA, RIGHT IN THAT SWEET SPOT.

SO I'LL HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT. I'M SURE OTHERS MAY TOO.

WE'LL SEE WHERE THAT GOES. BUT AS FAR AS THESE EVENTS ARE CONCERNED, BECAUSE OF THEIR SIZE, LOCATION, AND THE DATE THEY'RE BEING HELD, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM.

THANK YOU. AND I JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, YOU SAID THAT THAT YOU CONTAIN THEM WITHIN A PARK.

SO WE'RE SLOWLY MOVING PEOPLE TO BAKER PARK AND FLESHMAN PARK OUT OF CAMBIER PARK.

JUST CAN YOU CLARIFY? WELL, CONTAINING THEM IN THE PARK MEANS THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING OUTSIDE.

WE'RE NOT CLOSING ROADS. WE'RE NOT YOU KNOW, IMPACTING OUTSIDE OF THE PARK.

SO WHEN IT'S CONTAINED WE WE HAVE THEM IN BAKER PARK IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION.

BUT YES, WE HAVE ENCOURAGED, AS COUNCILMAN KRISEMAN HAS SAID, WE'VE TRIED TO DISCOURAGE THE ADDING EVENTS IN CAMBIER PARK.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO UTILIZE BAKER PARK, ESPECIALLY WITH SOME OF THESE LOW IMPACT EVENTS.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT IN PARTICULAR, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE EVENT THAT WE DID THAT IS YOU KNOW, WE ALMOST LOOK AT THAT AS MORE OF A PROGRAM BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE 150 PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO PARTICIPATE, BUT IT'S MORE OF A HALLOWEEN TYPE EVENT. AND AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE STAFF FOR STAFF TO BE ABLE TO DO THOSE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE PARKS WHERE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE LARGE SCALE EVENTS THAT WE'VE REALLY TRIED TO KIND OF SCALE BACK ON, HAVING 5000 PEOPLE IN A PARK IS DIFFERENT THAN HAVING 2 OR 300 PEOPLE IN THE PARK. THE PARKS CAN HANDLE THOSE. SO CONTAINING THOSE WITHIN THE PARK IS IS VERY IMPORTANT.

AND AND ALLOWING THE PARK IS STILL FUNCTION AS A PARK.

SO IF AN EVENT COMES TO US AND SOMEBODY SAYS, HEY, WE'VE GOT THIS AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO CLOSE ANY PARTS OF THE PARK, IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPACT SOMEBODY. IF A CHILD WANTS TO GO OUT TO USE THE SPLASH PAD AT BAKER, THEY CAN STILL USE THE SPLASH PAD AT BAKER. IF THEY WANT TO HAVE AN EVENT AT GOMEZ CENTER, THEY CAN STILL HAVE AN EVENT AT GOMEZ CENTER. AND THAT'S THAT'S WHAT'S IMPORTANT FOR US WHEN WE CONTAIN THINGS WITHIN PARKS.

THANK YOU. I AGREE. I JUST HAVING STAFF ADDING UNTIL WE FIGURE OUT WHERE WE'RE GOING IS JUST THAT'S WHAT I NOTICED, KRAMER. BECAUSE I'VE BEEN PUSHED BACK ON EVENTS SINCE COMING ON BOARD, AND ESPECIALLY IN OUR PARKS AND OUR FACILITIES. I HAVE TO SAY THAT, LIKE RAY COUNCILMAN KRISEMAN, THE TIME FRAME AND WHERE THEY WERE MAKES IT PALATABLE. HOWEVER, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WE'RE GOING TO PUT SOME CONSTRAINTS ON THIS STUFF.

WE'VE WE'VE HAD CONSENSUS THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT.

NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS GOING TO BE, BUT NOBODY'S WATCHING EXCEPT OUR FAMILIES.

SO. HI, EVERYBODY. IT WOULD BEHOOVE THEM TO KNOW THE THE FIVES, THE NONPROFITS.

FIVE, FIVE, OK THREE FOLKS THAT YOU CAN USE THE SCHOOL CAMPUSES AS WELL.

SO, LIKE, I WOULD HAVE A MUCH IT'D BE MUCH MORE PALATABLE FOR ME TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO USE GULFVIEW MIDDLE ON A SATURDAY MORNING THAN, SAY, USE ANY OF OUR PARKS. AND THAT'S DOABLE.

YOU KNOW, WE DO OUR WHAT? SEE? AT THE POLE. FIELDS OF FAITH.

NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER. ALL THAT STUFF HAPPENS ON SCHOOL CAMPUSES AND A NUMBER OF CHURCHES MEET ON THEM ALL OVER THE COUNTY.

SO? SO THIS IS DOABLE, AND IT'S VERY AFFORDABLE.

I WILL TELL YOU. AND SO I'VE BEEN HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS.

THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING. NOW THEY HAVE TO GET AHEAD OF IT. THERE'S TIME FRAMES FOR ALL THAT STUFF TO BE TURNED IN TO THE DISTRICT, BUT IT'S JUST ANOTHER POSSIBILITY. AND WHEN I THINK ABOUT PARKING, IT'S THE LOGISTICS WORK BETTER FOR MOST EVENTS.

AGAIN, IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, 5000 PEOPLE STILL AT A FOOTBALL GAME, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE PARKING AT THE MALL.

BUT I JUST THINK IT'S VERY DOABLE AND SOMETHING THAT WE COULD MAYBE THAT COULD BE PART OF OUR HOW WE DO THINGS TO, TO LET OUR CITIZENS USE OUR PARKS IN SEASON IS TO FUNNEL SOME OF THIS STUFF ONTO THE SCHOOL CAMPUSES.

THAT'S ALL. THANKS. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, IS THERE A MOTION?

[03:50:06]

I'LL MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM EIGHT, A CONSIDERATION OF NEW SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATIONS.

OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION FOR EIGHT, A APPROVAL FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISMAN AND A SECOND BY VICE MAYOR. ALL IN FAVOR? SIGNED BY I. OPPOSED.

THANK YOU. THAT TAKES US TO TIME. CERTAIN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

STAFF. TO TIME. CERTAIN. 1230. ALMOST ON TIME.

[13.E. Executive Session – Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining Strategy (12:30pm Time Certain). (Charlotte Loewel, Director of Human Resources)]

13 E MR. YOUNG ANY. I THINK IT'S AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

MAYOR TO FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. THERE'S NOT A RESOLUTION OR ANYTHING.

IT'S JUST IT'S NOT IT'S NOT PURSUANT TO 286 .011.

IT'S PURSUANT TO, I BELIEVE, 447 6.605. SO THERE IS NO ANNOUNCEMENT OR OKAY, I'LL JUST MAKE IT THEN. IT'S ITEM 13. E IS EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR LABOR RELATIONS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING STRATEGIES.

WE WILL HAVE THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION UP IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL.

AND IT'S APPROXIMATELY HALF AN HOUR OR AN HOUR.

MR. YOUNG. YES, MA'AM. THAT SHOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME.

HALF AN HOUR. PERFECT. SO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS EXPECTED TO LAST FOR HALF AN HOUR, AND WE ARE OFFICIALLY IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

OKAY, WE'RE BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION AND CONTINUING ON WITH OUR REGULAR AGENDA.

[12.A. A Resolution Approving a Valet Licensing Agreement Between the City of Naples and Old Naples Hotel; Approving Right-of-Way Permit Application PRRW2502489 with Standard Permit Conditions and the Right-of-Way Operational Plan for the Old Naples Hotel to Allow Valet Services at the Old Naples Hotel Located at 200 Broad Avenue South; Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the Valet License Agreement; and Providing an Effective Date. (Alison Bickett, Deputy City Engineer)]

OLD BUSINESS 12 A MR. MCCONNELL. YEAH, I CAN GO AHEAD.

I'M GOING TO READ THE TITLE, A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VALET LICENSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND OLD NAPLES HOTEL APPROVING RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT APPLICATION PRR 2502489 WITH STANDARD PERMIT CONDITIONS AND THE RIGHT OF WAY OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR THE OLD NAPLES HOTEL TO ALLOW VALET SERVICES AT THE OLD NAPLES HOTEL, LOCATED AT 200 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE VALET LICENSE AGREEMENT AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU, MR. YOUNG. OH, YES. MAYOR. THIS WAS ASKED, AS I HAD MENTIONED, ON THE WE SET THE AGENDA, THAT THE APPLICANT HAD ASKED THAT THIS BE CONTINUED UNTIL, EXCUSE ME, SEPTEMBER 24TH AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT WE CONTINUE THIS ITEM.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MOTION. MOTION TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TILL SEPTEMBER 24TH.

SECOND. IS THAT SUFFICIENT, MR. MCCONNELL? THANK YOU.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF FOR A CONTINUANCE OF 12 A AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON.

ROLL CALL. COUNCIL MEMBER. CHRISMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PETRANOFF. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENNIMAN. YES.

VICE MAYOR. HUTCHINSON. YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES.

THANK YOU. THAT TAKES US TO 12. BE BEFORE WE MOVE REAL QUICK.

MAYOR FROM 12 A BECAUSE I DID READ THE TITLE THAT WAS IN THE AGENDA, BUT I WANTED TO CLARIFY FOR THE PUBLIC THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A SUPPLEMENT THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED. SO THAT RESOLUTION WAS ACTUALLY NOT INCLUDED IN THE MATERIALS, JUST IN CASE ANYONE WANTS TO SEE IT, BUT WILL BE FOR THE 24TH. THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM.

12 B IS NO TITLE. YES. MR. YOUNG? YES, MAYOR.

[12.B. Approval of the City-Wide Pavement Management Plan by Johnson Engineering and Consensus of Annual Review of the Priority List. (Bob Middleton, Director of Public Works)]

WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS THE CITY PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO TO BOB AND ALLISON.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. BOB MIDDLETON, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.

NICE TO BE HERE WITH YOU TODAY. THIS IS A PRESENTATION OF THE FINAL VERSION OF THE CITY'S PAVED PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN.

A LITTLE HISTORY ON JUNE 2024, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A CONTRACT WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES TO PREPARE A CITYWIDE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN. IN APRIL OF 25, JOHNSON ENGINEERING PROVIDED A PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON THE DATA COLLECTED AND THE INITIAL FINDINGS OF THE PLAN.

INITIAL FINDINGS INCLUDED THAT THE CITY HAS 0.23 MILES OF ROADWAYS IN POOR CONDITION.

10.17 MILES IN FAIR CONDITION, 68.9 MILES IN SATISFACTORY CONDITION AND 33.8 MILES CONSIDERED TO BE IN GOOD CONDITION. THE PLAN INCLUDES A MULTIYEAR.

[03:55:01]

PLANS OPTIONS BASED ON THE PAVEMENT SERVICES CYCLES FROM 1 TO 25 YEARS.

AND IF YOU LOOK THROUGH THE PLAN, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THERE ARE YEARS ONE THROUGH FIVE FOR EVERY YEAR OF THAT FIVE YEAR PERIOD.

WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU EVERY YEAR WITH THAT YEAR'S PLAN TO SPEND $1 MILLION A YEAR AS PART OF THE EITHER THE CAPITAL BUDGET, PROBABLY THE CAPITAL BUDGET AND O&M BUDGET FOR THE STREETS DEPARTMENT STAFF IS REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE CITYWIDE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN BY JOHNSON ENGINEERING BY PROVIDING CONSENSUS TO THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE PAVEMENT PRIORITY LIST. WITH THAT, I'LL INTRODUCE JOSH HILDEBRAND WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING.

YOU RECOGNIZE HIM FROM APRIL WHEN HE PRESENTED THE FIRST INITIAL PLAN.

HE WILL GO OVER THIS PLAN. WE ALSO HAVE DAVID RIVERA, OUR STREETS MANAGER, WHO OVERSEES THE PAVING PROJECTS, AND ALLISON BICKETT OUR DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER.

WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO JOSH. GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'M JOSH HILDEBRAND WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING.

I'LL BE GOING OVER THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN.

BEFORE WE GET INTO THE DETAILS, I JUST WANTED TO GO THROUGH AN OUTLINE OF TODAY'S PRESENTATION.

WE'RE GOING TO TOUCH ON THE PROJECT BACKGROUND SOME SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO WHAT BOB PROVIDED.

GO THROUGH THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, THE TIMELINE.

A QUICK RECAP OF HOW WE PERFORMED THE FIELD ASSESSMENT AND THE THE RATINGS, THE FINDINGS OF THE REPORT THE 20, THE FIVE YEAR AND THE 25 YEAR PLAN. AND THEN A SUMMARY, OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO WITH THAT, THE PROJECT BACKGROUND. SO WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE PLAN? IT IS THE CITY OWNED MAINTAINED STREETS, THE ADJACENT ON STREET PARKING BIKE LANES.

WE ALSO LOOKED AT, AT THE REQUEST OF STAFF, FIVE LIMITED COMMERCIAL ALLEYS WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THE PLAN.

WHAT THE PLAN DOES NOT INCLUDE ARE FDOT MAINTAINED CORRIDORS AND COUNTY MAINTAINED CORRIDORS.

THIS INCLUDES US 41 GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD, GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND IT ALSO EXCLUDES CITY OWNED PARKS, GREENWAYS, BRICK PAVER AREAS AND THEN ALSO ANY BRIDGES THAT HAVE A CONCRETE DECK.

SOME OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES WERE TO PERFORM A COMPREHENSIVE FIELD ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING PAVEMENT CONDITION WITHIN THE CITY.

WE DID DO 120 PAVEMENT COURSES THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

YOU MAY HAVE SEEN OUR SUBCONSULTANTS TIERRA'S TRUCKS OUT THERE CORING LOOKED LIKE A DRILL, LAST FALL, THIS WAS PERFORMED DURING THE NOVEMBER DECEMBER TIME FRAME.

FROM THERE, WE LOOKED AT POTENTIAL REHABILITATION STRATEGIES, OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE RESILIENCY, AND THEN ALSO COST ESTIMATES TO REHABILITATE THESE CORRIDORS.

AND THEN FINALLY FROM THERE, WE DEVELOPED A PLAN IN CONJUNCTION WITH STAFF FOR A SHORT AND LONG TERM MAINTENANCE OF ALL CITY MAINTAINED ROADS.

AS FAR AS THE TIMELINE BOB MENTIONED, WE WERE HERE IN APRIL.

WE'RE BACK HERE TODAY TO PRESENT THE FINAL FINDINGS AND THEN HOPEFULLY BEGIN THE 2025 IMPLEMENTATION OF SOME SPECIFIC STREETS, HOPEFULLY BEGINNING NEXT MONTH OR LATER THIS MONTH.

SO GETTING INTO THE FIELD ASSESSMENT WE USE WHAT'S CALLED A PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX, A RATING FOR ALL THE CORRIDORS.

OUR AREA STUDY INCLUDED THE CITY, THE CITY OF NAPLES LIMITS THAT YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE SCREEN.

INCLUDED IN THAT WERE 113 MILES OF TWO TWO WAY PAVED STREETS, WHICH WE SUBDIVIDED INTO 300 309 SEGMENTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE PLAN. AND THEN THOSE THOSE ALLEYWAYS THAT I MENTIONED, WHICH WERE APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE IN LENGTH.

SO WHAT EXACTLY IS A PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX RATING? I COULD TELL YOU, BUT I THOUGHT IT'D BE SIMPLER TO SHOW YOU WITH WITH A VISUALIZATION.

SO WHAT YOU HAVE HERE ON THE SCREEN AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE TOP RIGHT, A GOOD WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE IS A NEWLY PAVED ROAD.

AS PAVEMENT AGES, IT DOES CRACK, IT BECOMES BRITTLE, IT OXIDIZES, AND YOU CAN EXPECT DETERIORATION OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AT DIFFERENT RATES FOR DIFFERENT ROADS ALL THE WAY DOWN TO WHAT WE LABELED AS THE THE POOR CONDITION THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THE BOTTOM LEFT OF YOUR SCREEN.

THOSE RESULTS THAT RESULTED IN ON THE CITY STREETS, 96 OF THE 309 SEGMENTS BEING IN GOOD CONDITION.

THESE WERE PREDOMINANTLY THE STREETS THAT HAVE BEEN PAVED WITHIN THE LAST 5 TO 10 YEARS.

[04:00:02]

179 THIS WAS A MAJORITY WERE IN THAT SATISFACTORY CONDITION 32 AND FAIR.

AND THEN THERE WERE TWO SEGMENTS THAT SHOWED EXCESSIVE DETERIORATION IN A, IN A POOR CONDITION.

THE RESULTS ARE GOING TO BE MADE AVAILABLE IN GIS.

THE GRAPHIC ON THE RIGHT SHOWS WHAT WILL BE LOADED INTO THE CITY'S GIS SYSTEM.

AND THIS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR, FOR PUBLIC VIEWING.

AND THEN JUST TO KIND JUST TO CONCLUDE OF THAT ANALYSIS OF THE 113 TWO WAY MILES, THAT'S 0.23 MILES WERE IN POOR CONDITION.

A LITTLE OVER 12 WERE IN FAIR CONDITION. 67 WERE IN THAT SATISFACTORY, AND THEN APPROXIMATELY 34.5 WERE IN GOOD CONDITION, WITH AN OVERALL AVERAGE OF OF SATISFACTORY. AS WE MOVED IN TO LOOKING AT A RANKING, A A SUGGESTION FOR, FOR FOR RANKING THE CORRIDORS, WE DID TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE TRUCK, THE PREFERRED TRUCK ROUTES AS PART OF THAT SCORING EVALUATION, A SMALL COMPONENT OF THE THE TOTAL SCORE WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THE PREFERRED TRUCK ROUTES WITHIN THE CITY.

SO ONCE THE TRUCK ROUTES, THE PCI WERE PUT TOGETHER WE DEVELOPED A, A PROGRAM WITH STAFF.

I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE 25, 26, 27 AND 28 AND 29 FIVE YEAR PROGRAM WITH YOU.

I DID PRESENT THIS SLIDE IN APRIL. I DO WANT TO MAKE ONE UPDATE SINCE APRIL.

DAVE HAS SUCCESSFULLY GONE THROUGH A BIDDING PROCESS OF THE INITIAL 2025 PROGRAM, AND I'M PLEASED TO SAY THEY DID COME IN A LITTLE BIT UNDER BUDGET, WHICH PRESENTS SOME OPPORTUNITIES.

IN ADDITION, THERE WAS A STORMWATER PROJECT ON SECOND STREET FROM BROAD AVENUE SOUTH TO FIFTH AVENUE THAT THAT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED INCLUDED INTO THE 2025 YEAR PROGRAM. AND WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO DAVE TO TOUCH UPON THE 2025 PROGRAM.

COUNCIL DAVE RIVERA'S TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT.

YES, I, LIKE JOSH, MENTIONED, I TOOK THE LIST AND PROVIDED IT TO BOTH OF OUR VENDORS, AND IT WAS A VERY COMPETITIVE BID THIS YEAR. BUT PMI ENDED UP COMING OUT AHEAD OVER.

AND I MEAN, WHEN I MEAN COMPETITIVE, IT WAS LIKE $4,000 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BOTH OF THEM.

SO WE HAVE THESE ROADS AND BECAUSE OF THAT DOLLAR FIGURE AND WE ADDED SECOND STREET, LIKE YOU MENTIONED WE STILL HAD THE 1.5.

SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TAKING TWO OF THE ROADS FROM NEXT YEAR, THE 2026, INCORPORATING THEM INTO THIS YEAR TO GET AT THAT 1.5. AND THEN WE'LL JUST HAVE TO ADJUST THE 20, 26 YEAR BRINGING SOME FROM THE 27 YEAR UP.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION THAT THANKS TO MR. YOUNG AND STEPHANE. WE HAVE SOME FUND THROUGH THE THE IAN FUND, AND WE PLAN ON RESTORING 15 16TH AND THIRD AVENUE SOUTH BEACH ENDS THIS YEAR AS PART OF THIS AS WELL.

SO THAT'S OKAY. JOSH. THANK YOU. DAVE. I DID QUICKLY WANT TO GO OVER THE, THE FOLLOWING FOUR YEARS WITHIN THE FIVE YEAR PROGRAM STARTING WITH 2026.

AND AS DAVE MENTIONED THE BECAUSE OF THE OPPORTUNITY DUE TO THE, THE LOWER THAN ANTICIPATED BIDS THIS WILL THE REQUEST IS THIS FOR THIS TO BE SHIFTED THROUGH THROUGH THE PROGRAM.

SO SOME FROM 2026 WILL MOVE INTO 2025 AND SO ON.

BUT THE 2026 PROGRAM IS CURRENTLY FUNDED FOR FOR $1 MILLION.

THESE ARE THE SEGMENTS AGAIN, ALL THESE SEGMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED TO TO STAFF TO THE CITY AND GIS SIMILAR TO THE GRAPHIC YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT THE 2027 PROGRAM WILL INCLUDE FIVE CORRIDORS.

THE 2028 WILL HAVE SIX CORRIDORS. AND THEN FINALLY THERE A LITTLE BIT LONGER SEGMENTS.

THE 2029 PROGRAM, THE WAY THE RECOMMENDATION ORDER WAS FOR PARK SHORE DRIVE AND FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH.

IN IN SUMMARY, THE FIVE YEAR PROGRAM IT WILL BE IT'S PROPOSED FOR APPROXIMATELY 29 TOTAL LANE MILES AS PART

[04:05:04]

OF THE PROGRAM. WITHIN THAT, APPROXIMATELY $5.5 MILLION PROGRAM.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE COST PER PER LANE MILE FLUCTUATES A LITTLE BIT.

IF THERE'S ON STREET PARKING OR IF WE HAVE A DIFFERENT PAVEMENT DEPTH OR A SLIGHTLY WIDER PAVEMENT WIDTH.

THAT'S WHY YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE SLIGHT DIFFERENCES IN THE TOTAL LANE COST.

BUT IN GENERAL 29 MILES IS WHAT'S BEING RECOMMENDED WITHIN THE SEGMENTS HERE SHOWN SHOWN ON THE RIGHT, WITH THAT. TODAY, WE'RE HERE TO ASK FOR CONSENSUS OF THE 2025 RESURFACING PROGRAM TO BEGIN LATER THIS MONTH.

AND THEN ALSO PROCEED GENERALLY WITH BOTH THE SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE PLAN.

WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

COUNCIL. YOU KNOW, I RECEIVED THIS, AND I DROVE AROUND SOME OF THE STREETS AND SOME OF THE STREETS LOOK LIKE THEY'RE UNSATISFACTORY IN A CERTAIN AREA, BUT THEY'RE NO MORE.

THEY'RE THEY'RE NOWHERE ON THIS REPORT. DID YOU HOW DID YOU SAMPLE? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE AS WE GO, AS WE GO TO THE BEACH FROM HEADING FROM EAST TO, TO GOING WEST THE ROADS DETERIORATE, I THINK BECAUSE OF THE HURRICANE AND SOME OF THE FLOODING. DID WE EQUALLY SAMPLE ALONG THE WHOLE STREETS? WE DID. SO IN EVERY STREET. EVERY STREET. SO OF THE 113 TOTAL MILES, THOSE WERE FURTHER BROKEN DOWN INTO 309 SEGMENTS. WE DID VIDEO, WE DID MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF EVERY SEGMENT, AND THEN WE DID.

I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE I, I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE A COPY OF OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT IN THE PRESENTATION, BUT THERE WERE, THERE WERE DEDUCTIONS BASED OFF OF THE FREQUENCY OF WHETHER IT WAS A CERTAIN TYPE OF CRACKING OR RUTTING OR THERE WERE DIFFERENT PAVEMENT FAILURES. AND THEN THE SEVERITY AND THEN THAT WAS DEDUCTED FROM A 100%, 100% SCORE. SO THAT IS THE INDUSTRY STANDARD FOR HOW THESE ASSESSMENTS ARE CONDUCTED.

AND YOU ARE RIGHT, THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME LONGER STRETCHES WHERE THERE MAY BE A SMALL ISOLATED PATCH OR TWO OF SOME MORE EXCESSIVE CRACKING. WE DO GENERALLY LOOK AT THE WHOLE WHOLE CORRIDOR.

I DO UNDERSTAND SOME OF THOSE CORRIDORS HAVE SOME, SOME DIFFERENCES.

THROUGHOUT THE LENGTH I TRIED TO, TO BREAK THOSE UP WHERE WHERE WE COULD BUT THERE MAY STILL BE SOME ISOLATED POCKETS, WHICH I BELIEVE DAVE HAS HISTORICALLY HANDLED WITHIN THE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM.

IF THERE'S A POTHOLE OR SOME SMALLER, ISOLATED TYPE FAILURE.

OKAY, SO THERE'S TWO POTS OF MONEY. ONE FOR THIS PROACTIVE, YOU KNOW, REHABILITATING STREETS AS I PROACTIVELY IDENTIFYING.

AND THEN THERE'S THINGS THAT RESIDENTS MAY CALL IN AND SAY, I'VE GOT THIS BIG POTHOLE IN FRONT OF MY AND THAT.

AND THAT'S TAKEN OUT OF A DIFFERENT POOL. I HAVE AN OPERATION ACCOUNT THAT I ADDRESS.

ANY POTHOLES, ANY BROKEN SIDEWALKS, VALLEY GUTTERS, STUFF LIKE THAT.

SO. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND LET ME ALSO SAY THAT PMI IS ACTUALLY STARTING TODAY REPLACING ALL THE MANHOLES OUT THERE THAT WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE STORMWATER AND WASTEWATER COLLECTION.

AND THEN WE'LL BE STARTING PAVING THE 15TH OF THIS MONTH.

THEN THE SECOND THING IS MORE OF AN OPERATIONAL QUESTION THAT I HAD WAS YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE, LIKE I THOUGHT I SAW IN THE OUTER YEARS, FIFTH AVENUE WAS ONE OF THEM.

IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY, GIVEN THAT MOST OF THE TRAFFIC IS NOT FROM CITY RESIDENTS YET THE THE PRICE OF THESE ARE BORNE BY TAXPAYERS THAT ARE CITY RESIDENTS. TO GET, YOU KNOW, OTHER FUNDING FROM THE COUNTY OR TDC FUNDING FOR, YOU KNOW, AS WE'RE BRINGING TOURISTS INTO TOURIST AREAS LIKE FIFTH AVENUE THAT COULD SUBSIDIZE THE COST OF THESE.

IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET. THAT'S THAT'S YEAH, HE'S COMMENT IS, YOU KNOW, THE TDC, I THINK WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR FUNDING FOR, FOR DOING MORE OF OUR STREETS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE CORRECT ON FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH.

THAT'S. YEAH. AND THE LOOKY LOOS ON GULF SHORES, YOU KNOW, LOOKY LOOS ON GORDON.

YOU KNOW, IT'S IT JUST SEEMS THINGS IN FRONT OF HOTELS JUST SCREAMED TO ME TDC FUNDING.

YEAH, YEAH. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE THE CITY IS PUTTING UP $1 MILLION A YEAR AND WE'RE GETTING OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD.

[04:10:01]

I THINK I WROTE DOWN 20, 29 MILES OF ROAD OUT OF 113.

SO IF YOU COULD EVEN DOUBLE THAT ANNUALLY YOU KNOW, WE COULD WE COULD DOUBLE GO FROM 30 MILES TO 60 MILES A YEAR.

SO IF I HAVE MY NUMBERS CORRECT. SO, YEAH, FUNDING RIGHT NOW IS LIMITED, LIMITING US ON WHAT WE CAN DO.

OKAY. AND THIS PAVING DOES IT. DOES IT NOT INCLUDE THE THAT BYPRODUCT THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO FROM THE STATE, FROM THE WAS IT PUT THOSE THAT MINING OPERATION WHERE THEY SAID THEY COULD ADD IT TO OUR, TO OUR PAVING HIGHWAYS? OH, IT'S JUST FOR HIGH PHOSPHATE. PHOSPHATE? THEY'RE THE EXPERTS.

BUT I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I RECALL. THAT WAS A TEST.

THAT WAS A PILOT TEST WITH THAT. AND FROM THEN.

NOW, SINCE THEN, I THINK THE STATE HAS SAID IT DIDN'T WASN'T SUCCESSFUL.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER CUSHMAN. GREAT JOB, STAFF AND CONSULTANT ON ON THIS. AND VERY WELL LAID OUT AND YOU KNOW, COMPREHENSIVE AND WORKING WITHIN OUR FUNDING LIMITATIONS. I THINK YOU LAID OUT A GOOD SET OF PRIORITIES AS FAR AS I CAN.

SEE AND APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK ON IT. I HAVE A RELATED ISSUE I WANT TO RAISE.

AND I THINK THIS IS A GOOD MOMENT TO DO IT. AND IT HAS TO DO WITH SPEED LIMITS.

AND ON THE, ON THE CHART OF ALL STREETS, THEY LIST THE SPEED LIMITS.

AND YOU KNOW, IF YOU DRIVE AROUND NAPLES YOU'LL SEE SPEED LIMIT SIGNS, AND THERE'S A LOT OF SIGNS THAT YOU COME ACROSS THAT SAY SPEED LIMIT 25 MILES AN HOUR, AND THEN RIGHT BELOW IT, IT SAYS ALL STREETS. AND THAT'S TRUE UNTIL YOU GET ON THE NEXT STREET.

I WAS ON FIRST AVENUE SOUTH THE OTHER DAY, AND I TURNED OFF A GULF SHORE ONTO FIRST AVENUE SOUTH.

SAW THAT SIGN, AND I TURN LEFT ON SECOND AND TURN RIGHT ON CENTRAL AND SAW A 30 MILE AN HOUR SPEED LIMIT SIGN ON CENTRAL.

AND AS WE KNOW, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STREETS THAT ARE 30 IN THE CITY.

AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT I'M EXCLUDING GOLDEN GATE AND AND 41 AND SO ON.

GOODLETTE FRANK. MOST IF YOU LOOK AT THE CHART IN THE AGENDA MATERIAL, MOST OF OUR SPEED LIMITS ARE 25.

BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STREETS CREIGHTON, GULF SHORE CENTRAL THAT ARE 30 OR SOMETIMES OCCASIONALLY, MAYBE 35. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF HOA'S THAT HAVE APPROACHED ME ANYWAY WITH CONCERNS ABOUT SPEED LIMITS IN THE TOWN. AND ALSO THERE'S A RELATED ISSUE THAT'S BEEN BUBBLING UP AROUND ENFORCEMENT OF AROUND SPEEDERS.

AND THERE'S A VIEW THAT ALL OF OUR LOCAL STREETS SHOULD BE 25 MILES AN HOUR MAX.

AND I KNOW THE CHIEF HAS BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH A LOT OF THESE FOLKS ABOUT ABOUT THIS AND IS AWARE OF IT, AND THE DEPARTMENT'S AWARE OF IT. AND THERE'S CONVERSATIONS GOING ON AROUND WHETHER AND HOW THIS, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE RULES AROUND WHICH YOU CAN ADJUST SPEED LIMITS BECAUSE THERE ARE RULES AND PROCESSES, AS MISS PICKETT KNOWS. AND I'M SURE YOU KNOW, MR. RIVERA, HOW YOU DO THIS, BUT I, I JUST WANTED TO PUT THIS ON THE TABLE BECAUSE I REALLY THINK IT'S TIME FOR US TO TO TO LOOK AT THIS. I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION YET WHETHER, IN FACT, ALL OF OUR LOCAL STREETS SHOULD BE 25 MILES AN HOUR, IF THAT'S IF THAT'S THE ANSWER.

BUT IF THEY'RE NOT, OUR SIGNAGE IS WRONG, I'LL TELL YOU THAT.

AND, AND AND AND I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THIS BECAUSE IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD MOMENT TO DO SO AND GET A REACTION FROM STAFF, AND SUGGEST THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF SHOULD CONTINUE TO LOOK AT IN AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO BRING BACK TO US WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS.

IF I MAY, I CAN ANSWER SOME OF THAT. I'M PROBABLY GUESSING ON A DATE, BUT I THINK IT WAS 2007 WHEN COUNCIL DECIDED TO CONVERT THE CITY TO 25 MILES AN HOUR, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 6 TO 7 ROADS.

AND THE REASON THEY SAY ALL STREETS IS WE ENDED UP INSTALLING OVER 250 SIGNS IN THE CITY WITH 25 MILE AN HOUR.

AND THE REASON WE DID THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN CORRIDORS.

[04:15:01]

SO WE PUT THEM ON THE OUTLINE OF THAT CORRIDOR.

SO IT SAYS ALL STREETS. SO WITHIN THAT AREA IT'S 25 MILES AN HOUR.

ONCE YOU COME OUT OF IT, YOU GOT THE 30 MILE AN HOUR.

SO THAT'S HOW THE ALL STREETS CAME ABOUT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. THAT THAT MADE ME. THAT THAT FACT MAY NOT BE KNOWN TO ALL PEOPLE DRIVING AUTOMOBILES IN NAPLES.

AND AND I WANT TO EMPHASIZE, YOU KNOW, I KIND OF DEDUCED WHEN I, WHEN I REALLY DUG INTO THE DATA THAT THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A DECISION MADE SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY FOR THE, YOU KNOW, THE STREETS THAT ARE YOU KNOW, SHALL WE SAY, MORE ARTERIAL STREETS? I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO DESCRIBE IT. YOU KNOW, HAVING MORE THROUGH TRAFFIC AND SO ON GULF SHORE BOULEVARD AND SO ON TO MAKE THE SPEED LIMIT A LITTLE HIGHER THERE. I CAN TELL YOU THOSE ARE THE VERY, VERY STREETS, THOUGH.

CREIGHTON, GULF SHORE BOULEVARD, BANYAN, WHERE I HEAR THE GREATEST NUMBER OF CONCERNS ABOUT CARS DRIVING TOO FAST.

AND OF COURSE, WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT IN TERMS OF ENFORCEMENT, WHATEVER THE SPEED LIMIT IS, THE REALITY IS IT'S PLUS TEN, RIGHT? IT'S ALWAYS PLUS TEN PLUS NINE PLUS NINE PLUS NINE.

OKAY. CALL IT NINE. SO SO AGAIN MAYBE YOU KNOW THERE'S THERE'S MULTIPLE CONSIDERATIONS HERE I RECOGNIZE ABOUT YOU KNOW I MEAN SAFETY IS PARAMOUNT OBVIOUSLY. BUT THEN YOU'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO FACILITATE TRAFFIC FLOW AND AND SO ON.

AND I'M NOT I'M NOT PREJUDGING WHAT THE ACTION SHOULD BE.

I'M MERELY SAYING THAT I THINK IT'S IT'S IT'S TIME FOR US TO REVISIT THAT 2007 ACTION.

AND PERHAPS WE WANT TO LEAVE IT IN PLACE. MAYBE WE WANT TO MODIFY IT.

I DON'T KNOW, BUT I THINK BASED ON ON WHERE WHAT I'M HEARING IN TERMS OF CONCERNS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY, I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY A GOOD TIME RIGHT NOW TO REVISIT IT.

I MIGHT ADD THAT THE STREETS THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO THAT ARE SITED AT 30MPH ARE IDENTIFIED IN CODE.

WELL, AND THEY'RE IDENTIFIED AS OUR COLLECTOR STREETS WITHIN THERE.

AND THOSE WERE SET TYPICALLY I BELIEVE I DID I ACTUALLY DID A PRESENTATION ON THE CITY LIMITS A WHILE BACK, AND PARTICULARLY GLOUCESTER BOULEVARD. I THINK WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE PROJECT AND SOME CHANGES THAT WE'RE MAKING ALONG THAT CORRIDOR.

I THINK AT THE TIME WE WERE LOOKING AT MODIFYING THAT FROM 30 TO 25.

I CHECKED WITH THE STATE, AND BECAUSE TYPICALLY I THINK THAT FOR LOCAL ROADS THERE TO BE SET AT 30MPH, UNLESS WE ELECT TO OTHERWISE THEN THERE TO BE, THEY CAN BE DROPPED ACCORDINGLY.

WHEN WE DID A STUDY, AT LEAST ON GLOUCESTER BOULEVARD PRESENTED THAT AND IT WAS DETERMINED AT THAT TIME TO, TO STAY WITH THE 30MPH IN THAT SECTION. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN SOME TIME SINCE WE HAD VISITED THAT DISCUSSION, AND I HAVE HEARD SOME OF THE COMPLAINTS. I THINK SOMETIMES THE PROBLEM IS, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE SOME INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE SPEEDERS ALONG THE SECTION, AND I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, IT. YOU KNOW, WE EVALUATE BASED ON THE 85TH PERCENTILE AND CHECK THE SPEED LIMIT.

AND SOMETIMES IT'S JUST THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROAD THAT WE AND THAT'S WHAT WE EVALUATE UPON BASED UPON AND COMPARE WHEN WE DO THE EVALUATION.

BUT SOMETIMES IT'S JUST THE DRIVERS AND THERE'S, THERE'S THOSE, THOSE DRIVERS THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE SPEED LIMIT IS.

THEY'RE GOING TO, THEY'RE GOING TO DRIVE TO. BUT, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE, YOU'RE COMING FROM AND WE CAN.

WELL, AGAIN, I REALLY WOULD WANT TO HEAR WHAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND, AND OUR, AND OUR ROADS DEPARTMENT STAFF WOULD HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT.

IF YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO REALLY LOOK AT IT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT SPEEDING.

THESE CAN OFTEN BE RANDOM KINDS OF INCIDENTS THAT ARE VERY NOTICEABLE, AND WE OBVIOUSLY DON'T HAVE IN FEW CITIES DO A POLICE FORCE LARGE ENOUGH TO BE STATIONED EVERYWHERE AT ONCE TO, YOU KNOW, ENFORCE THESE LAWS.

BUT THE ARGUMENT WOULD BE THAT IF YOU HAVE, SHALL WE SAY, A MORE MODEST UNIFORM SPEED LIMIT, IT IT IT HAS SOME DETERRENT EFFECT IN TERMS OF HOW FAST PEOPLE DRIVE.

THAT WOULD BE THE ARGUMENT. BUT ANYWAY, MOST OF THE SPEEDERS ARE VOCALS DURING THIS TIME OF YEAR BECAUSE WE HAVE LESS TRAFFIC, SO THEY'RE ABLE TO GO FASTER. SO THAT'S ONE THAT'S TRUE TOO.

YEAH. YEAH. THAT'S WHY WE LIKE IT IN SEASON WHEN THERE'S MORE TRAFFIC.

[04:20:03]

FEWER PEOPLE CAN SPEED. ANYWAY. I WOULD JUST MR. MIDDLETON, MR. PICKETT, MR. RIVERA, MR. YOUNG, JUST AS I, AS I SAID, I KNOW THE CHIEF AND HIS PEOPLE ARE ALREADY LOOKING AT THIS AND HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS, AND I FEEL LIKE YOU'LL BE HEARING FROM THE FROM THE COMMUNITY ON THIS AS WE GET BACK. PEOPLE GET BACK INTO TOWN. SO THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT I SUSPECT IS GOING TO BE RISING UP IN TERMS OF PUBLIC INPUT AS WELL.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NO. I'M LOOKING COUNSELOR. FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I'M LOOKING AT PAGE 27 AND I'M LOOKING AT PAGE 38 FROM THE REPORT THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US. AND I THINK I'VE COUNTED THERE ARE OVER 20 STREETS.

READS THEY'RE CONSIDERED TO BE SATISFACTORY AND A FEW THAT ARE FAIR.

WE KNOW AND YOU KNOW AS WELL AS WE DO THAT AS WE PROGRESS ALONG THIS TRAJECTORY OF CALENDAR YEARS THAT MANY OF THE STREETS THAT ARE LISTED AS SATISFACTORY ARE GOING TO BE PRONE TO SALTWATER INVASION.

IF IT ISN'T FROM THE GULF, IT'S GOING TO BE FROM UNDERNEATH.

TELL ME WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE A SHELF LIFE FOR A SATISFACTORY STREET.

SO THERE'S NO SPECIFIC TIME FRAME WHERE A ROAD IS GOOD AND THEN JUST JUST BAD BY A FUNCTION OF TIME.

THEY THEY DETERIORATE AT DIFFERENT RATES FOR DIFFERENT CONDITIONS.

THERE COULD BE UNDERLYING CONDITIONS. THERE COULD BE OTHER FACTORS SUCH AS HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC.

WHAT I HAVE UP ON THE SCREEN IS THE AS FAR AS THE PCI RATING THE SATISFACTORY ROADS WILL STILL HAVE SOME SPORADIC STARTING TO CRACK AREAS OR MAYBE SOME EARLY SIGNS OF SETTLEMENT.

AND YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. AS AS PAVEMENT AGES IT WILL EVENTUALLY DETERIORATE.

NOW, WHETHER THAT I'VE SEEN ROADS WHERE THEY START TO HAVE CRACKING WITHIN A COUPLE OF YEARS, I'VE SEEN ROADS THAT ARE OVER 25 YEARS OLD THAT THAT STILL LOOK IN A FAIRLY DECENT CONDITION.

YOU CAN TELL THEY'RE OLDER, BUT AS FAR AS THE, EXCUSE ME, THE STREETS WITHIN THE CITY, I DO EXPECT THE ONES THAT ARE IN THIS SATISFACTORY AND WE FOLLOWED THE NATIONAL SCALE FOR THAT. SO THERE IS STILL SATISFACTORY.

DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE IN PERFECT CONDITION. THEY ARE STARTING TO SHOW EARLY SIGNS AND THERE IS A RANGE WITHIN THAT SATISFACTORY.

SO YOU CAN'T EXPECT OVER TIME THAT SOME OF THOSE, THOSE CORRIDORS WILL EVENTUALLY MOVE INTO THAT FAIR CONDITION.

AND THEN ULTIMATELY IF ENOUGH TIME PASSES EVENTUALLY IN A POOR CONDITION.

SO I WOULD ANTICIPATE OVER TIME THAT THE CRACKS SETTLEMENT AND DIFFERENT THINGS THAT ARE CAUSING THE ROAD DETERIORATION WILL INCREASE OVER TIME. AND THAT'S WHY THE PROGRAM SET UP OVER A 25 YEAR PERIOD.

THINK OF IT AS KIND OF A SLIDING SCALE AS, AS PROJECTS AT THE TOP ARE, ARE REHABILITATED AND BECOME GOOD.

THE WHOLE THING IS GOING TO KIND OF SHIFT UP OVER TIME TOGETHER, BUT DIFFERENT ROADS IN THE MIDDLE MAY DETERIORATE IT AT A DIFFERENT RATE.

SO THAT'S THAT'S WHY THE MONITORING IS IMPORTANT.

AND HAVING AND WE DO HAVE VIDEO DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE LAST FALL AND HOPEFULLY HAVE VIDEOTAPE VIDEO DOCUMENTATION TO COMPARE IT TO. WHATEVER THAT THAT FUTURE CONDITION IS. SO YOU CAN MONITOR SOME OF THOSE THOSE AREAS THAT ARE SHOWING EARLY SIGNS.

SO DO I UNDERSTAND OR AM I MISUNDERSTANDING THAT SALTWATER WILL OR WILL NOT HAVE AN APPRECIABLE EFFECT ON? PARTICULARLY? LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT SATISFACTORY WORK ROADS WHERE YOU'VE ALREADY GOT SOME CRACKING.

SALTWATER WILL OR WILL NOT HAVE AN APPRECIABLE EFFECT ON THAT.

IT WILL IF THERE IS CRACKING. NOT JUST SALTWATER, BUT ANY WATER AS IT INFILTRATES THROUGH THAT TOP LAYER OF ASPHALT INTO WHAT'S TYPICALLY A LIME ROCK BASE. AS TRAFFIC RUNS OVER THOSE CRACKS, THEY WILL START TO, TO EXPAND.

AND, AND WHEN YOU HAVE THAT SATURATED BASE BE IT SALT WATER OR FRESH WATER, IT DOES CAUSE LONG TERM DETERIORATION OF OF THE ASPHALT. JUST TAKE US THROUGH. SORRY, DAVE.

[04:25:06]

YOU KNOW, THIS IS A 25 YEAR PROGRAM. WELL, THAT'S BASED ON THE PCI RIGHT NOW FOR THE STREETS OUT IN 25 YEARS.

TAKE US THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO, YOU KNOW, FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS AS FAR AS REEVALUATING THE PCI ON THOSE STREETS THAT MAY CHANGE THEIR ORDER.

CORRECT. SO WITHIN THE REPORT THERE'S A COUPLE HUNDRED PAGES THAT DO HAVE THE EVALUATION.

THESE EVALUATION OCCURRED LAST FALL. A FEW OF THEM DID OCCUR IN JANUARY AS WELL.

BUT WE'RE ALSO HAVE THAT VIDEO DOCUMENTATION SO WE CAN GO IN AND LOOK AT AN ISOLATED LOCATION.

AND IF WE SEE THAT THAT CRACKING IS EITHER HAVE GREATER SEVERITY OR THE CRACKS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND SPRAWLING OUT OR JUST IN.

SOMETHING ELSE IS INCREASING ALONG THE ROAD THAT PCI WILL SHIFT OVER TIME AS PART OF THAT EVALUATION PROCESS.

AND THAT'S WHY ON IN THE PROGRAM STREETS THAT LOOK THAT WERE JUST PAVED A YEAR OR TWO AGO ARE STILL IN THE PROGRAM BECAUSE IT IS OVER TIME, WE ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WILL BE A GRADUAL DETERIORATION OVER THE NEXT 25 YEARS OF SOME OF THOSE THOSE CORRIDORS.

COUNCILWOMAN. JOSH DID A LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE WE GENERALLY IN THE CITY, WE ALWAYS USED TO MILL JUST ONE INCH AND PUT BACK AN INCH. OKAY. BUT BASED ON HIS REPORT, WE ARE NOW GOING INCH AND A HALF, TWO INCHES TO ADDRESS THE THE CRACKING AND EVERYTHING. SO A LOT OF THESE ROADS THAT WE'RE DOING THIS YEAR, THERE ARE A LOT THICKER.

SO WE'RE REMOVING A LOT OF THE BAD MATERIAL, AND WE'RE PUTTING A THICKER ASPHALT TO HELP PROLONG THESE ROADS EVEN LONGER.

THAT'S VERY GOOD INFORMATION, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE LAST THING WE WANT TO DO IS THROW GOOD MONEY AFTER BAD.

SO WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS, IS THAT WITH A TWO INCH OVERLAY, THAT THE THAT THE LONGEVITY OF THAT PARTICULAR APPLICATION SHOULD LAST THAT MUCH LONGER BASED ON HIS EVALUATION OF THE ROADS WE'RE DOING FROM INCH AND A HALF TO TWO INCHES THIS YEAR.

AND WHAT WE DID, AND THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE PAVEMENT COINS.

A LOT OF THOSE CORES OCCURRED ON TOP OF CRACKS, AND WE COULD SEE HOW DEEP THOSE CRACKS WENT INTO YOUR SECTION.

AND THEN WE ADJUSTED THE MILLING THICKNESS TO TRY TO REMOVE THOSE CRACKS TO HAVE BETTER LONG TERM MAINTENANCE RESULTS.

OKAY. AND WHERE YOU'VE DONE EVALUATIONS IN OTHER PLACES WHERE THERE IS SALT WATER INTRUSION, DO YOU NOTICE THE ATTRITION RATE AS ACCELERATING BECAUSE OF THE INTRODUCTION OF SALT WATER.

I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY ABOUT SALT WATER, BUT WATER ITSELF DOES.

DOES CAUSE AN ISSUE WITH THE CRACKS. WHETHER IT'S FRESH OR SALT.

SO I THINK. GETTING THOSE CRACKS, THOSE THOSE CRACKS WILL REFLECT BACK THROUGH OVER TIME.

SO IF YOU CAN MAINTAIN A PAVEMENT SURFACE WITHOUT THE CRACKS, WITHOUT WHETHER SALT WATER OR FRESH WATER GETTING INTO IT.

I THINK YOU'LL YOU'LL DEFINITELY HAVE BETTER LONG TERM PERFORMANCE ON, ON YOUR ROAD FROM A MAINTENANCE STANDPOINT AND LONG TERM, IN YOUR TERMINOLOGY, MEANS 20 TO 25 YEARS IS WHAT WE'RE ESTIMATING.

AGAIN, IT IT CAN GO EITHER WAY. OKAY. OKAY. GOOD ANSWERS.

THANK YOU. OTHER COMMENTS. WELL, I I AM APPRECIATIVE OF THIS, BUT I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE SO MANY GOOD STREETS BECAUSE I THINK MOST OF OUR STREETS AFTER JUST DRIVING AROUND IN THE COMMUNITY THEY'RE ALL ALLIGATOR, AND IF NOT WORSE. SO I'M THANKFUL THAT WE ARE NOW MOVING FORWARD.

SO HEAR ME THAT I'M APPRECIATIVE THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD IN THE PAVEMENT PROGRAM, BUT WE NEED TO DO MORE, AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS OF UPGRADING OUR WATER AND SEWER AND HOW THESE STREETS ARE AFFECTED. CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO REPAVE A STREET.

AND THEN HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT NEEDS TO GO AND BE UPGRADED AND THEN HAVE TO REPAVE AGAIN.

AND WHAT I SEE IS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT ARE WE INCLUDING ANY TYPE OF YOU KNOW, ACCOUNTABILITY FOR BUILDERS OR ANYBODY ELSE WHEN THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPING A WHOLE STREET AND THEN THE WHOLE STREET BECOMES

[04:30:04]

DETERIORATED? AND EVEN I MEAN, I SEE GULF SHORE BOULEVARD.

I MEAN, THE GULFSHORE PLAYHOUSE. LIKE, ARE WE THINKING AHEAD WHEN WE'RE BUILDING THESE PROJECTS THAT OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REPAVE? WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, ANY LANGUAGE BUILT INTO OUR CODE, PARTICULARLY TO ENFORCE THAT.

BUT WE HAVE WHEN WE'VE HAD SOME OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICULARLY IF THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL UNITS BUILT ALONG A CERTAIN SECTION OF ROAD IT THE ALLEYWAYS TYPICALLY GET A LOT OF CONSTRUCTED BECAUSE THAT'S USUALLY WHERE THEY SET UP FOR THE CONSTRUCTION.

THERE'S A LOT OF DETERIORATION AND DAMAGE THAT IS AND THAT HAS YOU KNOW, TO, TO DAMAGE THOSE ALLEYWAYS.

SO WE TYPICALLY DO REQUEST OR I REQUEST AS PART OF THE RESTORATION WHEN THEY'RE COMPLETE TO MILL AND RESURFACE UPON COMPLETION, IT SHOULD BE IN BETTER AT LEAST BETTER CONDITION THAN WHEN THEY STARTED.

SO WE ARE KEEPING AN EYE, AT LEAST ON THE ALLEYWAYS AND THE DAMAGE THAT THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, PUTTING IN PLACE FROM THIS CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY.

THE ROADS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT STORY. AND I ALSO I WORK WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

I PROVIDE THE LIST THAT WE'RE DOING. I ALSO ASKED THEM TO REACH OUT TO THEM, TO ALL THE CONTRACTORS, BECAUSE SOME CONTRACTORS WILL REACH OUT TO ME AND SAY, WHY ARE YOU PAVING THIS? WHY CAN'T YOU WAIT? I SAID, BECAUSE NEXT WEEK THAT HOUSE WILL BE GONE AND I'LL NEVER GET THE ROADS DONE.

SO BUT WE WE ASK THEM TO PLEASE PROVIDE PLYWOOD TO PUT ON THE BRAND NEW ROADS FOR ANY ROLL OFFS OR ANY DUMP TRUCKS THAT ARE GOING TO BE TURNING HARD ON THEIR IF NOT, THEN THEY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE.

LIKE ALLISON SAID, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A MILL AND REPAVE THE ROAD ON THEIR DIME IF THEY DAMAGE OUR ROADS.

SO. I SO THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS. ALSO, I DON'T SEE FOREST ON HERE. HAS ANYBODY SEEN FOREST LANE? I SAW FOREST ROAD AND I. AND IF IT GETS PAVED, I'M GOING TO BE UPSET.

BUT I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 33 YEARS, AND THE ROADS NEVER BEEN PAVED.

SO, I MEAN, I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW IT COULD HAVE GOTTEN A GOOD OR A FAIR OR ANYTHING.

AND I'M SERIOUS. I'M NOT ASKING. DO NOT COME AND PAY MY RENT.

BUT I JUST HAD TO USE IT AS AN EXAMPLE BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, I'M LIKE, WELL, MY STREET HAS NEVER BEEN PAVED.

SO SOMEHOW ALONG THE WAY, WE NEED TO GET, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THE PROGRAM AND HOW WE ANALYZE IT.

AND I KNOW SOMETIMES IT'S THE SQUEAKY WHEEL THAT GETS FIXED.

BUT WE REALLY HAVE SOME SERIOUS ISSUES ON. I MEAN, I EVEN THINK WE SHOULD BUY ONE PAVER OURSELVES AND ADD IT INTO OUR DEPARTMENT BECAUSE WE JUST WE CAN'T KEEP UP WITH IT.

IT'S A MESS. AND THEN I'LL JUST PUT THAT OUT THERE ON MAYOR.

IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PAVE YOUR ROAD, COULD THEY PAVE MINE? YEAH. YES.

WE DO, DO WE DECLARE WHETHER WE HAD A POLICY ON ALLEYS BEING PAVED VERSUS SHELL? WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT POLICY YET. I THINK WE DID TALK ABOUT THAT.

COUNCIL. SO CAN WE BRING THAT BACK? AND AND YOU LOOKING AT THE CODES, CAN YOU ANALYZE THOSE WITH, YOU KNOW, AND GIVE US RECOMMENDATIONS OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO BRING OUR CODES UP SO THAT WE ARE FOCUSED IN ON NOT BEING HAND TIED TO MAKING THE CHANGES THAT NEED TO HAPPEN.

YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT DECISION MADE.

I GET A LOT OF PHONE CALLS ASKING, YOU KNOW, WHY IS THIS GRAVEL? WHY IS THAT CRUSHED ROCK? WHY IS THIS ASPHALT AND WHY CAN'T I HAVE IT DONE? AND I TOLD THEM AT ONE TIME COUNCIL TOLD US, DO NOTHING AND JUST PATCH ROADS OR ADD ADDITIONAL GRAVEL OR ADDITIONAL SHELL.

THAT'S ALL I CAN DO. SO AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN SINCE THAT DIRECTION.

WE HAVE NOT ALLOWED ANY EXTENSION OF OUR ALLEYWAYS.

I THINK THAT THEY'VE WE'VE TRIED TO KEEP THEM GREEN AND PERMEABLE.

I THINK FOR THAT DIRECTION THAT WE RECEIVED PREVIOUSLY.

SO WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO MAINTAIN THAT AND NOT EXTENDING.

WE'VE ALLOWED THERE'S BEEN SOME INDIVIDUALS, I THINK THAT ALONG AN ALLEYWAY SECTION THAT HAVE DECIDED TO CHIP IN AND COMPLETE AND RE RESTORE AN ALLEYWAY THAT'S ALREADY BEEN PAVED, BUT OR WE'VE TAKEN ON SOME PROJECTS, BUT WE'VE DONE LIKE FOR LIKE.

YEAH. AND I UNDERSTAND IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO CHIP IN AND HAVE THEIR ALLEY PAVED.

[04:35:07]

BUT THIS IS A POLICY OF WHETHER IT'S PERMEABLE OR NOT.

THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE NEED TO COME FROM. AND I THINK WE JUST WE'RE DOING THREE AND SHELL ALLEY WAS COQUINA AND THIRD IS NOW BEING REPAVED. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT WAS COQUINA OR NOT.

THE ALLEY OFF OF THIRD. IT'S ON THIS KIND OF MADE IT TO THE TOP.

BUT WE NEED TO HAVE THAT COME BACK. AND SO WITH THAT? YEAH. THANK YOU. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER.

WE NEED TO HUSTLE BECAUSE WE GOT A LOT OF AGENDA. BUT I'LL JUST SAY THIS. I THINK YOU MADE A NOTE. I'M HAPPY TO TAKE IT BEFORE TDC. I THINK THAT IS A SLAM DUNK.

BUT I WOULD LIKE THE SOME HISTORY ABOUT WE'RE TAKING AS A TELECOM.

WHAT DO WE WHAT DO WE HAVE TO. SO YEAH. SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS INVOLVED.

YOU'RE DOUBLING AND 29 OVER FIVE YEARS BECOMES 60 OVER ONE OR SOMETHING.

I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THOSE NUMBERS, BUT WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT LATER. BUT THAT BEING SAID, A COUPLE OF THINGS.

YES, WE'VE ALREADY COMMITTED ALL OF OUR TELECOM TO THE STREET DEPARTMENT AND FOREGONE IT IN THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH BECOMES PART OF AN EVER BIGGER CONVERSATION.

SO WE'VE PLEDGED MONEY TO INCREASE PAVING OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.

NOW, LAST TWO YEARS HAS BEEN 1,000,005 FOR EACH ONE OF THESE YEARS.

AND WE HAD NO ALLEYS. IF YOU I'LL REMIND YOU, IN THE CURRENT BUDGET, WE HAVE POTENTIALLY.

EVENTUALLY WE HAVE $1 MILLION BUDGETED, 350 MORE.

IT'S OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD FOR AN ALLEY IMPROVEMENT.

AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE SIGNIFICANT DOLLARS FOR ANOTHER INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT.

WE MAY OR MAY NOT END UP HAVING TO SPEND. SO MY ONLY POINT TO THAT IS WE'RE ALREADY EARMARKING ALL OF THOSE DOLLARS.

AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, AND TO PUT A FINER POINT ON IT, WE DID IN THE BUDGET HOLDING TO SAY WE NEED TO HAVE AN ALLEY DISCUSSION PROSPECTIVELY.

AND THIS ALSO IDENTIFIES CERTAIN AREAS THAT NEED WORK.

SO I THINK THERE'S STILL SEVERAL THINGS TO HAPPEN.

ONE IS DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A MINIMAL EFFORT OF 1,000,002 AND LEAVE IT AT THAT UNTIL YOU PICK OFF WHAT ALLEYS YOU'RE GOING TO DO AND HOW YOU'RE GOING TO DO THEM? OR DO YOU WANT IT TO BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1,000,005 AND 1,000,002 AND SUPPLEMENT THE ALLEYS? SO THAT'S THE CONVERSATION. SO I'M TRYING TO ANSWER EVERYBODY AND BRING IT BACK TO A CONCLUSION.

DO WE LIKE THE MILLION NUMBER? DO WE THINK WE NEED TO BE CLOSER TO 1,000,005? BUT UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE ALREADY DIRECTING ALL OF THE COMMUNICATION TAGS TO KEEP UP WITH THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS WE WANT TO DO PAY THE SALARIES, DO NORMAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAVING. SO I THINK YOUR SWEET SPOT, WHATEVER IT ENDS UP BEING, IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1,000,002 AND 1,000,006 IN AGGREGATE FOR ALLEYS AND REPAVING. UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO DIRECT OTHER RESOURCES FROM PUBLIC SERVICE TAX.

AND SO I HOPE. I KNOW YOU DID. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GETTING AT.

THE FACT THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH ALL THOSE MACHINATIONS THROUGH THE YEARS TO GET TO WHERE WE ARE. SOME OF THAT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE THE ASK.

AND I'M HAPPY TO ASK YOU. OR YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN GO AND I CAN BE YOUR BEST CHEERLEADER.

AND BUT IT'S VERY DOABLE RIGHT NOW. AND SO I THINK STRIKE WHILE THE IRON'S HOT.

I'M SORRY. STRIKE WHILE THE IRON'S HOT. AND BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THE MAYOR STREET COULD ACTUALLY GET DONE IF WE HAD ANOTHER MILLION DOLLARS.

THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. AND THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD SAY ON FIFTH IS A REMINDER THAT WE'RE GETTING READY TO DO DESIGN SERVICES FOR COMPLETE FIFTH. SO WE JUST NEED TO BE COGNIZANT, AS WAS ALREADY STATED BY SOMEBODY ELSE, ON EVERY COMPLETE STORMWATER SYSTEM AND THEN THE REPAVING SO THAT WE'RE WHETHER IT'S OUR MONEY OR SOMEBODY ELSE'S, WE WANT TO USE IT WISELY BECAUSE WE AREN'T GOING TO GET IT TWICE.

SO THAT'S THE IMPORTANT PART OF THAT. WELL THANK YOU.

KRAMER, I FOR TAKING THAT BUCKET AND RUNNING WITH IT, BECAUSE I DO THINK THERE ARE STREETS THAT WE CAN AS MR. MIDDLETON SAID ASK FOR FOR TDC. BEING THAT THEY ARE BEING IMPACTED.

BUT COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN RELATIVE TO YOUR COMMENTS, IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT PAY TO PLAY WE HAVE DANCED AROUND THE ISSUE OF PAYING FOR PARKING, AND THERE COULD BE SOME CONSIDERABLE REVENUE FROM THAT.

LET THE LET THE TOURISTS PAY FOR THE ROADS THROUGH PARKING, SO WE'LL GET TO THAT.

I'M SURE I UNDERSTAND. YES, MA'AM. AND I DO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE INCREASED THE PAVEMENT.

SO WE WON'T GO BACK. WE'LL LOOK FORWARD. AND I THINK INCREASING IT.

BUT WE DO NEED TO COME BACK WITH POLICIES, AND WE HAVE A MAJOR ISSUE WITH SECOND, AND I DON'T I REALLY WANT TO PUT THIS ON THE RECORD BETWEEN CENTRAL ON SECOND AVENUE SOUTH BETWEEN CENTRAL AND THE NEW

[04:40:07]

HOTEL. THE ROAD IS OBVIOUSLY GETTING WORSE. IT IS DIPPING.

IT'S I MEAN, NOW I SEE CARS COMING. THEY USED TO DO THIS, NOW THEY DO THIS.

WE ARE ADDRESSING SECOND FROM FIFTH AVENUE BECAUSE NORTH OF THAT IS NOT THAT BAD.

OH. IT IS. I TOOK THE CITY MANAGER, AND I'D LOVE TO RIDE IT WITH YOU.

WELL, THE NORTH, THE SOUTH, AND WE ARE. PLANNING ON DOING IT THIS YEAR.

HOWEVER, WE'RE STILL WAITING ON STORM WATER. THEY HAVE LINED ALL THE PIPES.

NOW THEY JUST NEED TO DO SOME CATCH BASIN REPAIRS.

AND THEY'RE WAITING ON MATERIAL BECAUSE THEY DO IT IN-HOUSE.

ONCE THEY GET THE MATERIAL AND THEY DO IT IN-HOUSE, THEN I CAN GET THAT SCHEDULED.

SO, YOU KNOW WHERE IT DIPS DOWN? WHERE WE'RE PLACING, LIKE, 500FT OF VALLEY GUTTER THERE TO BRING THAT BACK UP PRIOR TO PAVING ALL THAT.

SO. BUT YES. THANK YOU. THAT'S GOOD NEWS. BUT IF WE NEED TO PUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN, WE NEED TO DO IT NOW BECAUSE IT'S A MAJOR ROAD FOR US.

WHEN WE GET A LIST LIKE THIS, I GENERALLY SHARE IT WITH WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS, WATER DEPARTMENT STORMWATER.

HAVE THEM GO OUT THERE AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY REPAIRS THEY NEED TO ADDRESS PRIOR TO US DOING WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.

OKAY. AND ONE LAST THING FOR ME, AND THAT IS THE TRUCK ROUTES.

THE MASTER BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN IS COMING, AND I SEE IT'S IN ONE OF THE SLIDES.

IT SAYS TRUCK ROUTES, BUT IT SAYS PREFERRED AND PROHIBITED.

I THOUGHT WE HAD DESIGNATED TRUCK ROUTES. AND I THINK WE ALL NEED TO DISCUSS THAT WHEN THAT PLAN COMES BACK.

OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER ACTION? WELL, I.

FROM THE STANDPOINT, I THINK IT'S GOOD TO BE FLUID.

I GUESS I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT YOU WERE, WHAT YOU RECEIVED.

AND I JUST HAVE TWO. ONE OTHER QUESTION BEFORE I GET TO WRAPPING UP, AS FAR AS THE PCI AND THE RE ANALYSIS, WAS YOU SAYING THAT WAS EVERY EVERY YEAR OR WOULD YOU.

WHAT WHAT IS THE INDUSTRY STANDARD TO REEVALUATE? BECAUSE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A BUDGET. BUDGETS ARE FLUID AND FLUID OVER TIME.

SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHEN WE SHOULD EXPECT TO REEVALUATE THOSE ROADS.

EXCUSE ME. AS FAR AS THE REEVALUATION MAYBE EVERY FIVE YEARS, IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION.

I THINK WHAT BOB WAS ALLUDING TO ON THE, THE ANNUAL WERE FOR SOME OF THE ITEMS BROUGHT UP IF THERE'S A UTILITY PROJECT OR STORMWATER PROJECT, WE DID MAKE ADJUSTMENTS ON SECOND STREET FOR THE 2025 PROGRAM.

SO AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE NEXT FIVE YEARS PAST THAT, THERE MAY BE A SIDEWALK, A STREETSCAPE, THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER REASON TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS.

I DO THINK IT'S BENEFICIAL. AND THAT'S WHY I SAY FIVE YEARS TO COMPARE SOME OF THOSE SEGMENTS, ESPECIALLY THE ONES THAT WERE NEXT IN THE LIST, TO SEE IF WE'VE HAD ANY MORE EXCESSIVE DETERIORATION OF THE ROADS SINCE THEN, AND WE'LL HAVE A BASELINE TO COMPARE IT TO WITH THE THE VIDEOS THAT WE CREATED FIVE YEARS PRIOR.

AND THEN WE CAN COMPARE IT TO SEE IF THERE'S BEEN ANY CHANGES OR ANY ADJUSTMENTS NEED TO BE MADE.

OKAY. SO SO FOR ME, I'D LIKE TO JUST HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DIRECTION.

THANK YOU FOR THAT, SIR. A LITTLE BIT OF DIRECTION SO THAT I KNOW WHAT I'M SETTING THE TABLE FOR FOR THE NEXT YEARS.

RIGHT. WE TALKED ABOUT AN IMPROVEMENT. WE TALKED ABOUT REDUCING THE PAVING, WHICH IS PRESENTLY BUDGETED.

BUT DO WE WANT TO REMEMBER THIS? THIS GOES TO THE LENGTHS OF SAYING, SHOULD WE DEDICATE $1 MILLION FOR, FOR THE 25 YEARS, $2 MILLION? WHAT'S THE RECOMMENDED.

AND I WANTED TO AT LEAST GET TO THAT PART OF THE DISCUSSION IS, IS, YOU KNOW, DO WE THE LAST TWO YEARS, IT'S MUCH BETTER THAN THE THAN 750. WE'VE BEEN SPENDING WE KNOW WE CAN REPLACE.

IT WAS THE FOR 1,000,005. IT WAS. WAS IT OVER 25 YEARS? WHAT WAS THE. JUST REMIND ME IF YOU COULD BASED OFF OF THE $2,025, AND I BELIEVE I HAVE THAT.

YEAH, I JUST WANTED IT WAS IT WAS APPROXIMATELY TWO, 2 MILLION A YEAR ON A 25 YEAR PROGRAM.

AND WE KNOW WE HAVE ROADS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN PAVED FOR 30.

SO TO ME, THAT'S WHY I SAY I THINK SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THAT MILLION, 2 TO 1,000,006 IS IS A GOOD AREA TO BE IN.

AND I THINK BUDGETARILY YOU CAN HANDLE THAT. AND SO I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO HAVE AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IN THIS MEETING, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY THE PURPOSE OF THIS, BUT ALSO TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I THINK WHEN NEXT STEPS WOULD BE TO HAVE A TRUE ALLEY DISCUSSION BEFORE WE FINALIZE WHAT WE THINK THAT FINAL

[04:45:05]

NUMBER SHOULD BE. NOW, AGAIN, IT WILL ALWAYS BE SUBJECT TO BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS, WHICH AGAIN, YOU WERE THIS YEAR'S BID PROVED YOU CAN MOVE SOME THINGS UP AND AND THAT KIND OF THING.

I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU FELT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, THAT WE DIDN'T LEAVE HERE AND NOT AT LEAST GET THAT CONSENSUS IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE THE MILLION TO 1,000,005 OR 1,000,006 WE'VE BEEN AVERAGING.

IT SHOULD BE OUR TARGETS IN COMBINED REPAVING AND BOTH IN ROADS AND ALLEYS, WHATEVER THAT ENDS UP BEING.

I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF I HAD CONCERNS.

YOU DON'T REALLY WANT TO KNOW MY OPINION, BECAUSE MY OPINION IT SHOULD BE 2 MILLION UNTIL WE CAN HAVE MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF OUR STREETS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SO NEGLECTED. BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. THANK YOU.

I'M GLAD YOU LIKE MY OPINION. SEE, STAFF AGREES.

AND THAT'S I JUST WANT TO SAY IF WE COULD ASK TDC, TDC FOR A MATCHING GRANT FOR WHATEVER WE'RE PUTTING IN, I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD PUSH BACK HARD ON THAT.

BUT YOU CAN'T BUDGET THAT, OBVIOUSLY. BUT WE'VE GOT TO HAVE.

YEAH, I THINK IT'LL BE I THINK IT'LL BE AN INTERESTING LIFT TO GET.

AND I WOULD SAY COMMITTING TO SOMEWHERE IN THE VICINITY OF 1,000,005 AND COMBINED AND MAKE THE APPLICATIONS AND SEE WHERE IT LANDS, AND THEN COME BACK AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT THAT ENABLES US TO DO.

I THINK YOU WOULD BE YOU CAN PICK A YEAR AND DO AN EXTRA IF YOU HAVE AN EVALUATION OF ROADS, BUT I JUST THINK THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE HARD PRESSED TO KEEP THE SCHEDULE OF INTERSECTIONS AND OTHER THINGS AT THIS STAGE, WITHOUT REDIRECTING PUBLIC ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SERVICE TAX DOLLARS, WHICH TAKES IT DIRECTLY OUT OF WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE FOR FACILITIES AND OTHER THINGS. AND SO SO I'M FINE, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT ME TO COME BACK TO YOU WITH, WHAT IT WOULD END UP BEING IS. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE AN HONEST TRANSFER, BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY MOVED EVERYTHING IN COMMUNICATION TAX TO YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE TAX AND YOUR STREET DEPARTMENT. YOU WOULD BASICALLY BE RELINQUISHING THE GENERAL TAX DOLLARS, WHICH IS FINE, BUT THAT SETS IN MOTION SOMETHING YOU HADN'T DONE BEFORE.

SO I THINK IT WOULD BE A LARGER FINANCIAL DISCUSSION TO DO THAT, AND I'D APPRECIATE THAT.

I DON'T WANT TO TAKE FROM OTHER PROJECTS WITHOUT US KNOWING THAT.

THAT'S THE ONLY REASON YOU CAN DO A ONE YEAR, AND IT'S FINE, BUT IT'S SETTING SOMETHING PERPETUAL AND SAY, I WANT TO GET A JUMP ON THESE. YOU CAN DO. AND WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST.

I'M JUST SAYING TO SET IT AS A PLAN FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

I THINK YOU'RE IN DIFFICULT TERRITORY TO DO THAT WITHOUT HAVING IT PART OF THE CIP DISCUSSION, CORRECT? YES. COUNCILMAN KRISTEN. YEAH, I WOULD JUST IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION, YOU KNOW, MY DIRECTION WOULD BE THAT I MEAN, WE'RE ABOUT TO PASS IN A COUPLE OF HOURS A BUDGET FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

AND YOU KNOW, SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT I ASSUME IS A DISCUSSION FOR THE YEAR BEYOND THAT AND, AND YEARS BEYOND THAT, STARTING IN 26, 27. AND I THINK THAT YOU KNOW, THERE'S A WIDESPREAD VIEW IN TOWN, IN MY OPINION, THAT OUR ROADS NEED UPGRADING.

WHETHER IT'S A PERCEPTION OR A REALITY RELATIVE TO WHAT, YOU KNOW, THE EVALUATIONS ARE, IT'S THERE.

AND SO I THINK I THINK THE NEXT STEP, WHENEVER APPROPRIATE, WOULD BE TO HAVE WHAT I THINK IS REALLY A FINANCIAL DISCUSSION THAT THAT SAYS, OKAY, IF WE WANT TO GET TO 2 MILLION A YEAR, WHAT WHAT ADJUSTMENTS DO WE HAVE TO MAKE? I MEAN, ROADS ARE QUALITY OF LIFE. IT'S YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT QUALITY OF LIFE BEING FUNDED OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND.

ROADS ARE PART OF THAT, IN MY OPINION. ANYWAY.

AND SO GIVEN WHAT WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE IN TERMS OF CONTINUED GROWTH IN OUR PROPERTY TAX REVENUE BECAUSE THE ECONOMY REMAINED TAXABLE, VALUES CONTINUE TO GROW AND AND OTHER THINGS.

CAN WE GET TO A MILLION AND A HALF, 2 MILLION.

AND WHAT WHAT OTHER ADJUSTMENTS DO WE HAVE TO MAKE? AND THEN WE CAN MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER WE THINK WE WANT TO DO THAT.

GREAT. I THINK WE KNOW I KNOW WE HAVE A CONSENSUS.

I AT LEAST HAVE FOUR PEOPLE UP HERE THAT ARE SAYING, LET'S LOOK AT THAT.

SO, YES, MR. YOUNG, MADAM MAYOR, CAN I CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION? BECAUSE I THINK I CAN TELL YOU WITH CERTAINTY THAT I CAN GET YOU ANOTHER HALF MILLION DOLLARS INTO NEXT YEAR.

AND I COME BACK WITH A BUDGET AMENDMENT AFTER THE YEAR OPENS, WHICH GETS YOU TO REPRIORITIZE SUMS IN THE 25, 26, 27. THAT BUYS US TIME TO HAVE THE LENGTHIER DISCUSSION, BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO GET DONE IN A VERY SHORT WINDOW HERE THAT IF EVERYONE BY CONSENSUS BELIEVES, LOOK, THERE'S MORE ON THIS LIST I WANT TO GET TO SOONER AND MORE ROADS I WANT TO GET TO SOONER.

THEN THEN LET'S DO THAT AND THEN HAVE THE BROADER DISCUSSION ABOUT ONCE WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION ON ALLEYS.

[04:50:07]

NOW TELL ME THE FINANCIAL AND WE CAN DO IT IN THE SAME MEETING.

I'M ONLY SAYING, I THINK IF THERE'S A CONSENSUS, WE NEED TO DO MORE NOW, THEN LET'S NOT GO BACK FROM 1.5 TO 1 MILLION PLUS ALLEYS.

LET'S KEEP IT AT 1.5 PLUS ALLEYS AND THEN MAKE A DECISION AFTER THIS FIRST YEAR, BECAUSE IT'S A ONE OFF, IT'S DEDICATED TO THOSE, AND IT GIVES US TIME TO HAVE THE BROADER CONVERSATION.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION. IF THERE'S CONSENSUS TO DO THAT, THEN I WOULD JUST BRING IT BACK AS A SUPPLEMENT.

WHEN I COME AND HAVE THE DISCUSSION ON THE ALLEYS AT THAT TIME IN THIS NEXT YEAR.

THANK YOU. PENMAN. I THINK THAT'S FINE. BUT I ALSO THINK WITHIN, YOU KNOW, IF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS PERHAPS A FIVE YEAR PERIOD, I HONESTLY THINK WITHIN THAT FIVE YEAR PERIOD, WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT RAISING ROADS, PROBABLY ALONG GULF SHORE BOULEVARD. SO THE ROADS ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO COST US A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY I MONEY, I THINK SO. WELL, AND AND WE'RE DOING THINGS TO UNCLOG OUR DRAINS.

AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A WHOLE CIRCLE OF THINGS THAT.

RIGHT. YES. THAT WE ARE. SO MY ANSWER IS YES.

AND BARTON. YES. YES. VICE MAYOR. YES. OKAY. SO.

YES, SIR. AND JUST ONE OTHER ONE IS THE 11TH.

NOW, THAT 10TH STREET NORTH IS BECOME THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE OUT OF DOWNTOWN.

EVERYONE IS GOING DOWN EIGHTH OVER TO 11TH THROUGH TEN CITY.

AND I KNOW THERE ARE PROJECTS THAT WERE LISTED ON THE CRA FOR INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES, BUT THAT AREA NEEDS ATTENTION.

SO IF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE REDONE, THEN OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T PATCH THAT THAT ROAD.

SO IF WE COULD GET BACK TO US ON THAT ONE. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YOU JUST GAVE YOURSELF MORE WORK, MR. RIVERA. ALL RIGHT, THAT TAKES US TO ITEM 12 C.

[12.C. A Resolution for the Purpose of Approving a First Amendment to the Contractor Services Agreement Between the City of Naples and Energy Resources, Inc., a Missouri Corporation Authorized to do Business in the State of Florida, Increasing the Cost of the Lake Restoration and Improvement Project for North Lake and South Lake (Lakes 8 and 9) in the Amount of $290,580.00 for a Total of $2,987,129.62; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the First Amendment to the Contractor Services Agreement; and Providing an Effective Date. (Bob Middleton, Director of Public Works)]

THANK YOU, MISS PICKETT. THANK YOU, MR. MIDDLETON. YES, MR. MCCONNELL. THANK YOU. MAYOR. RESOLUTION. FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACTOR SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.. MISSOURI CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

INCREASING THE COST OF THE LAKE. RESTORATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR NORTH LAKE AND SOUTH LAKES. LAKES EIGHT AND NINE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $290,580, FOR A TOTAL COST OF $2,987,129.62. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACTOR SERVICES AGREEMENT, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU, MR. MIDDLETON.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MAYOR. MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. BOB MIDDLETON, PUBLIC WORKS. THIS ITEM IS TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT ONE TO THE CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.

FOR THE DISPOSAL, LOCATION AND TRUCK QUANTITIES FOR DEBRIS REMOVAL IN THE AMOUNT OF 290,800 AND $580. IF I CAN DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE OVERHEAD.

JUST FOR PUTTING EVERYTHING INTO PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THIS IS THE THREE LAKES SYSTEM, NORTH LAKE. IF YOU SEE MY CURSOR.

SOUTH LAKE, THE TWO THAT ARE BEING DREDGED WITH WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS.

AND THEN ALLIGATOR LAKE. THIS IS A THREE LAKE SYSTEM THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR A LOT OF THE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS WITH OUR STORMWATER OUTFALL PROJECT.

SO I'M GOING TO KEEP THIS SLIDE UP AND REFER TO IT QUITE OFTEN.

THE DESIGN AND PERMITTING FOR THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED BY OUR CONSULTANT, WSP, GREG CORNING WITH WSP, WHO IS HERE IN THE AUDIENCE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ALSO MY PROJECT. OUR PROJECT MANAGER, ALEX RAMOS, IS IN THE AUDIENCE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

THE PERMITTED DESIGN WAS TO REMOVE 4822YD³ OF MATERIAL FROM NORTH LAKE, AS SEEN BY THE CURSOR HERE.

AND 12,457YD³ OF MATERIAL OUT OF SOUTH LAKE, WHICH IS THE LARGER LAKE FOR A TOTAL OF 17,279YD³. AND THIS IS PERMITTED THROUGH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.

THE DESIGN INCLUDED NOT ONLY A DREDGING OF REMOVING THE ORGANIC MATERIAL OUT OF THE LAKES, BUT IT INCLUDED A OUTFALL STRUCTURE REPLACEMENT IN SOUTH LAKE, AND THAT STRUCTURE IS LOCATED, IF YOU CAN SEE MY CURSOR RIGHT HERE, THAT OUTFALL STRUCTURE IS THERE.

AND THERE'S ANOTHER ONE ALSO IN NORTH LAKE, WHICH IS LOCATED HERE.

THOSE STRUCTURES WILL BE ABLE TO BE ADJUSTED.

IT'S MORE OF AN ADJUSTABLE WEIR THAT WE CAN CONTROL LAKE LEVELS BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.

RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST A STRAIGHT PASS HEADWALL WITH THE PASS THROUGH PIPE.

[04:55:08]

THE WATER QUALITY CONTRACT WITH THE ENERGY RESOURCES WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN JUNE OF 2024 TO DREDGE NORTH AND SOUTH LAKE, ALONG WITH THE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. NOTICE TO PROCEED WAS ISSUED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2024, AND MOBILIZATION BEGAN.

DUE TO DREDGING EQUIPMENT ISSUES, THE DREDGING DIDN'T START UNTIL JANUARY OF THIS YEAR.

25 TO DATE, SOUTH LAKE HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITH A TOTAL OF 12,107YD³ REMOVED.

NORTH LAKE RIGHT HERE. WE'RE IN THE FINAL STAGES OF THAT, AND I BELIEVE THIS WEEK WE WILL BE ABLE TO DO ANOTHER SURVEY TO DETERMINE IF THE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL REMOVED HAS BEEN ACCEPTABLE.

THE OUTFALL STRUCTURES FOR NORTH LAKE AND SOUTH LAKE ARE CURRENTLY UNDERWAY.

ENERGY RESOURCES TO LET YOU KNOW THE DETAILS OF WHY WE'RE COMING BACK TO YOU FOR AN INCREASE ENERGY RESOURCES CONTRACT INCLUDED THE REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF THE SAND AND MUCK MATERIAL THAT WAS REMOVED FROM BOTH LAKES.

WHEN WE BID THIS, OR WHEN WE ACCEPTED THE BID, THEY HAD A CONTRACTOR.

THEY HAD A CONTRACTOR FOR FOR HAULING AND DISPOSING.

BUT THE DISPOSAL SITE CHANGED THE ORIGINAL DISPOSAL SITE.

THEY WERE GOING TO CHARGE THE CONTRACTOR $100 PER LOAD FOR MATERIAL, AND IT WAS A 30 MILE ROUND TRIP FROM THAT SITE BACK TO THE PROJECT SITE.

AS IT TURNED OUT THAT THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER BACKED OUT AND SAID, I DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT THE MATERIALS.

SO THE CONTRACTOR WENT OUT AND FOUND ANOTHER DISPOSAL SITE, HOWEVER, THAT LOAD PRICE THEN INCREASED FROM $100 TO $150 A LOAD AND THE TRUCK ROUTE WAS TEN MILES LONGER. IT WAS 40 MILES.

SO THAT THAT WAS THE. THAT IS THE REASON FOR OUR REQUEST TO COME TO YOU FOR AN ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THIS TO PAY THE CONTRACTOR WHAT HE'S PAYING TO HAUL AND DISPOSE OF THE MATERIAL. ANYWAY BASED ON THE DESIGN REMOVAL AMOUNTS OF 17,000. WHATEVER. I TOLD YOU, 17,000 2270 NINE CUBIC YARDS.

LOOKING AT THE HAULING RATES AND THE DISPOSAL RATES, THAT EQUATES TO $290,580 WHICH WILL INCREASE OUR CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE CONTRACTOR COST TO $2,000,987, 100 AND $187,129.62. WHAT I WILL REMIND YOU IS THAT WE DID GET A LEGISLATIVE GRANT FOR THIS LAKE DREDGING PROJECT OF $3 MILLION. SO THE THE LARGE PORTION OF OUR COST TO IMPROVE THE WATER QUALITY, PLANT LATERAL SHELVES, DOING THE STORMWATER OUTFALLS ON BOTH OF THOSE LAKES.

THE MAJORITY OF THAT IS COVERED BY THIS $3 MILLION GRANT.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO GREG CORNING.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF ME OR HIM OR ALEX, WE'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER.

THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. IF YOU'LL JUST STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

GOOD MORNING. PROJECT MANAGER, SENIOR ENGINEER WITH WSP.

GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO MR. MIDDLETON'S COMMENTS? NO, I THINK BOB SUMMARIZED IT WELL.

THE ONLY THING I WILL I GUESS MENTION IS HE TOUCHED ON THE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS OF THIS PROJECT.

I THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME CONVERSATIONS AROUND, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE THE PURPOSES OF THESE STORMWATER LAKES.

AND SO WE JUST WANTED TO CLEAR IT UP IN REGARDS TO WHEN WE LOOK AT DEVELOPING THE PLANS FOR THESE PROJECTS, WE DO A FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS AND WE HAD TO GO OUT AND DO SEDIMENT CORES.

WE ALSO DID A BATHYMETRIC SURVEY DURING ALL OF THAT ANALYSIS.

WE TAKE THOSE CORES, WE SEND THEM OUT TO SEDIMENT LABS TO DO CONSTITUENT TESTING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION LEVELS ARE IN THOSE MATERIALS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE REMOVING TO SHOW THE IMPROVEMENT WITHIN THESE STORMWATER LAKES.

AND IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM WITH ANY SORT OF FLOODING.

THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY OUR BIGGEST CONCERN WITH THESE LAKE RESTORATION PROJECTS.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS INCREASE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THEIR UPTAKE OF THOSE NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS AND OTHER CONTAMINANTS THAT ARE RUNNING OFF OF THE ROAD AND GETTING INTO THESE LAKES. SO BY REMOVING THAT ORGANIC SEDIMENT, WE'RE NOW CREATING A BETTER HABITAT AND AREA TO IMPROVE THE STORMWATER THAT IS ULTIMATELY

[05:00:05]

GOING TO GET OUT INTO THOSE SENSITIVE WATERS THAT SURROUND NAPLES THAT WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF, YOU KNOW, GULF OF AMERICA. WE GOT THE NAPLES BAY IN THE MORNINGS BAY SO THAT THAT'S OVERALL, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT THAT THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THESE PROJECTS WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT DESIGNING THEM.

AS FAR AS YOUR HAULING HOW DO YOU I THINK I SAW YOUR TRUCK AND IT HOW DO YOU HAUL THAT AND MAINTAIN THAT MUCK POISON INSIDE THAT TRUCK TO THAT LONG DISTANCE? THERE WASN'T ANOTHER AREA FOR DEWATERING THESE MATERIALS? YES. AND I WANT TO CLARIFY, I'M NOT WITH ENERGY RESOURCES.

I'M WITH WSP, THE ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. SO ENERGY RESOURCES IS THEIR TRUCK.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT THE ONES OUT THERE DOING THE TRUCKING. SO YES.

SO WHAT THEY DO IS THEY HAVE A GEOTEXTILE BAG THAT'S INSIDE OF THOSE ROLL OFF CONTAINERS, AND THAT BAG IS WHAT CONTAINS THE ORGANIC SEDIMENT.

AND THAT'S THE WAY YOU SAY THAT ORGANIC SEDIMENT.

YEAH. AND THAT'S ANOTHER. THERE WAS ANOTHER COMMENT, I THINK, IN REGARDS TO THE SEPARATION AND THE VALUE OF THE QUANTITIES BETWEEN ORGANIC SEDIMENTS AND SAND AND HOW WE SEPARATE THAT PROCESS.

SO WHEN WE DESIGN THE PROCESS, WE LOOK AT IT AND WE SET UP A DEWATERING SCHEME THAT WE FEEL IS THE BEST IN TERMS OF EXECUTING THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE SAND AND THE ORGANICS, BECAUSE WHEN YOU HYDRAULICALLY DREDGE, YOU HAVE A SLURRY OF MATERIAL, AND YOU HAVE TO SEPARATE THAT HEAVIER SANDS FROM THOSE ORGANICS TO ENSURE YOU'RE NOT FILLING UP THOSE BAGS WITH JUST SAND.

WE WANT TO CAPTURE THAT ORGANICS AND REALLY GET RID OF THAT MATERIAL.

SO WE DON'T WE DON'T OVERCOMPENSATE FOR THE AMOUNT OF BAGS THAT WE HAVE WITHIN THESE ROLL OFF CONTAINERS.

AND SO WHAT WE DID WHEN WE DESIGNED THE SYSTEM IS THAT WE DESIGNED IT SO THAT YOU HAVE A HEAVIER, SOLID ROLL OFF CONTAINER THAT CAPTURES AND IT LETS THAT WATER SETTLE.

AND AS THAT WATER SETTLES, THE SAND SEPARATES FROM THE ORGANICS.

AND THEN THE ORGANICS IS THEN PUMPED AND THEN TREATED THROUGH A POLYMER SYSTEM THAT THEN IS PUMPED INTO THE GEOTEXTILE BAGS AND THEN LETS THAT DE-WATER AND DECANT.

WELL, THE CONTRACTOR ON THIS PROJECT ACTUALLY HAS ANOTHER SYSTEM THAT THEY DEPLOYED FOR THE DEWATERING SYSTEM, WHICH IS THEIR MEANS AND METHODS ON HOW THEY WOULD PRODUCE IT.

AND THEY USE WHAT THEY CALL A HYDRAULIC CYCLONE SEPARATOR.

YOU PROBABLY HAVE SEEN IT. IF YOU'VE GONE OUT, THERE'S THAT BIG BLUE MACHINE. AND BASICALLY WHAT IT DOES IS IT PUMPS THE MATERIAL UP AND IT SEPARATES OUT THE SAND, SOMETIMES A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFECTIVELY THAN JUST PUMPING IT INTO A ROLL OFF CONTAINER.

AND SO WHILE YOU DO THAT, YOU GET A BETTER SEPARATION OF THE SAND.

SO YOU MAY GET MORE SAND OUT OF THAT MATERIAL, WHICH IS GOING TO HELP WITH THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OVERALL BRINGING OUT THAT MUCK MATERIAL AND NOT FILLING UP THE BAGS FASTER. SO WHEN THERE IS A QUESTION ABOUT, HEY, WE HAD A WHAT WE HAD ASSUMED AS BEING A 3060 OR 3040 SPLIT IN TERMS OF SEDIMENT QUALITY, IN TERMS OF THE ORGANICS. WELL, NOW WE'RE GETTING CLOSER TO A 5050 SPLIT.

IT'S JUST A MORE EFFICIENT WAY OF SEPARATING OUT THE SAND VERSUS THE ORGANICS WITHIN THAT DEWATERING PROCESS.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL, YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTMAN.

JUST, BOB, I THINK YOU TALKED TO THIS, BUT I EITHER DIDN'T CAPTURE IT OR MAYBE BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC.

THE TIMETABLE FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK ON BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH LAKE IS IS WHAT EXACTLY THE ANTICIPATED TIMETABLE.

SO THE CURRENT SCHEDULE IS SUPPOSED TO BE MID THE END SEPTEMBER OF THIS MONTH.

I THINK THE CONTRACTOR HAS ASKED THE CITY FOR AN EXTENSION ON THAT TIME FRAME AND NOT FOR THE DREDGING PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT, BECAUSE THEY'LL BE WRAPPED UP WITH THE DREDGING, AS BOB MENTIONED THIS WEEK.

SO THE HEAVY BIG PIECES OF EQUIPMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THEY'RE THE KIND OF THE ANNOYANCES TO THE TO THE RESIDENCES, THAT'S THAT'S ALL GOING TO BE OUT. WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING NOW IS GOING TO BE DOING THE LITTLE SHELVES UP ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF NORTH LAKE.

AND THEN THEY'RE ALSO GOING TO BE DOING THOSE WATER CONTROL STRUCTURES, AS BOB MENTIONED, ON NORTH AND SOUTH LAKE. SO THAT WILL START THIS MONTH.

SO LET ME PLAY THIS BACK AND MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS IT.

SO BY THE END OF THIS MONTH, THE DREDGING ON BOTH LAKES WILL BE COMPLETE AND THE EQUIPMENT WILL BE REMOVED.

THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT WILL BE REMOVED. IS THAT WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY? THE DREDGE EQUIPMENT WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE BY THE END OF THIS MONTH.

FROM BOTH SITES. RIGHT. AND THEN THE NEXT PHASE OF THE PROJECTS WILL BE THE LATERAL PLANTINGS AND PERHAPS OTHER THINGS.

RIGHT. AND WHAT IS THAT, A COUPLE MONTH PROCESS? YEAH. A COUPLE MONTHS. IT'S REALLY THE LEAD TIME FOR THE WATER CONTROL STRUCTURES THAT JUST GOT APPROVED.

SO THOSE WILL BE PROBABLY ABOUT A FOUR WEEK LEAD TIME IN TERMS OF THOSE REINFORCED CONCRETE BOXES.

[05:05:04]

SO THE WORK ON BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH LAKES SHOULD BE ENTIRELY COMPLETED BY OR SLIGHTLY BEFORE THE END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. THAT'S WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME.

YES. OKAY. YEAH. THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. VICE MAYOR AND THEN PENMAN.

THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION. THAT HELPS A LOT.

JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS. IN REVIEWING THE MATERIAL AND YOU TALKED ABOUT THE WHEN A DREDGE GOES DOWN, IT PICKS UP SAND AND NUTRIENTS.

RIGHT? RIGHT. ORGANICS. YEAH. ORGANICS. AND IT HAS TO FIND ITS WAY TO SEPARATE.

THAT'S RIGHT. DOES ANY OF THAT GO BACK IN? SO THE PURPOSES, IF YOU LOOK AT THE FINAL DISCHARGE POINT, WHICH IS THE END OF THE GEOTEXTILE, AFTER IT GOES THROUGH THOSE BAGS, IT'S MOSTLY CLEAR.

THE SEDIMENT THAT'S COMING BACK INTO THE LAKES IS, IS NEGLIGIBLE, I WOULD SAY.

SO IT IS YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SAY IT'S 100% EFFECTIVE BECAUSE SOMETIMES WHEN YOU'RE CONTROLLING THE POLYMER ON HOW THOSE BAGS ARE ACTUALLY BEING DECANTED DURING THE DEWATERING PROCESS. SOMETIMES IF YOU'RE IF YOUR POLYMER IS NOT AT ITS RIGHT CONCENTRATION, YOU'LL BASICALLY GET SO THAT THE, THE ORGANICS DON'T CONSOLIDATE ENOUGH.

AND SO YOU HAVE TOO MUCH OF A SEPARATION OF THOSE ORGANICS WITHIN THE GEOTEXTILE.

AND YOU START SEEING SOME SHEDDING WITHIN THAT GEOTEXTILE BAG.

AND THEN YOU'LL START SEEING SOME ADDITIONAL SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS WITHIN THE OUTFALL THAT COMES DISCHARGING BACK INTO THE POND.

AND SO THAT IS ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, THING THAT WE MAKE SURE WE'RE OVERSEEING WHEN WE'RE OUT THERE IS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT DISCHARGE PIPE GOING BACK INTO THE LAKES, ENSURING THAT FIRST, WE DON'T HAVE SEDIMENTS WITHIN THAT LINE, BUT WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO OVER POLYMER IN THE SYSTEM, BECAUSE WHAT YOU HAVE THEN IS YOU POTENTIALLY HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH, YOU KNOW, FISH DIE OFF AND OTHER THINGS IF YOU HAVE A HIGHER CONCENTRATION.

SO THOSE ARE THINGS WE'RE CHECKING. SO I USED TO DEAL IN THE DRILLING FLUIDS WORLD AND WE USE POLYMER TO SUSPEND SOLIDS FOR ONE FOR FOR FOR ONE PURPOSE.

IS THAT WHAT THAT POLYMER IS BEING USED FOR. WELL THIS IS THE ACTUAL OPPOSITE.

WE'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO CONSOLIDATE THE MATERIAL. SO THE POLYMER IS ACTUALLY A COAGULANT.

AND SO IT ACTUALLY WHEN YOU PUT IT IN THE SYSTEM, YOU SHAKE IT AND YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE IT IN A WATER BOTTLE AND IT'LL CONDENSE RIGHT BACK DOWN TO THE BOTTOM AND REALLY TRY TO BRING IT ALL BACK TOGETHER.

OKAY. REAL QUICKLY. AND I TOOK NOTES. SO I TRY TO BE PREPARED FOR THIS PORTION OF THE PRIMARY INTENT OF THIS DREDGING PROJECT IS TO IMPROVE THE POLLUTANT UPTAKE. RIGHT? WE TALKED ABOUT THAT WITHIN THOSE SYSTEMS TO PROTECT THE GULF, MOORINGS BAY AND NAPLES BAY.

THE PURPOSE, THOUGH, OF THE DREDGING PROJECT IS TO REMOVE THOSE ORGANIC SEDIMENTS, NOT THE SAND, AND TO PROMOTE BETTER EFFICIENCY OF CLEANING FOR THE LAKES, WHICH IS TO RETAIN WATER AND ALLOW FOR NUTRIENT REDUCTION PRIOR TO DISCHARGE TO THE SURROUNDING PROTECTED WATERS. THE ORIGINAL IN THE MEMO, IT SAID THAT THE ORIGINAL CALCULATED ASSUMED PERCENT SOLIDS. SO THAT'S COMING OFF THE CORES I GUESS, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT. SO YOU DID THE CORING, BUT YOUR CALCULATIONS FOR THE MATERIAL FROM THE CORES WERE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE ONCE OPERATIONS COMMENCED. WHY? WHY WAS IT INACCURATE? YEAH. SO WHAT WE TRY TO SIMULATE WHEN WE DESIGN A DEEPWATER DREDGING SYSTEM IS WE TRY TO SIMULATE A DREDGING SYSTEM, BUT YOU CAN'T GET IT TO A DEGREE THAT YOU WOULD SEE ACTUALLY, WHEN YOU ACTUALLY PUT THAT DREDGE SYSTEM IN THE GROUND AND YOU START MAKING THAT SLURRY.

SO BASICALLY WHAT YOU HAVE IS WE TRIED TO SIMULATE A MIXING OF THE MATERIAL TO THE BEST OF OUR DEGREE POSSIBLE TO SIMULATE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THE REAL WORLD.

BUT WHEN THE ACTUAL DREDGE GOES IN THE SYSTEM IT MAY BE PICKING UP MORE SAND.

RIGHT? OR MAY BE PICKING UP MORE MUCK IN THAT LINE, WHICH THEN CREATES A HEAVIER PERCENT SOLIDS WHEN IT ACTUALLY GETS TO THE DEWATERING SECTION OF THE SYSTEM. AND SO IF WE'RE IF WE'RE INACCURATE ON OUR HYPOTHESIS, OUR ASSESSMENTS BASED ON THOSE CAUSE THAT'S WHEN IT STARTS.

THAT'S WHEN IT STARTS COMPROMISING THE MIX. 5050 VERSUS 6040 VERSUS 7030 OF OF BIOMASS OR VERSUS SAND. AND THAT'S WHERE IT COMES IN.

RIGHT. AND IF AND IF IT CHANGES THAT MIX IT CHANGES.

I MADE A NOTE HERE. IT CHANGES THE THE TRUCKS USED.

YEAH. THE VOLUME OF THE MATERIAL THAT'S BEING PULLED OUT.

VERSUS SO YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT HAULING VALUES.

[05:10:04]

YOU HAVE A GEOTEXTILE BAGS WHICH IS THE ORGANICS.

AND THEN YOU HAVE THE CYCLONE WHICH IS TAKING THE SAND OUT.

SO AND THAT'S RIGHT, IT SAID GEOTEXTILE TRUCKS.

SO TRUCKS HAUL THE BAGS. RIGHT. AND THEN THERE'S JUST SAND TRUCKS.

EXACTLY. JUST FILLING UP SAND TRUCKS AND MOVING IT OUT.

I'M JUST I'M JUST MAKING SURE I'M CLEAR ON WHAT WHAT THIS SAID.

RIGHT. AND THEN THE CHANGE ORDERS NEEDED BECAUSE OF THIS REVISED DISPOSAL FEE.

100 BUCKS A TRUCK VERSUS 150 BUCKS A TRUCK, RIGHT? AN UPDATED HAULING DISTANCE. EXTRA MILES BECAUSE THE GUY RENEGED.

RIGHT. RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN REVISED TRUCK DISTRIBUTION.

THE 5050 VERSUS 7030 VERSUS 6040. RIGHT. ALL OF THAT HAS PLAYED INTO A CHANGE ORDER.

SO I'M GETTING TO THE END OF IT. COUNCIL. THE HEART OF IT.

THE HEART OF IT. THE SOUTHWEST SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMIT THAT PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW, AN OVERSIGHT ON THE VOLUME OF MATERIAL THE MUCK NEEDED TO BE REMOVED BASED ON THE ENGINEER OF RECORD.

ARE YOU THE ENGINEER OF RECORD? YES. SO YOU'VE YOU CAME UP WITH SOME NUMBERS.

THAT'S THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. AND THEN YOU'RE THE PERSON TO CERTIFY THAT THE DREDGE VOLUME, THE ACTUAL DREDGE VOLUME COMING OUT OF THE LAKES MEETS THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.

THAT'S CORRECT. DO YOU AND BEFORE I ASK THIS QUESTION THE TWO LAKES, NORTH LAKE AND SOUTH LAKES, NORTH LAKE HAD 4827YD³ ESTIMATED. RIGHT. BASED ON WHAT? BASED ON THE VOLUME THAT WE CALCULATED BASED ON THE BATHYMETRIC SURVEY AND OUR CAUSE.

4827 SOUTH LAKE. 12,452 SOUTH LAKE IS COMPLETE.

SOUTH LAKE IS COMPLETE WITH DREDGING. YES. AND IT HAD 12,107 REMOVED.

SO WE 345YD³ LESS. THAT'S RIGHT. BUT WE DID IT.

DID WE CLEAN SOUTH LAKE AS MUCH AS IT NEEDED TO BE CLEANED AND DREDGED.

YES, BECAUSE. AND THE REASON WHY IT IS, IS BECAUSE WE REMOVE THE ORGANICS THAT WE WERE SHOOTING FOR.

SO WHEN WE ESTIMATE VOLUMES TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, YES, WE PUT WE TRY TO PUT SOME CONTINGENCIES ON IT.

YOU KNOW, ALL ENGINEERING. WE PUT A LITTLE FACTOR THERE TO GIVE OURSELVES A LITTLE BUFFER.

BUT IN REGARDS TO WHAT WE EVALUATED AND WHAT WE SAW, BECAUSE WHAT WE DID WAS WE CALCULATED THE BAGS THAT WERE REMOVED SO WE COULD SEE WHAT THAT ORGANICS WAS REMOVED FROM THE LAKE TO SEE THE SUCCESS.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO WE DID WE DID BETTER THAN WHAT WE CALCULATED.

WE WERE CONSERVATIVE AND AND CAME OUT A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

NORTH LAKE 4827. THAT'S THE HYPOTHESIS ON THE CAUSE.

AND WE'RE INTO THAT PROJECT NOW. YOUR ORIGINAL HAD 17,000.

THE TWO LAKES COMBINED, 17,000. TWO, 79. YOU SAID 4827 ON NORTH LAKE.

REALLY? YOU COULD DO 5172 AND MEET THE ENTIRE CONTRACT SPECS, RIGHT? DO YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO BEAT THE NORTH LAKE HYPOTHESIS AS WELL? I THINK WE'LL BE BASED ON WHAT OUR THE CONTRACTORS RECENT SURVEY WAS ABOUT 38, 22.

WHEN THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE DONE, THEY WENT OUT AND DID A BATHYMETRIC SURVEY, AND THEY FOUND THAT THEY WERE ABOUT A THOUSAND SHORT.

AND WE OBVIOUSLY SAID, GO BACK OUT AND CAPTURE MORE BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T MET THAT ACHIEVED VALUE THAT WE THINK WE SHOULD BE AT FOR THAT LAKE.

AND SO THEY SHOULD BE PRODUCING THAT FINAL AS BUILT THIS WEEK.

AND ONCE WE SEE THAT, THEN WE'LL DO THAT COMPARISON LIKE WE DID FOR SOUTH LAKE.

AND JUST CONFIRM AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE AT THAT VALUE THAT WE SHOULD BE AT.

WELL THIS MY QUESTIONS I KNOW I'M SORRY GUYS, I HAD TO GET INTO SUCH DETAIL.

BUT YOU'RE IN THE MEMO AND I THINK YOU PROBABLY HAD A BIG SAY IN THE MEMO ON THIS.

THE SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION, THE ORGANICS IN THE SAND, HAS CAUSED A DEGRADATION OF THE EFFICIENCY AND REDUCES THE ABILITY OF THE LAKES TO PROVIDE RETENTION AND NUTRIENT REDUCTION. I'M ONE OF SEVEN, BUT MY ONLY ASK IN THE RESIDENCE I KEEP HEARING FROM THE ASK IS JUST TO GET. NOW IS THE TIME TO GET IT RIGHT BEFORE WE PULL EQUIPMENT OFF, AND WE HAVE TO PAY MORE FEES TO GET THE EQUIPMENT BACK AND GET IT RIGHT.

AND I'M NOT A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT YOU ARE. BUT MY ASK IS PLEASE JUST GET THE WORD NOW.

NOW IS THE TIME THAT WE'RE CLEANING THESE AND IT'S BEEN LONG OVERDUE.

MY ASK IS, PLEASE ALLOW US TO MAXIMIZE OUR RETENTION AND NUTRIENT REDUCTION BY WHAT YOU'RE DOING OR THE CONTRACTORS DOING ON THESE WATER RETENTION LAKES.

THAT'S ALL I HAD, MADAM MAYOR. SO I, I AGREE WITH YOU.

[05:15:05]

BUT LOOKING FORWARD MISTAKES LEARNED OR WHAT CAN WE DO TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR NEXT LAKES THAT WE'RE GOING TO DREDGE.

SO WE'RE NOT COMING UP WITH A LARGE CHANGE ORDER.

IS THIS. YEAH. SO, YOU KNOW, AS AS WE CONTINUE AS I MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, DREDGING IS NOT A PRECISE ART WHEN IT COMES TO DESIGNING THESE PROJECTS. WE DO THE BEST WE CAN WITH THE AVAILABLE DATA THAT WE ARE ABLE TO GET.

BUT, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE COULD DO AS WE CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD, AND I KNOW YOU ALL ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING A DESIGN PROJECT FOR TWO OTHER LAKES RIGHT NOW. SO, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT INCREASING THE PERCENTAGE SOLIDS THAT YOU'RE ANTICIPATING FOR THE LAKES.

SO IF WE ASSUME YOU KNOW, A 40, 60 SPLIT, LET'S JUST BUMP THAT UP TO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE CLOSER TO, YOU KNOW, 8020 OR EVEN A 730. AND THAT WAY WE'RE AT LEAST OVERSHOOTING THE VALUES AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE CAN GET TO.

AND THEN AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN HAVE THAT CONTINGENCY OR THE CITY CAN HAVE THAT CONTINGENCY MOVING FORWARD. OKAY. AND, MADAM MAYOR, IF I MAY, AGAIN, THIS IS STAFF, BUT WHEN WE HAVE A CONTRACT TO HAUL MATERIAL TO, TO FRED DOWN THE STREET AND FRED BACKS OUT, CAN WE NOT FIRM THINGS UP? SO WE'RE NOT PAYING 50% MORE PER TRUCKLOAD? ISN'T THERE A BETTER WAY? I DON'T WANT TO GET IN THE WEEDS ON THIS, GUYS, BUT MY ASK IS JUST LET'S FIRM SOME STUFF UP.

EXACTLY. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO I HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT.

DO I HAVE A MOTION? FURTHER DISCUSSION. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM IN THE CHANGE ORDER, AND I BELIEVE THE CHANGE ORDERS FOR 290,580. THANK YOU.

SECOND. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL, BY VICE MAYOR, AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER.

KRAMER. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

VICE MAYOR HUTCHINSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. MARTIN. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PETRANOFF.

YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY TO EXPLAIN THAT.

[12.D. Review and Approval of Legislative Priorities and Appropriation Requests for the 2026 Florida State Legislative Session. (Gary Young, City Manager)]

THAT TAKES US TO ITEM 12 D MR. YOUNG. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. WITH THIS ITEM, THIS IS THE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MONIQUE. I KNOW SHE SENT OUT ALL THE INFORMATION, AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO HER AND ASSIST WHERE I CAN.

GOOD AFTERNOON. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. COUNCIL. MONIQUE BARNHART.

TIBERIO, COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER, PIO ON AUGUST 20TH, WE WENT OVER THE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES AND APPROPRIATION REQUESTS AND ATTACHED IN TODAY'S AGENDA ITEM IS THE PACKET WE PUT TOGETHER.

I WORKED WITH GARY AND STAFF TO FINALIZE THE PRIORITIES AND APPROPRIATIONS BASED ON YOUR COMMENTS.

AND WE ALSO CREATED THE BUDGET AT A GLANCE DOCUMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2526.

AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR EDITS. OH, YEAH.

THE ONLY THING I'LL ADD TO THAT JUST ON THE APPROPRIATION REQUEST ONES, SO YOU UNDERSTAND MY LOGIC AS I WENT FOR THE DESIGN IN THE THREE AREAS WHERE WE HAD TALKED ABOUT NOT GOING FORWARD ALL AT ONCE, I DID LEAVE THE WELLS IN, AND I LEFT THE WELLS IN, AND I TALKED ABOUT DEBATING WHETHER I WANTED TO, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY I WANTED EVERYTHING STORMWATER, BUT EVERYTHING IN STORMWATER.

REMINDER WE'RE PLEDGING $6.5 MILLION FOR DESIGN THIS YEAR, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING.

WHAT I CONSIDER I SOMETIMES DON'T LIKE THE PHRASE, BUT THEY USE IT ALL THE TIME IS SHOVEL READY.

WELL, THE WELLS ARE DESIGNED, SO I DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE A LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY REQUEST THAT DIDN'T HAVE A PROJECT SITTING THERE READY TO BE DONE.

AND SO I LEFT IT IN FOR THAT PURPOSE. AND THAT IS WHY I REPRIORITIZED THE ORDER, SO THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE STORMWATER IS THE CRITICAL ELEMENT.

BUT LEAVING A PROJECT THAT'S DESIGNED AND READY FOR CONSTRUCTION IN I THOUGHT WAS WAS PRUDENT.

SO I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. THANK YOU. I WILL HIGHLIGHT UNDER LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES, GARY AND I KIND OF REWORKED THE THE HEADINGS.

WE KEPT HOME RULE PROTECTING HOME RULE AUTHORITY.

WE DID ADD THE AD VALOREM TAXES. IN REGARDS TO WHAT OUR CONCERNS ARE AND WHAT WE WHAT ARE WE REQUESTING FROM THE LEGISLATURE TO PRESERVE AD VALOREM TAXING AUTHORITY TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS? WE KEPT THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS, AND WE ADDED THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AREAS.

[05:20:03]

AND THEN WE ALSO ADDED RESTRICTIONS ON LAND USE REGULATIONS REFLECTING SB 180.

OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? COUNCILMAN KRISEMAN.

THE FIRST THING I WOULD SAY IS JUST EXCELLENT WORK.

VERY QUICKLY GARY, MONIQUE, WHOEVER ELSE WORKED ON THIS? JUST REALLY EXCELLENT. AND I THINK IT TELLS THE STORY VERY WELL.

I HAD ONE. I ONLY SAW ONE THING THAT WAS A RED FLAG FOR ME.

AND THAT'S ON PAGE SIX UNDER RESTRICTIONS ON LAND USE REGULATIONS.

AND I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT SENATE BILL 180 IN A MINUTE, BUT AS IT RELATES TO HOW WE PHRASE IT HERE, I THINK THE SECOND SENTENCE NEEDS TO BE REWRITTEN.

THE ONE THAT STARTS BY PROHIBITING MORATORIUMS. TALKING ABOUT MORATORIUMS IS LIKE WAVING A RED FLAG WITH A RED CAPE IN FRONT OF A BULL WHEN YOU'RE TALKING TO THE LEGISLATURE.

AND YOU KNOW, THE REASON WE HAVE 250 AND 180 AND SO FORTH, IN PART IS BECAUSE OF ILL ADVISED EFFORTS TO PROPOSE MORATORIUMS IN THE PAST HERE, UNFORTUNATELY, AND ALSO IN OTHER LOCALITIES AROUND THE STATE.

SO I THINK REWRITING THAT SENTENCE WITHOUT USING THE WORD MORATORIUMS OR JUST REFERENCING THAT BUT, YOU KNOW, SAYING IT MORE POSITIVELY IN A WAY.

SO I JUST GAVE YOU SOME LANGUAGE TO THINK ABOUT.

I SAID, YOU KNOW, IN PLACE OF THAT, SAY, THE LEGISLATION CAN AND WILL UNDERMINE COMMON SENSE EFFORTS TO IMPROVE RESILIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH SOUND LAND USE PLANNING AND REGULATION, AND UPDATED BUILDING CODES.

I MEAN, I CAN GIVE YOU THAT, BUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND JUST, YOU KNOW, ANYTIME YOU WANT ANYBODY THINKS ABOUT MENTIONING THE WORD MORATORIUM, THEY SHOULD, YOU KNOW, BITE THEIR TONGUE AND NOT DO IT.

THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YES. KRAMER. I, I MISSED THAT, AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S A BIG DEAL. WHEN SB 250 WAS COMING DOWN AND EVEN THE PEOPLE THAT WERE WRITING IT DIDN'T LIKE IT, BUT THEY FELT LIKE THEY WERE PAINTED INTO THAT CORNER BECAUSE OF PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT MORATORIUMS, EVEN THOUGH THE PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT MORATORIUMS WILL DIE ON THAT HILL, SAYING THEY NEVER TALKED ABOUT MORATORIUMS. THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT MORATORIUMS AND THAT.

IS WHY IT EXISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND 180 FOR THAT MATTER.

I HAVE TO SAY THOUGH. FANTASTIC JOB. TALK ABOUT UNDER PRESSURE OVER A WEEKEND.

I KNOW YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T SLEEP FOR THREE DAYS WHEN YOU DID THIS. I JUST WANT TO SAY KUDOS TO YOU AND YOUR WHOLE DEPARTMENT.

TELL ME HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IN YOUR DEPARTMENT? THAT'S RIGHT.

SO BESIDES YOU. BESIDES YOU, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IN YOUR DEPARTMENT AND DO ALL THE THINGS THAT GET DONE THROUGH YOUR DEPARTMENT BESIDES YOU? HOW MANY ARE THERE? NONE. NONE, RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT NEXT TIME WE HAVE ANY BUDGET COME AROUND.

WHAT'S GOING ON IN HER DEPARTMENT? SHE IS AMAZING AND NEEDS HELP AS I KNOW THERE'S SOME OTHER FOLKS DO TOO.

BUT I JUST HAVE TO SAY. AND THIS THIS HIGHLIGHTS THAT WE ASKED FOR IT ON WHATEVER DAY IN LIKE TWO DAYS LATER.

COME ON MAN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT. VICE MAYOR.

WELL, THANK YOU, MONIQUE, FOR A LOT OF HARD WORK.

THE THE AGENDA MEMORANDUM ON THIS WAS VERY INFORMATIVE AND ALLOWS US TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND THE TIMELINE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, AND IT LOOKS AS THOUGH THE 20 OUR LEGISLATORS ARE GOING TO SHOW UP WITH OUR SESSION BEGINNING ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13TH. AND PRIOR TO THAT, THERE ARE SIX MEETINGS THAT COMMITTEE MEETINGS, I GUESS IS, IS THAT THAT SCHEDULE, SIX WEEKS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS, SIX WEEKS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS OR, YES, SIX WEEKS. SO THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO KNOW.

AND WHAT WHAT I, WHAT I THINK THAT WE'VE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WHAT WHAT WE THINK MIGHT BE DISCUSSED IN THESE COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND THROUGHOUT THE LEGISLATURE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WHAT WHAT'S GOING TO COME OUT OF THAT.

WE REALLY DON'T. BUT HERE'S HERE'S FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, IF YOU KNOW THIS, I SURE I WOULD APPRECIATE KNOWING I THINK OUR RESIDENTS WOULD APPRECIATE KNOWING THIS AS WELL. IF THINGS GO SOUTH IN TERMS OF AD VALOREM AND WHEN I SAY SOUTH, I MEAN POORLY FOR THE

[05:25:04]

CITY. IF IT GOES POORLY, WHEN DO YOU KNOW YET? WHAT AMOUNT OF TIME DO WE HAVE? IF IT'S A BALLOT INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM, DO YOU YET KNOW WHEN WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO INFLUENCE OTHERS IN IN REGARD TO THAT BALLOT REFERENDUM OR A FINAL VOTE BY THE LEGISLATURE? IN OTHER WORDS, IF IF WE'RE AT RISK OF LOSING WHAT'S WHAT'S OUR OPPORTUNITY TO ACT? WELL, I THINK ACTUALLY, I DID SPEAK WITH LISA HURLEY, OUR LOBBYIST, REGARDING THIS AND YOUR CONCERNS, AND SHE MENTIONED THAT REPRESENTATIVE BENARROSH ROACH IS ON THE HOUSE COMMITTEE FOR THE AD VALOREM TAXES AND WELCOMES A MEETING OR CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU ALL. SO I THINK NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, I CAN KEEP YOU APPRIZED OF ANY OTHER INFORMATION THAT I GET, BUT THAT'S AS MUCH AS I'VE RECEIVED SO FAR.

THANK YOU. AND YEAH, GO AHEAD. MADAM MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE COMMENT ALSO THAT THE DELEGATION IS MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 15TH. SO THAT DELEGATION MEETING IS IMPORTANT.

AND ANNETTE REPRESENTATIVE DE LA ROCHE. ROCHE IS COMING TO SPEAK WITH CITY MANAGER AND MYSELF. IF YOU'LL GET WITH SANDRA ON THAT DATE AND SEE IF YOU CAN.

ALSO, IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH HER OR HER INFORMATION SO YOU CAN REACH OUT TO HER, I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. AND I'LL END WITH THIS.

WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT A MORATORIUM AND THE USE OF THE WORD MORATORIUM.

AND I JUST MY TAKE ON MORATORIUMS ARE THIS WHEN IT COMES THE OTHER DIRECTION, WHEN IT COMES FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FROM TALLAHASSEE, AND THEN THEY START TO IMPOSE ON HOME RULE PREEMPTING DECISIONS THAT WE SHOULD BE MAKING HERE ON IN THESE CHAMBERS FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

WHEN THAT PREEMPTION HAPPENS, USE ANOTHER WORD THAT IS A MORATORIUM FOR US DOING WHAT'S NEEDED FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

THAT IS THEIR MORATORIUM. SO MORATORIUMS EXIST AND SADLY THEY'RE ALL ONE WAY AND AND THEY, THEY COME DOWN THE PIKE CHARGING HARD. SO. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. WELL? WELL SAID. WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER.

OR WHAT'S BAD FOR THE GOOSE IS BAD FOR THE GANDER.

IT WORKS BOTH WAYS. YES, SIR. YEAH. IT DOES. AND THANK YOU FOR UPDATING THOSE PRIORITIES.

THANK YOU FOR REACHING OUT TO LISA HURLEY ABOUT THOSE THINGS.

AND YOU'LL SPEAK TO HER MORE OFTEN THAN ANY OF US.

IF YOU'LL JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW THAT SHE KNOWS THAT WE KNOW.

AND IF THERE'S ANY OTHER LEGISLATION THAT COMES UP ABOUT NAPLES THAT WE'RE NOT AWARE OF BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SOME RUMORS AND SOME LEGISLATION THAT MIGHT BE GIVEN THAT YOU LET US KNOW THAT YOU INFORM HER OF THOSE THINGS.

OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YES. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY.

ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE ON THE LAST LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES ACTUALLY DATES BACK TWO YEARS, AND I THINK IN TWO MONTHS WAS WE WANTED TO. WE WERE SEEKING THE DEFINITION OF WHAT IS A MORE BURDENSOME AND RESTRICTIVE ON SB 250, WHICH NOW HAS MORPHED INTO 180? HAVE WE DID WE EVER RECEIVE A RESPONSE DEFINING THAT? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. SO I ASSUME THAT MISS HURLEY DISCUSSED THAT WITH.

SENATOR PASSIDOMO AND COMPANY? I BELIEVE SHE DID.

I'LL HAVE TO GET AN UPDATE FROM HER ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION, BECAUSE THAT MAY GIVE US PRECEDENT ON WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO ABOUT ANY RELIEF ON 180.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? PERFECT, MR. YOUNG.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT COMPLETES OUR LEGISLATIVE.

DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? NO. IF YOU'LL JUST LET ME KNOW IF FOR THAT EDIT.

I ACTUALLY HAVE TO GET THIS OVER TO THE DELEGATION TODAY.

SO IF I MAKE THE EDIT FROM COUNCILMAN KRISEMAN, WILL YOU APPROVE THIS BY MR. YOUNG? THE THE MORATORIUM LANGUAGE UNDER THE RESTRICTIONS ON LAND USE REGULATIONS.

[05:30:01]

IF I AMEND THAT SENTENCE AND THEN THIS WILL BE GOOD TO GO.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU ALL APPROVE IT VERBALLY.

SAY THE THINGS THAT CONCERN US. IS EVERYONE. EVERYONE'S OKAY WITH THAT LANGUAGE.

I THINK I THINK WHAT THE LANGUAGE I SUGGESTED.

YEAH. YES. THAT WAS THE ONLY CHANGE. CORRECT.

AND THEN I CAN SUBMIT THIS TO THE DELEGATION.

OKAY. AND WE DIDN'T REQUIRE A ROLL CALL VOTE, JUST A CONSENSUS VOTE THAT THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING WITH, RIGHT? YEAH. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S OKAY.

I HAD A CONSENSUS. YES. OKAY. COUNCIL I NEED THE SUPPORT RIGHT NOW.

WE'RE SUPPOSED TO THANK YOU. MONIQUE TO ITEM 12 E, WE HAVE SOME A PETITION IN THE AUDIENCE.

THEY'VE BEEN HERE. AND IF IT'S ALL RIGHT, I'D LIKE TO MOVE THEM FORWARD SO WE CAN TAKE CARE OF SOME HOUSE BUSINESS, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH EVERYBODY. SO I SEE, I THINK ITEM 13 C IN THE ROOM.

IS THERE ANOTHER ITEM? IS 13.

92. OKAY. WELL LET'S START WITH 13. A IF WE HAVE STAFF HERE.

YEAH, I KIND OF. AND THEN WE'LL GO 13 WHILE WE, WHILE WE WAIT FOR STAFF.

[13.F. Announcement of an Executive Session in reference to Lamonda, Joseph v. City of Naples, Case No. 2024-CA-001301, 20th Judicial Circuit, in and for Collier County, Florida. (Matthew McConnell, City Attorney)]

MAYOR MAY I AT LEAST JUST TAKE CARE OF 13 AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION? YES, SIR. THAT WOULD BE FANTASTIC. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GO OUT OF ORDER. THAT'S FINE, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL READ REALLY QUICK. SO PURSUANT TO 286 .011, SUBPARAGRAPH A, THE CITY ATTORNEY IS ANNOUNCING HIS REQUEST FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING ADVICE CONCERNING SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR STRATEGY RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES ASSOCIATED WITH LITIGATION. STYLED LAMANDA JOSEPH VERSUS CITY OF NAPLES CASE NUMBER 2024CA001301, AND AN FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ON SEPTEMBER 24TH, 2025 AT APPROXIMATELY 1230, IN THE CITY'S CONFERENCE ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL, EXECUTIVE SESSION IS EXPECTED TO LAST APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR.

THE ENTIRE SESSION SHALL BE RECORDED BY A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER.

NO DECISIONS WILL BE MADE IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

ANY ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AT A MEETING. ONCE WE'VE RECONVENED, FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS WILL BE PRESENT DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION MAYOR TERESA HEITMANN, COUNCIL MEMBERS TERRY HUTCHISON, RICK KRISEMAN, BETH PETRANOFF, BILL KRAMER, LINDA PENNIMAN, VERN BARTON, CITY MANAGER GARY YOUNG, CITY ATTORNEY MATTHEW MCCONNELL, ATTORNEY JEFFREY HURCOMB, AND A REPRESENTATIVE FROM DYNES COURT.

REPORTING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO. READ SO ANNOUNCED.

THANK YOU, STAFF, FOR BEING FLEXIBLE. I DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO KEEP THE PETITIONERS HERE.

WE'LL START WITH 13 A. YES. GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAD MERRITT, PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES DIRECTOR.

[13.A. Consideration and Discussion of the new Special Event Application for Grow Church Worship Night at Cambier Park and the Repeat Special Event Application for the City of Naples Christmas Parade in Downtown Naples. (Chad Merritt, Director of Parks, Recreation & Facilities)]

LUCKY FOR YOU, MAYOR, I WAS A BASEBALL PLAYER.

SO I CAN HIT A CURVEBALL ANYTIME YOU THROW. THANK YOU.

SIR. I KNEW YOU'D BE PREPARED. SO WE'LL START WITH.

WE'LL GO ONE BY ONE. SINCE THERE'S TWO EVENTS HERE THAT WE WANT TO DISCUSS.

THE FIRST ONE BEING THE NEW SPECIAL EVENT, WHICH IS THE GROW CHURCH WORSHIP NIGHT AT CAMBIER PARK.

THIS EVENT IS EVENT DATE IS JANUARY 30TH, 2026.

WOULD. THE EVENT LOCATION IS IN CAMBIER PARK.

THIS IS A NONPROFIT. ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE 1000.

THE TIME SET UP TIME FOR THIS EVENT WOULD BE 8 A.M.

TO 4 P.M.. EVENT TIME WOULD BE 7 P.M. TO 9:30 P.M., AND THEN THEY WOULD TAKE DOWN IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS.

PARKING WOULD BE UTILIZED IN THE PARKING GARAGES AND OUR AVAILABLE SPACES IN THE DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR AREA.

THIS DOES HAVE AMPLIFIED SOUND. NO ALCOHOL. IT DOES HAVE THERE WILL BE TENTS THAT THEY'RE WORKING WITH.

AND WE DO HAVE STAFF CONCERNS HERE THAT ARE DERIVED FROM THE NAPLES POLICE DEPARTMENT.

I DO HAVE LIEUTENANT MIKE O'REILLY HERE TO DISCUSS SOME OF THE CONCERNS, THE OVERALL SAFETY CONCERNS WITH THE EVENT AND IT TAKING PLACE IN THE PARK. GOOD AFTERNOON, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL O'REILLY, NAPLES POLICE DEPARTMENT SPECIAL OPERATIONS.

JUST SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION TO PREFACE OUR OUR RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE A PARK HAS BECOME THE DE FACTO SPECIAL EVENTS

[05:35:01]

LOCATION IN THE CITY OF NAPLES. UNFORTUNATELY, IT WAS NEVER ENGINEERED TO BE AN EVENTS LOCATION.

THERE IS NO CROWD CONTROL MECHANICS IN PLACE.

THERE'S NOTHING TO MITIGATE VEHICLE INCURSIONS.

THERE'S NOTHING TO MANAGE CROWD MOVEMENTS INSIDE.

THESE ARE ALL THINGS YOU WOULD EXPECT AT VENUES WHERE YOU HAVE LARGER SCALE EVENTS AND MORE CONSISTENT EVENTS.

LAST YEAR, WE HAD OVER 100 SPECIAL EVENTS IN CAMBIER PARK ALONE.

100. THAT INCLUDES EVERYTHING FROM CHURCH SERVICES TO BAND CONCERTS, TO ART FEST LAST YEAR.

ACTUALLY, LET'S GO BACK TO JUST THIS SUMMER. WE HAD A LARGE SCALE EVENT IN JUNE IN THE PARK WHERE WE HAD NOT ONLY A LOT OF PEOPLE, WE ALSO HAD SOME OVERT THREATS TO THE SAFETY OF THOSE PEOPLE.

WE HAD THREATS OF VEHICLES DRIVING THROUGH THE VENUE, AND IN ORDER TO MITIGATE THAT, WE NEEDED ONE OF TWO THINGS.

WE NEEDED SOLID BARRIERS OR BOLLARDS AROUND THE PARK, WHICH WAS NOT FEASIBLE GIVEN THE TIME FRAME, OR WE NEEDED TO BLOCK ACCESS TO THE PARK, MEANING BLOCK ALL THE ROADWAYS AROUND IT, WHICH IS ACTUALLY WHAT WE ENDED UP HAVING TO DO.

YOU REMEMBER LAST YEAR WE DISCUSSED THE ISSUE WITH CAMBIER PARK IN THE LACK OF BOLLARDS LEADING UP TO NEW YEAR'S EVE.

THEN THE EVENTS IN NEW ORLEANS HAPPENED ON NEW YEAR'S EVE, WHERE THEY HAD THE DELIBERATE VEHICLE BORNE ATTACK ON BOURBON STREET.

SO THE PROPENSITY IS THERE. THE ISSUE, ISN'T IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN HERE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN EVERYWHERE.

THE THING TO CONSIDER IS IT CAN HAPPEN ANYWHERE.

SO WITH THIS IN MIND, AFTER THAT LARGE SCALE EVENT THIS SUMMER, WE APPROACHED THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND ASKED FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE IN DOING AN ASSESSMENT. A RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE PARK REACHED OUT TO THEM, WORKED WITH THEM, AND DEVELOPED AN ASSESSMENT REPORT WITH WHICH I BELIEVE THE CHIEF SENT TO COUNCIL WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS THAT OUTLINED THE VULNERABILITIES OF THE PARK.

AND THEY PUT IT ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 100, ONE BEING THE SAFEST PARK, 100 BEING HIGHEST.

CONCERNS FOR THE VULNERABILITIES, THE PARK SCORED A 94.

THIS IS A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT, BUT ENOUGH OF AN ASSESSMENT THAT THEY ARE SENDING TWO OF THEIR AGENTS NEXT WEEK TO MEET WITH US AT THE PARK.

WE'RE GOING TO BE WALKING THE PARK, MAPPING EVERYTHING OUT, SHOWING THE DISTANCES, SHOWING THE LOCATION, SHOWING THE SECURITY CAPABILITIES OR THE LACK THEREOF.

BASED ON THAT ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT. THEY PLAN ON HAVING A FINAL REPORT FOR US EARLY TO MID DECEMBER ON WHAT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE.

NOW, I CAN TELL YOU PROBABLY THEIR RECOMMENDATION IS GOING TO BE SOME KIND OF VEHICLE INCURSION MITIGATION, WHICH MEANS BOLLARDS AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE EVENT AREA, THE BANDSHELL, THE PLAYGROUND AREA CERTAINLY MAYBE UP TO AND INCLUDING THE SOFTBALL AREA. WITH THAT IN MIND, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO ONE OF TWO THINGS DENY PERMITS FOR LARGER EVENTS IN THE PARK, ANYTHING MORE THAN THE NORMAL PASSIVE CAPACITY OF THE PARK, OR REQUIRE THAT ANY EVENTS OR ANY ORGANIZERS THAT WANT TO HAVE AN EVENT IN THE PARK PROVIDE FOR THAT VEHICLE INCURSION MITIGATION.

OBVIOUSLY, AGAIN, WE CANNOT DO THE BOLLARDS ON SUCH SHORT NOTICE.

THAT WOULD REQUIRE SHUTTING DOWN THE ROADWAYS THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PARK.

EIGHTH STREET, SOUTH, CAMBIER PARKWAY AND PARK STREET, JUST LIKE WE DID FOR THAT LARGE EVENT IN THE MIDDLE OF SUMMER.

MOVING FORWARD, ANYTIME WE RECEIVE AN EVENT LIKE THIS WHICH REQUESTS AN EVENT IN THE PARK IN THIS UNPROTECTED AREA, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PERMIT BASED ON SAFETY AND SECURITY.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THIS EVENT. THIS IS ABOUT THE EVENT LOCATION.

THANK YOU. WITH THAT QUESTION, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

FROM ABOVE. ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD, AND I'M NOT SURE IF WE HAVE THE APPLICANT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. THE ORGANIZERS ARE NOT HERE. THEY'RE THERE.

OKAY. ALL DAY. OKAY. IF YOU'LL COME FORWARD, PLEASE.

AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. AND THEN. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS JOSE TETERS. I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT GROW CHURCH.

SO I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE SAFETY CONCERNS BEHIND THIS AND THEY'RE VERY WARRANTED.

WE ARE VERY PROACTIVE AT A AT OUR CHURCH. WE HAVE DEPUTIES ON SITE EVERY WEEKEND TO MITIGATE ANY POTENTIAL CONCERNS AND WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH YOU ON THIS BEHALF.

WE REALIZE WE GOT A LITTLE OVERZEALOUS IN OUR APPLICATION.

IN ORDER TO HONOR THE SYSTEM YOU HAVE PUT IN PLACE, WE WANTED TO MAXIMIZE THAT NUMBER ON THE APPLICATION.

HOWEVER, REALISTICALLY, EVERY SINGLE MONTH WHEN WE HAVE THESE WORSHIP SERVICES AT OUR CHURCH, THE ATTENDANCE ON AVERAGE IS APPROXIMATELY 300 PEOPLE IN ATTENDANCE.

WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE THE EVENT HERE PUTTING 300, AND THEN, SINCE IT'S BEING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC,

[05:40:03]

HAVE 500 PEOPLE SHOW UP, AND THEN NOW WE'VE DISHONORED YOUR SYSTEM.

SO WE SHOT REALLY HIGH IN HOPES THAT PEOPLE WOULD HEAR WHAT'S HAPPENING AND WANT TO BE A PART OF WHAT IS GOING ON.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, REALISTICALLY, WE HAVE AN AVERAGE ATTENDANCE OF 300.

WE ARE ALSO MORE THAN WILLING TO HELP WORK TOGETHER TO PUT UP BARRICADES, TO DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY, WHETHER THAT'S FINANCIALLY CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS THE PLAN THAT'S IN MOTION, OR US RENTING BARRICADES, WHATEVER THAT'S NECESSARY TO DO. SO WE'RE VERY OPEN TO WORKING TOGETHER TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

DID I READ CORRECTLY THAT THIS YOU'VE HAD THIS EVENT NORTH NAPLES PRIOR? CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

WE HAVE IT EVERY SINGLE MONTH AT OUR NORTH LOCATION.

SO WE HAVE THREE CAMPUSES AS A CHURCH, ONE IN SOUTH NAPLES AT LORENZO WALKER THAT WE RENT OUT EVERY SINGLE WEEK, AS WELL AS BIG REGIONAL ISLAND PARK OUT IN THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AREA OFF BY THE FAIRGROUNDS.

AND THEN WE HAVE OUR PERMANENT LOCATION IN NORTH NAPLES JUST BEFORE THE BONITA BEACH LINE PERIMETER.

SO EVERY SINGLE MONTH WE HAVE OUR ALL OF OUR LOCATIONS MEET AT OUR NORTH LOCATION TO HAVE A WORSHIP SERVICE AND A SHORT MESSAGE.

AND THAT'S INDOORS OR OUTDOORS. IT IS INDOORS.

YES, MA'AM. OKAY. INDOORS. YES, MA'AM. AND SO YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE THOSE EVENTS OR YOU'RE JUST ADDING, WE WANTED TO DO THIS IN LIEU OF THAT JANUARY EVENT.

IT'S A TIME WHERE WE CAN BRING ALL OF OUR CAMPUSES TOGETHER.

WE HAVE OUR SNOWBIRDS IN TOWN. THE LOCATION OUTSIDE IS ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL THIS TIME OF YEAR, AND QUITE HONESTLY, OUR GOAL IS TO IMPACT OUR COMMUNITY IN THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE TO MAKE A POSITIVE IMPACT WITHIN NAPLES.

AND WE FELT LIKE THIS WAS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO.

AND DID YOU LOOK AT ANOTHER VENUE IN THE CITY, SUCH AS BAKER PARK OR.

WE DID NOT. WE DID NOT LOOK AT BAKER PARK. IN FACT, OUR EVENTS DIRECTOR, MATTIE, IS HERE WITH ME AS WELL.

SO WE HAVE LOOKED AT OTHER AREAS, THE SCHOOLS I KNOW TAKE LEASES AS WELL.

WE'VE WORKED WITH LORENZO FOR NOW, GOING ON OUR FOURTH YEAR WITH LORENZO WALKER AS WELL AS WE WORKED WITH THE PARKS.

WE FELT THIS WOULD BE A BETTER CENTRAL LOCATION FOR ALL OF OUR CAMPUSES TO COME TOGETHER AND TO REACH THE CITY.

THANK YOU. I HAVE BARTON, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? LIEUTENANT O'REILLY, YOU SAID THAT THAT IF AN EVENT LIKE THIS WERE TO TAKE PLACE, THAT YOU WOULD NEED COOPERATION FROM THE PETITIONER.

WHAT TYPE OF COOPERATION SPECIFICALLY WERE YOU LOOKING FOR? IS IT A MATTER OF FINANCES, OR IS IT A MATTER OF THEM SETTING UP THEIR OWN SECURITY OR THEIR OWN BLOCKING OF ROADWAYS? WHAT EXACTLY? WHAT WOULD THAT COOPERATION LOOK LIKE AND WHAT WOULD IT COST? SO THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT FACETS TO PLANNING FOR THE SECURITY OF THOSE EVENTS.

ONE OF THEM WOULD BE THE INTERNAL SECURITY, AS YOU MENTIONED, FOR A GROUP OF 300.

WE'RE NOT OVERLY CONCERNED ABOUT INTERNAL SECURITY THERE.

WE WOULD LOOK JUST AS WE WOULD WITH THE EVENTS AT THE AIRPORT, AT EXTERNAL THREATS AND VULNERABILITIES.

SO THERE IS SOME VULNERABILITY HERE FROM OUTSIDE BAD ACTORS COMING IN.

USUALLY THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE CHURCH HAVING THEIR OWN PERSONAL SECURITY.

IF THEY WANTED TO HIRE AN OFFICER, WE WOULD ALLOW THAT. IT ALSO IS DEPENDENT ON THE SIZE 300.

I'LL DEFER TO COMMUNITY SERVICES, PROBABLY CLOSE TO THE PASSIVE CAPACITY OF THE PARK ANYWAY, SO WE WOULDN'T PROBABLY REQUIRE OFFICERS FOR THAT.

AS FAR AS MITIGATING THE RISKS FOR VEHICLE INCURSIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WE WOULD IT WOULD BE MORE THAN PARTNERING.

WE WOULD ACTUALLY RELY ON THE ORGANIZERS TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPER BARRIERS OR BARRICADES WERE SET UP, EITHER THROUGH PERMISSION FROM COUNCIL TO CLOSE THE ROADWAYS, AND THEN WE AFFECT THE CLOSURES.

BUT THE I'M SORRY, THE ORGANIZER WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THE BARRIERS, OR THE ORGANIZER COULD ARRANGE WITH A PRIVATE COMPANY TO HAVE THEIR OWN BARRIERS DELIVERED AND SET UP. SO I WOULD SAY IT'S COOPERATIVE IN THAT WE KNOW WHAT HAS TO BE DONE, BUT IT WOULD BE INCUMBENT ON THE ORGANIZER TO ENSURE IT'S DONE.

AND CHAD, IN REFERENCE TO THIS APPLICATION HAVING A THOUSAND POSSIBLE ATTENDEES, BUT MAYBE THAT BEING AN OVERESTIMATE WHAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE FROM A STANDPOINT OF AMENDING THE APPLICATION? IS THAT EVEN A IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN DO INTERNALLY, OR IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT THE APPLICATION AND IT'S BEEN RUBBER STAMPED AS A FORMAL APPLICATION, AND WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THOSE NUMBERS AS IS.

NO. THESE SO ALL OF THE APPLICATIONS WERE THERE WORKING DOCUMENTS.

WHEN WE EVEN WHEN WE BRING IT TO YOU ALL IT'S IT'S GETTING THE ITEMS THAT REQUIRE YOUR APPROVAL.

WE WORK WITH THEM THROUGH THE TENTS AND AND NOT IN THIS CASE, BUT IF THERE'S ALCOHOL INVOLVED, WE WORK THROUGH WITH WE WORK WITH THEM THROUGH THAT.

SO IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WE DISCUSS IN HERE THAT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED, THEN WE WOULD JUST GO BACK. WE WOULD MAKE THAT AMENDMENT.

IF IT'S APPROVED BY YOU ALL, WE WOULD SAY PENDING THIS IS AMENDED.

[05:45:03]

AND IF AS LONG AS IT'S OKAY, IF IT GOES TO THE CITY MANAGER AND HE'S GOOD ON YOUR BEHALF OR IF IT NEEDS TO COME BACK HERE, WE CAN BRING IT BACK. WE'VE WE'VE DONE IT. THAT'S ONE REASON WHY WE WE PUT IN THERE AS A GROUP TO HAVE THAT 120 DAYS.

THAT GIVES US THE TIME TO MAKE THESE ADJUSTMENTS AND TO BRING THEM BACK TO YOU ALL, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING'S GOOD.

SO AMENDING AN APPLICATION IS NO PROBLEM AT ALL.

WE JUST NEED THE DIRECTION OF WHAT IT NEEDS TO STATE.

OKAY, GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'VE KRAMER.

AND THEN CHRISTMAN, ANY CONSIDERATION OF DOING IT A FEW HUNDRED YARDS AWAY AT GULFVIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL? WE HAD NOT YET CONSIDERED THAT. NOW HAVEN'T CONTEMPLATED THAT.

AND THAT WOULD WOULD YOU ALL STILL LOOK AT THAT SITE AND AND SEE WHAT DO A RISK ASSESSMENT THERE AS WELL.

WE WOULD WE COULD DO A RISK ASSESSMENT THERE.

HOWEVER IT'S THE SCHOOL SYSTEM'S PROPERTY. SO WE'D HAVE TO DEFER TO THEM IF THEY WOULD ASK US TO STEP IN AND PROVIDE THEM WITH THE INFORMATION, WE'D BE HAPPY TO DO IT. GULFVIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL DOES HAVE SOME BETTER VENUES.

THERE IS SOME FENCING AROUND. IT PROVIDES, A MINIMAL IMPEDIMENT TO VEHICLE INCURSIONS, BUT IT DOES PROVIDE MUCH MORE OF AN IMPEDIMENT THAN CAMBIER PARK DOES.

YEAH, SAME WITH NAPLES. I MEAN, WE DO, YOU KNOW, FIELDS OF FAITH AND SEE AT THE POLE AND ALL THAT THERE AND AND TONS OF EVENTS AT BOTH PLACES, OBVIOUSLY. BUT I WAS JUST THINKING, BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU, I HATE IT THAT I'VE BEEN BEATING THE DRUM, THAT WE NEED TO STOP HAVING EVENTS IN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND QUIT USING OUR PARKS, ESPECIALLY FOR PEOPLE THAT DON'T LIVE HERE. I AGREE WITH YOU.

THAT'S WHAT. THAT'S THE PEOPLE THAT ELECTED US. THAT'S WHAT THEY TOLD OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND STILL DO.

BUT THIS IS A SUPER AWESOME THING THAT I'D LOVE TO SEE WORK.

SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN FIND A WAY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

THANK YOU. KRISTEN. YEAH. I'LL MAKE SOME COMMENTS.

NOTHING AGAINST THE APPLICANT. AND AND AND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT JUST SOME, SOME PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS, THIS IS AN EVENT THAT WILL BE BASED ON WHAT WE'VE HEARD MINIMALLY 300 PEOPLE.

IT COULD BE IT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, COULD BE 500, COULD BE 700, COULD BE 1000.

WE DON'T KNOW. WE HAVE AND I MADE THIS POINT EARLIER ABOUT THE CONCENTRATION OF EVENTS THAT OCCURS BETWEEN CHRISTMAS AND EASTER AND CAMBIER PARK AND FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, AND THAT IS WHERE THE KIND OF CONCERNS THAT COUNCILMAN CRAMER JUST MENTIONED FROM RESIDENTS, YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S DRIVEN BY WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT SEASON.

AND, AND WE HAVE SAID ON THIS DAIS, I'VE HEARD US SAY, I'VE SAID IT, I'M SURE, AND OTHERS HAVE SAID IT. WE WE NEED TO LOOK TO MANAGE AND RATION THE NUMBER OF EVENTS ON FIFTH AND PERHAPS EVEN, PERHAPS EVEN CUT BACK. WE RECENTLY HAD AN APPLICANT FROM CARS ON FIFTH WHO CAME IN TO HAVE THEIR EVENT AGAIN. THERE WERE ISSUES THAT STAFF PRESENTED TO US FROM THE LAST EVENT. THERE WAS A TRANSITION IN TERMS OF THE SPONSORSHIP BENEFICIARY OF IT.

THERE THERE WERE ANY NUMBER OF REASONS FOR US TO SAY TO HIT THE PAUSE BUTTON ON THAT, BUT WE SAID, NO, LET'S GO FORWARD WITH IT AGAIN. I'LL TELL YOU ANOTHER QUICK STORY.

ABOUT A MONTH OR SIX WEEKS OR SO OR SO AGO, I GUESS IT WAS.

MAYBE IT WAS DURING THE SUMMER RECESS PERIOD.

A NEIGHBOR AND FRIEND OF MINE CALLED ME UP ON BEHALF OF AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION THAT WANTED TO SCHEDULE A ROAD RACE THAT WOULD COMMENCE HERE IN NAPLES AND GO UP TO TAMPA, OVER TO THE EAST COAST, DOWN TO MIAMI AND INTERNATIONAL ROAD RACE.

OF GREAT DISTINCTION. AND HE ASKED ME IF I COULD INTRODUCE HIM TO APPROPRIATE STAFF TO TALK ABOUT THIS.

I ENDED UP SETTING UP A MEETING WITH CHIEF DOMINGUEZ.

LIEUTENANT O'REILLY, MR. MERRITT, OTHER STAFF FOR THEM TO TALK ABOUT THIS.

I LEARNED EVEN BEFORE WE HAD THE MEETING THAT THEY ALREADY HAD THE DATE FOR THIS EVENT, AND THEY WANTED TO START IT FROM THE TOP OF FIFTH AVENUE OUT 41. ON FEBRUARY 22ND, A SATURDAY, THEY'D ACTUALLY BE HERE THREE DAYS WITH THE SETUP.

I QUICKLY FOUND OUT EVEN BEFORE THE MEETING THAT THAT WAS THE WEEKEND OF THE ART NAPLES ART INSTITUTE NATIONAL ART

[05:50:01]

SHOW, WHICH WAS SCHEDULED TO TRACK, WHAT, 10,000 PEOPLE? MR. SOMETHING LIKE THAT. MAYBE IT WAS 20,000, SO I KNEW IT WAS A NONSTARTER.

BUT THEY WANTED TO MEET WITH STAFF AND THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WAS NOT A THERE WAS JUST TOO MUCH FOR US.

THEY DID NOT FILE AN APPLICATION. THE POLICE AND PARKS DID A GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING THE PROBLEMS, BUT THEY THEY'LL BE BACK NEXT YEAR WITH ANOTHER APPLICATION.

OCCASIONALLY YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SAY NO. YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SAY NO.

NO MATTER HOW WONDERFUL THE GROUP IS AND HOW HOW IMPORTANT THEIR EVENT IS TO THEM AND THEIR MEMBERSHIP OR CONGREGATION IN THIS CASE OR CONSTITUENCY. AND, AND I'M JUST REMINDING US OF THAT.

AND TO ADD ANOTHER POTENTIALLY THOUSAND PERSON EVENT ON JANUARY 30TH TO CAMBIER PARK.

BASED ON WHAT WE'VE SAID, WE WE BELIEVE AND THINK ARE THE LIMITATIONS THAT WE'RE FACING, JUST SEEMS TO ME TO BE COUNTERINTUITIVE, THE NICEST WAY I CAN SAY IT. SO I'VE SAID MY PIECE YOU KNOW I WELL, WHILE THIS ITEM WAS COMING BEFORE US AND AS WE'RE DISCUSSING IT, I DID A LITTLE BIT OF HOMEWORK ON THE PETITIONER, THE APPLICANT. YOU GUYS DO SOME PHENOMENAL STUFF.

YOU DO GOOD STUFF. THANK YOU. AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, ANY EVENT, ANY EVENT WE COULD LOOK.

AND SOMEBODY'S GOING TO TAKE A POSITION. THAT.

BOY, THESE PEOPLE REALLY DO SOME WONDERFUL STUFF, WHETHER I AGREE WITH THEM OR NOT.

THE WE'VE HEARD FROM THE DEPARTMENT WHO IS TASKED.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THESE PEOPLE ELECTED HERE ARE CHARGED AND COMMIT TO DOING IS, IS PROTECTING THE PEOPLE WE SERVE. OKAY. THE GUY WHO'S WEARING THIS UNIFORM, HE'S I MAY BE A LITTLE BIT ENGAGED, AND THEY'RE HEAVILY ENGAGED. RIGHT? COUNCILMAN. CHRISTMAN HAD SOME GREAT COMMENTS, BUT I LOOKED UP UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS. WHAT ARE THOSE? AND THOSE ARE BELIEFS OR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ONESELF OR OTHERS THAT ARE NOT GROUNDED IN REALITY AND ARE UNLIKELY TO BE FULFILLED. SO AS WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT WE HAVE AND WE TRY TO MANAGE ON BEHALF OF OUR RESIDENTS, CAMBIER PARK IS ONE OF THEM.

AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS ITEM, WE HEARD FROM OUR POLICE FORCE THAT OUT OF ON A SCALE OF 0 TO 100.

AND I'M PARAPHRASING HERE, I'M NOT GOING TO USE THE SAME WORDS THAT WHEN IT WHEN YOU TRY TO MEASURE THE RISK.

I'M USING THOSE WORDS, THE RISK INVOLVED AT THIS PARK FOR AN EVENT OF THE SIZE THAT YOU PUT ON PAPER THAT THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY IS TELLING US THAT RISK IS ALMOST TO THE END OF THE SCALE.

IT'S 94. AND WE IN MY OPINION, WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS ON THE RISK VERSUS THE REWARD.

AND WE ALL HOPE FOR THE BEST, BUT HOPE ISN'T.

WHAT DID WE HEAR TODAY ABOUT A STRATEGY? HOPE IS NOT A STRATEGY.

SO I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS, OFFICER. I, I I APPRECIATE YOUR CANDIDNESS AND WHERE I BELIEVE THE ADVICE TO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THIS COMMUNITY WHERE THAT ADVICE IS LEADING US.

AND SADLY SO, BECAUSE WE SEE IT ALL THE TIME AND IT'S NOT ABOUT IT HAPPENING EVERYWHERE ELSE BUT HERE, BUT IT JUST HAPPENS ANYWHERE, RIGHT? SO I APPRECIATE THAT I'M CONCERNED.

COUNCIL. I CAN'T SUPPORT IT. AND THAT'S BASED WITH A HEAVY, HEAVY WEIGHTING ON THE COMMENTS FROM THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CONCERNED WITH ADVISING US.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU. PETRINA. I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES HERE.

I YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THERE IS THAT THAT RISK OF WHAT WAS IT, 94 WAS SCARES ME A LITTLE BIT TO ADD EVEN MORE EVENTS ON THERE.

BUT AS IMPORTANTLY, WE OFTEN FORGET THAT CAMBIER PARK IS A PARK.

AND WHEN YOU HAVE SPECIAL EVENTS, IT TAKES AWAY FROM ITS PRIMARY FUNCTION FOR THE LOCAL RESIDENTS AND VISITORS AND SEASONAL PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE.

[05:55:08]

WE. SO WE CAN'T REALLY GUARANTEE THAT THEY'LL BE SAFE.

I JUST THINK IT'S THE WRONG VENUE FOR THE WRONG TIME.

AND I THINK IF WE APPROVE THIS, WE'RE HEADED IN THE WRONG DIRECTION OF ADDING EVEN MORE SPECIAL EVENTS TO THIS PARTICULAR VENUE.

I LIKE THE IDEA OF GOLFVIEW, BUT IS IT GULFVIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL? I LIKE THAT BIG FENCE THAT THEY HAVE. THAT. BUT THAT WOULD BE ENTIRELY UP TO UP TO THIS CHURCH.

AND JUST LOOKING AT WHERE THE CHURCH IS, IT'S ALMOST IN BONITA AND THEN IT'S ON THE EAST TRAIL. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE A THIRD LOCATION, BUT PARDON. YEAH. BUT YOU KNOW, I JUST THINK THAT THIS IS I DO NOT WANT TO USE THE PARK IN THIS WAY, AND I DON'T THINK OUR RESIDENTS WOULD SUPPORT THAT AS WELL.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. MR. MERRITT HAD SOMETHING TO ADD.

YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO ADD THIS. THIS IS PROBABLY JUST HEARING FROM A COUPLE OF YOU.

I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL IN WHAT WE'RE.

WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO MOVING FORWARD TO IS WHERE WE'VE GOT THIS STUFF, WHERE IT SAYS CONFLICTS WITH OTHER EVENTS.

THAT'S TYPICALLY FOR EVENTS ON THE SAME DAY OR AT SAME TIME, BUT I THINK IT'D BE BENEFICIAL TO GIVE YOU A PICTURE OF WHAT A WEEKEND LOOKS LIKE, BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR EVENT WOULD BE ON A FRIDAY, BUT ON THE NEXT DAY IS AN ART SHOW IN CAMBIER PARK, AND THE NEXT DAY IS THE JAZZ CONCERT IN CAMBIER PARK.

SO AND WE'VE HAD CHURCH AS WELL ON SUNDAY, SO I THINK THAT WOULD HELP WITH SOME OF THAT CONVERSATION, BECAUSE IT GIVES YOU THE BIG PICTURE OF WHAT'S TAKING PLACE ON ANY GIVEN WEEKEND, BECAUSE ON ANY GIVEN WEEKEND.

I MEAN, WE'RE FINDING SPACES FOR THESE, YOU KNOW, EVENTS TO POTENTIALLY TAKE PLACE.

AND IF IF IT COMES TO YOU ALL AND YOU DON'T, YOU KNOW, AND YOU SEE THIS AND IT SAYS NO CONFLICTS, WE'LL UNDERSTAND THAT. THERE'S STILL OTHER EVENTS.

THERE MAY BE AN EVENT THE NIGHT BEFORE. THERE'S AN EVENT THE NEXT DAY. THERE MAY BE AN EVENT THE VERY NEXT DAY.

SO WE'LL START PUTTING THAT ON THERE. AND I THINK THAT'LL BE HELPFUL FOR YOU ALL, ESPECIALLY MOVING FORWARD.

THANK YOU. AND IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE CLOSING REMARKS AND WE'LL MOVE FORWARD IN A MOTION.

YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU MAYOR. IN REGARDS TO MANY OF YOUR CONCERNS THAT ARE VERY VALID AND EVEN THE SCORE ON THE HIGH 90 90 PERCENTILE OF THAT, DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE RISKS INVOLVED.

AND IF WE WERE DOING THIS FOR US, WE WOULDN'T COME TO THE PARK.

WE WOULD ACTUALLY DO IT AT OUR CHURCH. BUT WE'RE COMING HERE TO MAKE AN IMPACT IN THE COMMUNITY, WHICH SEVERAL OF OUR CONSTITUENTS, YOUR CONSTITUENTS, ACTUALLY LIVE RIGHT HERE IN THE CITY THAT TRAVEL TO OUR CAMPUSES.

LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE MULTIPLE. WITH THAT BEING SAID, IN REGARDS TO THE 300 ATTENDANTS AND YES, THAT IS A TECHNICALITY ON MY PART AND PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR WANTING TO NOT DISHONOR UNINTENTIONALLY THE SYSTEM.

SO I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS THAT IS COMPLETELY MY FAULT.

BUT IN REGARDS TO WHAT HE SHARED IN THE SIZE OF THE EVENT, ESPECIALLY WHAT'S FOLLOWING THAT SAME VERY WEEKEND, WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY. WE HAVE AN INTERNAL SAFETY TEAM.

WE'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HIRE DEPUTIES TO BE THERE ON PROPERTY, TO RENT BARRICADES, WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO TO MAKE AN IMPACT IN THE CITY AND COMMUNITY.

AND QUITE HONESTLY, I'M EXCITED. IF NOTHING ELSE, GROW CHURCH IS A PART OF BEING A CATALYST TO MAKING CAMBIER PARK SAFER MOVING FORWARD NOW WITH THIS HOMELAND SECURITY ASSESSMENT. SO I LOVE THAT IF FOR NOTHING ELSE, WE GET TO BE A PART OF THAT.

BUT I FEEL WE WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE A BIGGER IMPACT IN THE COMMUNITY EVEN IN JANUARY.

WITH A LOT EVEN GOING ON THAT WEEKEND, WE CAN HELP ADD VALUE IN SAFETY TO THAT WEEKEND WITH THOSE PROCEEDING EVENTS.

AND I APPRECIATE YOUR EAGERNESS. I THINK THE BIG KEY HERE IS ALSO LOOKING AT MOVING OUT THE NUMBER OF EVENTS THAT WE HAVE AT CAMBIER, AND THAT REALLY IS THE, I THINK, DETERMINING FACTOR, MAJOR DETERMINING FACTOR FOR THIS.

SO WE'VE DELIBERATED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

COUNCIL. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. I RECOMMEND DENYING THIS MOTION.

FOR A SECOND. CAN I ASK ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION? YES, SIR. MR. MERRITT, IS THIS TWOFOLD? IS THIS A NEW EVENT AND THEN A REPEAT FOR THE CHRISTMAS PARADE? NO. THERE'LL BE TWO SEPARATE EVENTS SO THAT IT WOULD BE PROBABLY MORE BENEFICIAL IF WE COULD, TO HAVE THEM APPROVE, DENY ONE AND THEN APPROVE.

DENY. OH, I SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING. THAT'S WHAT I WAS.

THANK YOU SIR. NO PROBLEM. IF WE COULD, I JUST DIDN'T. IF YOU JUST SAY THE ITEM, THEN BOTH. YEAH, I GOT IT. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO WE WILL NOW HEAR THE COMPANION ITEM WITHIN THIS SUBJECT, WHICH IS THE CHRISTMAS PARADE.

YEAH. NO, I WOULD GO AHEAD IF, IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE READY TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE SPECIAL EVENT FOR CAMBIER PARK,

[06:00:01]

GO AHEAD AND HANDLE THAT MOTION. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT DON'T JUST SAY 13 A, BE SPECIFIC TO THE APPLICATION BECAUSE THERE'S ANOTHER ONE.

OKAY. SORRY I MISREAD YOU. WELL, I'M HERE, LIKE I SAID, COUNCIL DO I HAVE A MOTION? YES. I GUESS, YOU KNOW, I, I RECOMMEND DENIAL OF AGENDA ITEM 13 A NO, NO.

I RUN MOTION TO DENY THE SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATION FOR THE WORSHIP NIGHT AT CAMBIER PARK.

OKAY, I SEPARATELY. RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. RECOMMEND DENIAL OF 13 A THE PIECE THAT IS THE SPECIAL EVENT FOR CHURCH WORSHIP NIGHT AT CAMBIER PARK.

MINUS THE 13. MINUS THE 13 A. OKAY. SECOND, I ALREADY HAD A SECOND.

OKAY. WHO SECONDED IT BEFORE? I DON'T THINK NOBODY.

OH, NO. OKAY, SO SECOND BY VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER.

CHRISTMAS. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MARTIN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. NO. VICE MAYOR.

HUTCHINSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENNIMAN. YES.

MAYOR. HARTMAN. NO. I HOPE THAT MEANS SO THE APPLICATION IS DENIED.

I HOPE THAT MEANS THAT YOU'RE FOLLOWING UP WITH OKAY.

THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. OKAY. MR. MERRITT.

MOVING ON TO NUMBER TWO ON THIS ITEM. YES, MADAM.

MAYOR. AGAIN, CHAD MERRITT, PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES DIRECTOR.

THIS IS THE CITY OF NAPLES CHRISTMAS PARADE. THIS IS A REPEAT EVENT.

THIS THE DATE PROPOSED IS DECEMBER 9TH, 2025.

THE EVENT TIME 630 TO 930. ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE APPROXIMATELY 20,000.

PUBLIC PARKING GARAGES AND THE SPACES AVAILABLE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.

THIS WILL HAVE AMPLIFIED SOUND. NO ALCOHOL, NO TENTS.

AND WE DID TURN OUR APPLICATION IN ON TIME. SO STAFF FEEDBACK.

SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE. AND THE REASON WE BROUGHT IT, BECAUSE THERE'S A COUPLE OF CHANGES THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO MAKE, AND WE DON'T WANT TO JUST THROW THE CHANGES IN THERE AND THEN PUT IT ON CONSENT AND EVERYBODY GOES ON THEIR MERRY WAY, NO PUN INTENDED. SO THE FIRST THING IS WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO MOVE THIS TO THE SECOND TUESDAY OF DECEMBER MOVING FORWARD.

AND THE REASON FOR THIS IS WE'RE TRYING TO COORDINATE THIS WITH HAVING FIFTH AVENUE HAVING THE TREE LIT AT THE TIME OF THE PARADE.

THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE WE'RE ALSO LOOKING.

IF YOU AND I'LL KIND OF LUMP THIS TOGETHER. MOVING TO BROADCAST THAT TAKES PLACE HERE AT THE CITY TO SUGDEN PLAZA SO THAT WE HAVE MORE OF A FEEL. AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTUALLY TUNING IN CAN REALLY FEEL THE ENERGY THAT TAKES PLACE ON FIFTH AVENUE.

THAT ALSO OUTSIDE OF THAT HELPS US AT THE END OF THE PARADE.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S A CHALLENGE FOR US IS WHEN WE HAVE THE BROADCAST HERE IN FRONT OF CITY HALL.

BY THE TIME EVERYBODY GETS HERE AND THEY STOP FOR THE BROADCAST TO DO INTERVIEWS AND SUCH.

IT COMPLETELY JAMS UP THE REST OF THE PARADE.

SO THEN THAT KIND OF CREATES A LITTLE BIT OF A BOTTLENECK.

IT'S A NIGHTMARE FOR PD TO HAVE TO DEAL, ESPECIALLY AT THIS INTERSECTION AT THE STOP SIGN, BECAUSE AT THIS POINT, YOU'VE GOT SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE ALREADY WATCHED THE REST OF THE PARADE THAT ARE OVER ON THIRD.

THEY START MIGRATING OUT. SO NOW WE'VE GOT PARADE FLOATS THAT ARE KIND OF STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION.

IT JUST CREATES A REALLY BAD SITUATION. SO ONE THING WE'D LIKE TO DO IS BE ABLE TO MOVE THAT TO SUGDEN PLAZA TO ENHANCE THE EXPERIENCE.

FOR THOSE THAT ARE TUNING IN AS WELL AS IF FOR THOSE OF YOU ALL WHO GO BACK AND WATCH IT AND AS WELL AS TO TRY TO THE FLOW OF THE PARADE TO KIND OF KEEP THAT GOING. SO THERE'S KIND OF TWOFOLD.

SO WE WERE GOING TO MAKE THAT CHANGE. AND THEN THEN HAVING STAFF MANAGE THAT.

DAVID DOES AN OUTSTANDING JOB GETTING THAT DONE, AND HE'S GOT A BUNCH OF IDEAS.

WE'RE WORKING WITH IT AND EVERYBODY TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT STREAMED.

ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS IT WAS HERE BEFORE WAS BECAUSE WE HAD THE DIRECT CONNECTION, BUT NOW WE HAVE THAT OPTION TO BE ABLE TO GO OFF SITE SO THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. THE SECOND THING, THAT OR NEXT THING I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS CONSIDERATION FOR ADDING BARRICADES ALONG THE

[06:05:04]

PARADE ROUTE. AND I'M GOING TO TIE THIS INTO TWO ITEMS AS WELL.

AND THEN I'M GOING TO LET LIEUTENANT O'RILEY TALK.

HE'S GOT A, YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN A PRESENTATION THAT HE'D LIKE TO DISCUSS, BUT ADDING THE BARRICADES ALONG THE PARADE ROUTE TO KIND OF KEEP THE PATRONS AND SOME OF THE KIDS AND SUCH FROM ENTERING INTO THE PARADE ITSELF.

YOU'RE GOING TO SEE SOME PICTURES HERE IN A SECOND, AND I'VE SEEN IT FIRSTHAND.

I HEARD IT THE FIRST YEAR I WAS HERE. I HEARD THE CONCERN.

I SAW IT FIRSTHAND. ACTUALLY SAW IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF CITY HALL ONE YEAR.

BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS, IS WHEN THEY'RE THROWING THE CANDY, NOT EVERYBODY MAKES IT ALL THE WAY TO THE CROWD.

SO WHAT HAPPENS IS THEY GET A HANDFUL, THEY GO AND A COUPLE FALL OUT AND THEY FALL OUT RIGHT BESIDE THE FLOAT.

WELL, THE NEXT FLOAT COMES THROUGH A KID SEE'S CANDIES RIGHT THERE.

THEY DECIDE THEY WANT TO RUN OUT INTO THE STREET TO GRAB THE CANDY.

THIS CREATES A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION. WE ALSO HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE JUST.

THEY WANT TO GET CLOSER AND CLOSER AND CLOSER AND CLOSER.

AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE'VE GOT BIG FLOATS TRYING TO MAKE IT DOWN FIFTH AVENUE, AND THEY CAN'T REALLY MAKE IT DOWN FIFTH AVENUE.

AND THAT CAUSES THEM TO KIND OF SLOW UP BECAUSE THE CROWD HAS KIND OF PINCHED THEM.

SO NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO KIND OF GO THROUGH AND YOU'RE GOING TO SEE SOME PICTURES HERE IN A SECOND FOR THAT.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANT TO DO AND WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IS TELL PEOPLE THAT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO THROW IT FROM THE FLOAT. THAT IF THEY WANT TO HAND OUT CANDY, THEY WANT TO HAND OUT SWAG, THAT THEY'RE TO WALK BEHIND THEIR FLOAT AS WALKERS ON THE EDGE OF THE PARADE ROUTE WHERE THE CROWD'S AT AND HAND THE CANDY OUT.

SOME LISTEN, SOME DON'T. SO THEN THAT CREATES WHERE WE'RE HAVING TO TRY TO POLICE THAT, AND IT'S A CHALLENGE.

AND THEN WE HAVE TO BE THE ONES THAT SAY, SORRY, YOU DIDN'T FOLLOW THOSE RULES.

SO NEXT YEAR, GUESS WHAT? YOU CAN'T BE IN THE PARADE.

THAT PUTS US IN A LITTLE BIT OF AN AWKWARD SITUATION, BECAUSE SOME OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS ARE ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY.

SO WE DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT. SO WE NEED TO DECIDE KIND OF WHAT WE NEED, WHAT YOU ALL WOULD LIKE US TO DO.

WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS. WE CAN ELIMINATE IT ALTOGETHER, OR WE CAN LOOK AT THE BARRICADES AS A IS A SOLUTION AND HOPE THAT THAT WILL HELP WITH SOME OF THE THROWING OF THE CANDY. BUT I DO WANT LIEUTENANT O'REILLY TO KIND OF GO THROUGH HIS PRESENTATION BEFORE WE ENTER INTO CONVERSATION.

SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO LIEUTENANT O'REILLY. COULD I I MAKE IT BRIEF.

I'M SORRY. I JUST BECAUSE I KNOW THIS, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT WHERE COUNCIL IS STANDING ON THIS BEFORE WE HAVE TO CONVINCE THEM THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THEY WANT, DON'T WANT TO DO. I BECAUSE I HAVE A FEELING YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE SUPPORT OF THIS COUNCIL FOR WHAT EXACTLY YOU SAID, BUT I DON'T KNOW. AS FAR AS SAFETY. AND I KNOW LIEUTENANT O'REILLY AND WHAT THEY'RE DEALING WITH.

I DO WANT TO SEE THE PRESENTATION, BUT IF IT'S OKAY CAN I JUST FEEL COUNCIL WHERE YOU'RE AT ON THE THROWING OF CANDY AND THE SIZE OR THE BARRICADES AND. I AM VERY BIASED. I'VE BEEN THE GRAND MARSHAL TWICE WITH MY FOOTBALL TEAMS AND WE'RE THROWING CANDY OUT AND I'M JUST BEING REAL.

LIKE WHAT? ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE SPRINKLING THAT ONE YEAR. NOBODY'S GETTING OUT AND WALKING. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S RIGHT.

I'M JUST BEING REALISTIC. BUT MAYBE OTHERS DON'T FEEL THAT WAY.

I DON'T KNOW. I WILL ALWAYS DEFER TO WHATEVER OUR NAPLES.

I SHOULD HAVE LET HIM GO FIRST. PETRANOFF. I I WOULD WOULD COMPLY WITH THAT AND HAVE WALKER COMPLY AND HAVE WALKERS. I OF COURSE, I'M NOT A RADICAL LIKE THE GUY TO MY RIGHT.

SO I WOULD HAVE WALKERS DELIVER THAT CANDY. IT IS TEMPTING BECAUSE IT IS FUN TO THROW IT OUT.

YOU SEE THE LITTLE KIDS SMILING AND WHATNOT, BUT BUT I'M SURE YOU'RE.

I'M SURE YOUR PICTURES ARE GOING TO SHOW SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO SCARE US A LITTLE BIT WHEN LITTLE KIDS IN THE ROAD READY TO BE RUN OVER BY A GIANT FLOAT.

SO I WOULD DEFINITELY COMPLY. VICE MAYOR. I HOPE YOU WOULD.

SO ASHAMED. NO. I'LL GO ALONG WITH THE ADVICE OF HER.

WELL, YOU MET ME. I I THINK THAT I WILL BE IN A CAR IN THE PARADE THIS YEAR, AND I WANT TO BE ABLE TO THROW CANDY. I HAVE LOST THIS BATTLE. I HAVE, I HAVE TO SAY THAT I IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, I THINK ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ARE EXCELLENT.

[06:10:01]

MOVING THE, YOU KNOW, THE FROM THE FRONT OF CITY HALL TO SIXTH AVENUE AND THE BARRICADES AND SO ON.

BUT ON THE CANDY, I THINK IT'S A I THINK IT'S IT'S SOMETHING, EVEN IF.

I'M SORRY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. SO AGAIN, I SUPPORT ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CANDY, PRIMARILY BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S ENFORCEABLE.

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO THROW CANDY. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO THROW CANDY AND THEY'RE GOING TO THROW IT FROM THE VEHICLE.

THE FLOATS AND THE VEHICLES. AND AND I THINK HAVING WALKERS IS, I DON'T KNOW, FEELS STILTED TO ME.

IT KIND OF TAKES AWAY FROM THE FLAVOR AND FUN OF THE PARADE.

AND I THINK IF YOU HAVE THE BARRICADES, YOU'VE YOU'VE DEALT WITH THE SAFETY ISSUE.

AND I THINK YOU JUST LET PEOPLE THROW CANDY. AND IF THEY FALL ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ON THE STREET SIDE OF THE BARRICADES, THE KIDS CAN'T GET TO IT ANYWAY, RIGHT? SO AND THERE IS A LITTER CLEANUP JOB FOR THE CITY, BUT IT'S IT'S SORT OF PART OF WHAT THE PARADE IS ABOUT.

SO I'M FOR EVERYTHING EXCEPT JUST LETTING THE CANDY GO AS IT HAS HISTORICALLY.

WELL, I DON'T THINK I NEED ANOTHER PERSON TO WEIGH IN.

I WAS GOING TO AGREE WITH HIM. OKAY, SO WE CAN.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO. I HAD NO IDEA LIEUTENANT O'REILLY WAS GOING DRESSED AS THE ELF, LIKE, SIX ROWS BACK.

THAT THE PARENTS CAN'T GET TO THE FRONT. COME ON.

IT IS DEEP, BUT I WILL JUST SAY THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS SLIDE UP.

THE BARRICADES WILL HELP WITH THAT, SIR. BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THEM SHORT, BECAUSE THOSE KIDS AREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE WITH A BARRICADE.

YEAH. MY. MIKE, CAN YOU GO TO THE PICTURE RIGHT BEFORE THIS WITH THE HAD YOU COULD SEE IT.

YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE A BARRICADE. OH YEAH. OR THAT ONE AGAIN.

GO BACK TO THE COMPUTER, SHOW ME A COUPLE OF THOSE BARRICADES I JUST SAW.

LET'S SEE THE SCARY PICTURES. YEAH. RIGHT THERE. YEAH.

SO THIS WORKS BECAUSE NOT ONLY CAN THE KIDS SEE THROUGH IT, BUT THEY CAN ALSO REACH THROUGH IT TO GRAB A PIECE OF CANDY THAT'S JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE WITHOUT ACTUALLY GOING INTO THE STREET. SO IF WE CAN MAKE THE BARRICADES, THIS TYPE OF BARRICADE IS NOT LIKE THE BIG UGLY ORANGE ONES. THEN I THINK THAT WE'VE GOT A SOLUTION THAT MIGHT WORK. YEAH, AND I THINK THAT WAS KIND OF WHAT WE WANTED TO PRESENT WAS THE OPTIONS.

THERE'S SEVERAL DIFFERENT PATHS THAT WE CAN GO DOWN HERE.

AND I DO THINK THAT IF WE WANT TO KEEP THE CANDY, THE BARRICADES COULD BE A SOLUTION.

BUT UNDERSTAND THE BARRICADES, THEY DON'T COME FREE.

THEY COME WITH THE COST. AND THERE'S TWO. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT WE DO HAVE AN ENTRY FEE.

WE DO NOT HAVE AN ENTRY FEE FOR THIS PARADE. OKAY, SO IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO CONSIDER, WE CAN. I DON'T WANT TO START A HORNET'S NEST.

I. I WILL OPINE ON THAT. JUST NOBODY'S ASKED ME, BUT I'LL SAY THAT I THINK IT'S A IT'S A COMMUNITY EVENT THAT I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD, AT LEAST AT THIS LATE STAGE IN THE GAME, ENTERTAIN ANYTHING TO DO WITH OFFSETTING THOSE COSTS THAT SHOULD JUST BE COVERED.

SO THANK YOU. I RESPECT YOUR INTENT, CHAD. I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE INTRODUCING. I JUST ASSUMED.

THANK YOU. SO THE OTHER PART IS THAT YOU WANT TO LIMIT IT FROM 80 PARTICIPANTS.

I MEAN, 100 TO 80. YEAH. SO WE'RE KIND OF GETTING AT A POINT WHERE IT JUST KEEPS GOING HIGHER AND HIGHER AND HIGHER.

AND I'VE BEEN HERE THREE YEARS, AND EVERY ALL THREE YEARS IT'S BEEN THE MOST EVER, THE MOST EVER, THE MOST EVER. WE HAD IT AT IT WAS ALMOST APPROACHING THREE HOURS LONG LAST YEAR.

SO WHAT WE WANT TO TRY TO DO IS, IS HAVE AN ACTUAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS THAT WE SAY THIS IS OUR NUMBER FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE AND THAT'S IT. BUT WE WANTED TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE THAT COME IN AND SAY, OH, I FORGOT. AND I WAS GOING TO I MEANT TO DO IT, AND I FORGOT TO SUBMIT IT.

AND YOU KNOW, WE CAN DO A WHERE WE, WE PICK THEM OUT.

I DON'T CALL IT A DRAFT, BUT TO YOU, YOU CAN KIND OF RANDOMLY PICK THEM.

I IT DOESN'T MATTER TO US, BUT WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING TO TRY TO LIMIT THE NUMBER.

WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH A FOUR HOUR, FIVE HOUR LONG PARADE.

BEFORE LONG. AND WE DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO STAGE IT BECAUSE WE'RE STAGING IT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD.

I DON'T MEAN TO RUSH THIS, BUT WE HAVEN'T TAKEN A BREAK.

NO DISRESPECT TO YOU, LIEUTENANT O'REILLY. WE HAVE A 505 BUDGET HEARING, AND WE STILL HAVE HERE.

WE HAVE TO GET THROUGH THESE HEARINGS. MR. YOUNG.

YEAH, I GUESS THE ONE QUESTION IS, DO YOU BELIEVE IN ANY CAPACITY OF LIMITING IT, OR IS IT A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE UP TO THE OTHER? BECAUSE I THINK THAT HOW WE DO IT AND HOW WE ADMINISTER IS NOT REALLY I DON'T NEED TO YOU THAT TO BE YOUR CHARGE.

I JUST REALLY WANT TO KNOW IF YOU HAVE A MAGIC NUMBER THAT YOU'D LIKE US TO LIMIT TO.

[06:15:02]

AND I KNOW, CHAD, YOU HAD SAID 80. I GUESS I JUST WOULD ASK THAT ONE ITEM SO WE CAN DISPOSE OF THIS, AND THEN ADMINISTRATIVELY, WE'LL TAKE CARE OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

THEN I'LL JUST GIVE YOU MY OPINION. YOU HAVE A.

HAVING A CAP IS A VERY RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO.

THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO HAVE A CAP. WE HAD 100 LAST YEAR.

I MEAN 120, 120. I THINK IT WAS A LITTLE MORE THAN THAT 124 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO IF YOU ASSUME EVERYBODY WHO WAS THERE LAST YEAR IS GOING TO WANT TO COME BACK, POSSIBLY, OR 80 OR 90% OF THEM, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF YOU HAVE A CAP, YOU MIGHT PICK A NUMBER THAT'S, YOU KNOW, NOT 80 WHICH, WHICH, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY, BUT, YOU KNOW, 100 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT JUST A MORE, A MORE REALISTIC NUMBER LIKE THAT.

OKAY. THAT'S MY VICE MAYOR. AND THEN I'M GOING TO YEAH.

THE I APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION ON THE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS, BUT THIS IS WHERE I DRAW A LINE IN THE SAND.

I WON'T BE A PART OF A VOTE WHICH PROHIBITS SANTA FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE CHRISTMAS PARADE.

AND SO IF SANTA IS IN THE FLOAT, I'M VOTING FOR HAVING SANTA BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE.

AND THE GRINCH FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? YES, A BUNCH OF GRINCHES UP HERE.

THANK YOU. OKAY. COUNCIL MR. YOUNG HAS GRACIOUSLY TAKEN UP THE HEAVY LIFT ON HOW WE WILL LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THIS PARADE.

I WE HAVE CLEAR CONSENSUS THAT WE NEED SAFETY.

MR.. LIEUTENANT O'REILLY. SO, BARRICADES. UNLESS I'M WRONG, PLEASE SPEAK UP.

WE ARE GOING TO THROW CANDY. AND WHAT'S THE OTHER THING? OH, I THINK THE SWEEPER SHOULD BE AT NIGHT. I'VE WATCHED IT.

PEOPLE CLEAR OUT LIKE NOBODY'S BUSINESS. THEY'RE GONE.

SO I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT BECAUSE I WANTED ON BEHALF OF THE STREET DEPARTMENT, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THEIR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO TO WAIT FOR THE CROWD TO KIND OF CLEAR OUT. I THINK THEY WANT. AND THIS GOES FOR ALL OF THE PARADES MOVING FORWARD.

THEY DON'T WANT TO ENTER IN RIGHT BEHIND THE CROWD, PUSHING THE CROWD OUT.

THEY WOULD PREFER TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER MIDNIGHT TO COME IN AND DO THE SWEEP, AND WANTED TO SEE IF THERE WAS EVERYBODY.

AGREE. PERSONALLY, I WATCHED IT BECAUSE I WALKED BACK FROM CITY HALL ALL THE WAY DOWN FIFTH AND PEOPLE ARE LEAVING.

THEY DON'T WANT TO BE NEAR THE THE SWEEPER OR THE BLOWERS, AND THEY'RE CLEANING UP RIGHT AWAY.

I'M FOR CLEANING UP RIGHT AWAY, SO. BUT I'M SORRY, STORMWATER DEPARTMENT.

ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? THE ONLY THING THAT I'M GOING TO I'LL JUST ECHO WHAT STAFF AND SPECIFICALLY WAS IT'S JUST THE SPEED AND VELOCITY OF THOSE MACHINES.

AND IF IT SPITS SOMETHING OUT AND THE THE PROXIMITY OF OUR PARADE GOERS AND PEOPLE STILL ON THE SIDEWALK AREA JUST CAUSED CONCERN. AND IT WAS JUST A MATTER OF FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE, IS IT BETTER TO LET IT CLEAR OUT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME? GO ONCE WE KNOW IT'S VACANT, INSTEAD OF HAVING THOSE SWEEPERS THAT CAN CATAPULT ANYTHING OUT FROM UNDERNEATH IT? AGAIN, SOMEBODY WE'VE BEEN BLESSED, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO COUNTERARGUMENT THAT THAT'S THE RATIONALE.

IT WASN'T BECAUSE THEY CARED ABOUT WORKING AT NIGHT, IT WAS ABOUT THE SAFETY ASPECT.

I'M NOT GOING TO STAND ON THAT ONE. COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF.

YES, I WOULD BE FOR HAVING THE SWEEPERS LATER.

IT'S KIND OF LIKE THROWING THE LIGHT SWITCH IN A BAR.

YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE THOSE PEOPLE THEN MOVE INTO, YOU KNOW, THE BARS AND RESTAURANTS AND SORT OF GET SOME BUSINESS OUT OF IT AS WELL AFTER THE, AFTER THE PARADE.

SO I'D LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE IT HAVE IT LATER.

OKAY. SO I HAVE A MOTION. WE DO. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO THAT WE APPROVE THE REPEAT SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE CHRISTMAS PARADE IN DOWNTOWN NAPLES.

WITH THE IMPLEMENTING THE SUGGESTIONS PROPOSED BY STAFF, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE TO HAVE CANDY THROWN AT THE EVENT. IS THAT SPECIFIC ENOUGH? THAT IS ONE OF THE BEST MOTIONS TODAY. SO THANK YOU.

I'LL SECOND THAT. THE ONLY OTHER THING, AND THAT ALLOWS STAFF TO HAVE A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION TO ACCOMMODATE THE NUMBER OF PATRONS.

YES. WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACTING THE PARADE.

[06:20:03]

I WOULD ADD THAT TO MY MOTION IN THE SECOND REMAINS.

BUT PLEASE GIVE DEFERENCE TO SANTA CLAUS. YES, SIR.

I HAVE I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISMAN, A SECOND BY VICE MAYOR.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PENNIMAN. YES. VICE MAYOR. HUTCHINSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PETRANOFF. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. MARTIN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

CHRISMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. MAYOR.

HEITMAN. YES. LIEUTENANT O'REILLY I'M SORRY, BUT THANK YOU.

I'M SORRY I CUT YOU SHORT. THAT WAS OKAY WITH THAT COUNCIL.

THAT CONCLUDES YEAH. NO, THAT'S WE'RE ON 13 B. NO. 13. THAT WAS 13. THAT WAS 13. A. NOW WE ARE GOING TO 13 B.

[13.B. A Resolution Determining Petition PRMR2400887 to Approve Filling of a Lake on Private Property Located at 655 3rd Street North Owned by Donald & Phillis Campbell; and Providing an Effective Date. (Bob Middleton, Director of Public Works)]

CAN THE CLERK. CAN WE GO TO 13 B. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

SO I'M GOING TO READ THE TITLE, BUT THIS IS THIS IS QUASI JUDICIAL.

MAYOR. SO WE'RE GOING TO SWEAR IN WITNESSES. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION PRMR2400887.

TO APPROVE FILLING OF A LAKE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 655 THIRD STREET NORTH, OWNED BY DONALD AND PHYLLIS CAMPBELL, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK, INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY.

PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE DISCLOSURES, I'VE HAD NO CONTACT.

MARTIN VISITED THE SITE, HAD COMMUNICATION WITH PETITIONER.

AND THAT'S IT. WALKED BY THE SITE. NO CONTACT.

KRAMER, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, TALKED WITH STAFF AT THE SITE.

NO CONTACT. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. NO CONTACT FROM FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

VISITED THE SITE AND SPOKE WITH STAFF. ABOUT THE PETITION.

WITH THAT. GOOD AFTERNOON. IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM MAYOR. VICE MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS KEVIN DOWDY, PROJECT MANAGER ENGINEER WITH BOWMAN CONSULTING GROUP.

I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT THE LAKE BANK RESTORATION PETITION FOR 655 THIRD STREET NORTH.

I AM JOINED BY MR. CAMPBELL, THE PROPERTY OWNER, NICOLE BAKER, THE CONTRACTOR WITH SEABREEZE EROSION SOLUTIONS.

AS I MENTIONED, THE PROJECT IS 605 THIRD STREET NORTH.

IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME ALONG ALLIGATOR LAKE.

PERFECT ALONG ALLIGATOR LAKE SHOWN HERE. GULF OF MEXICO IS OVER HERE.

WE ARE HERE TODAY TO. THE GOAL OF TODAY'S POSITION IS FOR STABILIZATION OF THE REAR YARD ALONG THE PROPERTY AND TO PREVENT FURTHER EROSION WITH RIPRAP AND SECURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE POOL DECK AND THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

THIS SHOWS A CLOSE UP OF ALLIGATOR LAKE. THE RESIDENCE IS OVER HERE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, BASED ON THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS WHEN WE HAVE REPEATED HURRICANES, OR THE WINTER WHEN WE GET THE HEAVY WIND EVENTS, LARGE WAVE ACTION TRAVELS ACROSS THE LAKE AND CRASHES INTO THE INTO THIS EDGE.

AND THIS PICTURE IS HARD TO GET A GOOD PICTURE TO SHOW TO JUSTIFY THE LEVEL OF ESCARPMENT THAT THE PROPERTY HAS RECEIVED, BUT THIS PICTURE IS SHOWING ROUGHLY ABOUT A 1 TO 1 SLOPE ON A 45 DEGREE ANGLE.

WELL PAST THE 4 TO 1 THAT IS ALLOWED BY WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS AND CONSIDERED MINIMUM FOR SAFETY.

CAN I ZOOM IN? PERFECT. WE'VE ALSO GOT. YOU CAN SEE AN EXISTING FENCE THAT HAS SUNK INTO THE WATER.

AGAIN, FURTHER ESCARPMENT. WE'VE GOT THIS POOL DECK OVER HERE AND THE RESIDENTS CLOSE BY FOR THE FOR THE HOUSE.

OUR GOAL. LET ME GO BACK TO THIS, I APOLOGIZE.

OUR GOAL IS TO AGAIN SECURE THE LAKE BANK WITH RIPRAP.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT INSTALLING RIPRAP ALONG THE LAKE BANK EDGE. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO GO INTO THE LAKE AND REALLY EAT UP SOME OF THE VOLUME INTO THAT LAKE.

THAT'S VITAL FOR STORMWATER TREATMENT, BUT WE REALLY JUST WANT TO TAKE THE SLOPE THAT'S THERE AND FORTIFY IT AS, AS CLOSELY AS WE CAN TO THE EXISTING SLOPE. SO OUR GOAL IS TO PUT RIPRAP ALONG THE EDGE AT A 4 TO 1 SLOPE PER THIS CROSS SECTION.

AND WE'RE GOING TO GO ALONG THE ENTIRE REAR YARD PROPERTY.

[06:25:01]

WE'LL HAVE TURBIDITY BARRIERS INSTALLED TO PREVENT MITIGATION OF SOIL AND EROSION INTO THE LAKE DURING CONSTRUCTION.

A COUPLE OF OTHER RESIDENTS IN THE SAME AREA HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS SOLUTION THAT WE ARE ASKING TODAY, SHOWN HERE. THEY'VE GOT RIPRAP ALONG THEIR ENTIRE PROPERTY LINE, AND WE'RE REALLY JUST ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO DO THE SAME, JUST TO FORTIFY MR. CAMPBELL'S LAKE AT BANK EDGE.

I'LL KEEP THIS SHORT. I KNOW WE'RE WE'RE SHORT ON TIME.

BUT AGAIN, IN SUMMARY, WE'RE WE'RE ASKING FOR RIPRAP TO GO ALONG THE LAKE BANK EDGE TO PREVENT FURTHER EROSION AND REALLY SECURE HIS POOL DECK AND PREVENT ANY STRUCTURAL FAILURES TO HIS HOUSE IN THE LONG TERM SOLUTIONS.

THESE REPEATED HURRICANES THAT WE'VE HAD, THEY'VE REALLY CAUSED SIGNIFICANT EROSION.

HE'S LOST ABOUT TWO FEET OF HIS PROPERTY OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS.

AND SO WE'RE REALLY JUST LOOKING TO STOP THAT IN ITS TRACKS AND PREVENT THAT FROM CONTINUING FURTHER.

SO WITH THAT THANK YOU. COUNCIL QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONERS AGENT.

YES. COUNCILMAN KRAMER, HAVE YOU BEEN IN THIS PROCESS? WHICH PROCESS EXACTLY GETTING THIS DONE? I STARTED ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF.

OH, I'M SORRY, SIR. YOU'D HAVE TO COME TO THE PODIUM.

OUR ORIGINAL CONTRACT WITH HIM WAS FEBRUARY 14TH, 2024.

THAT WAS THE VERY START OF WHEN WE WENT OUT THERE, GAVE HIM A PROPOSAL AND GOT IT SIGNED AND BEGAN THE PROCESS. SO A YEAR AND A HALF, FOR THE RECORD, CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? SORRY. NICOLE BAKER WITH SEABREEZE EROSION. THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. THANKS. OKAY. THANK YOU. STAFF REPORT.

OKAY. THE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE CITY AND A SITE VISIT WAS CONDUCTED.

DURING THAT PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS.

AND I'M NATALIE HARTMAN, A NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGER.

SORRY. THE SITE VISIT SHOWED A STEEP DROP OFF SHORTLY BEYOND THE POOL DECK AREA, WHICH CAN BE SEEN IN THE PICTURES.

AND IT IS KIND OF HARD TO SEE THAT, BUT IT IS FAIRLY STEEP.

PAST THE POOL DECK AND AREA. THE PROJECT PROPOSES A SMALL AMOUNT OF FILL TO STABILIZE THE BANK TOWARDS THE WATER'S EDGE AND COVER WITH RIPRAP FOR STABILIZATION PURPOSES. THE PROJECT MEETS CODE REQUIREMENTS, AND STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE PROJECT.

AND IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. AND PROJECT.

SO DO YOU. DO YOU KNOW THE HISTORY OF THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY OR THE LAKE AND THE FILL IN THE AMOUNT OF FILL INS THAT WE'VE HAD AND THE STRUCTURES PUT ON THIS LAKE. NOT PRIOR TO ME STARTING WITH THE CITY THREE YEARS AGO.

OKAY. BUT JUST I MEAN, THE HISTORY WE DON'T HAVE THE HISTORY ON, ON THIS LAKE AND THE PROPERTIES AND AND THIS ISSUE WITH THE EROSION NOT I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL.

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. WELL, YES. KRAMER. JUST FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

SO I'M JUST WONDERING, WHAT WERE WE WAITING ON, ARMY CORPS OR WHOEVER? FISH AND WILDLIFE, I DON'T KNOW WHO. LIKE, WHY WOULD IT TAKE A YEAR AND A HALF FOR THIS THING TO GET THIS FAR DOWN THE ROAD OR THEIR CONTRACTOR, I DON'T KNOW. JUST WONDERING.

I THINK THERE ARE SOME ISSUES WITH SOME OF THE SUBMITTALS FOR THE REVIEW PROCESS.

AND THERE WAS I'M NOT SURE IT WAS ON THEIR END, SO I WASN'T GETTING THE INFORMATION THAT I NEEDED IN ORDER TO CONFIRM THAT CODE CRITERIA.

ONCE KEVIN DOWDY AND I STARTED CONFERRING DIRECTLY, WE IRONED OUT THE ISSUES.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE PROCESS WENT MUCH SMOOTHER AFTER THAT.

PERFECT. THANKS. SO COULD YOU JUST TELL US THE DETAILS OF HOW MUCH HOW FAR YOU'LL BE ENCROACHING OR INTO TO PUT THE BARRIER? HOW HIGH WILL THE WILL IT BE ROCK? IT WILL BE ROCK, APPROXIMATELY. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PICTURE WHICH IS ON THERE RIGHT NOW IT'LL COME UP ABOUT A THIRD OF THAT SLOPE.

SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK ACROSS OH I HAVEN'T, I HAVE A, I HAVE A MOUSE.

YEAH. IF YOU GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS I DON'T KNOW.

YEAH. SO IT'LL COME UP TO APPROXIMATELY HERE.

KEVIN. CAN TO REPRAP. YEAH. SO WE'RE LOOKING TO FILL ABOUT FIVE FEET OF DEPTH ABOUT TWO FEET BELOW THREE FEET ABOVE THE SHORE AT A 4 TO 1 SLOPE.

THAT'S ABOUT 20FT OF RIPRAP WIDTH WISE, ALONG ABOUT A 65 TO 70 FOOT PROPERTY LINE EDGE.

MAYOR. SO QUESTION FOR STAFF. MY CONCLUSION FROM THE MATERIAL WE

[06:30:10]

WERE GIVEN AND THE PRESENTATION IS THAT IF THIS IS APPROVED, IT WILL BENEFIT THE PROPERTY OWNER.

YES, IT WILL BENEFIT THE LAKE AND IT WILL HAVE NO IMPACT ON ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ANY NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? YES. THANK YOU.

OKAY. PUBLIC COMMENT. THANK YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. COULD YOU JUST MAKE YOUR CLOSING REMARKS? OH, THAT WAS IT. I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE FILLING OF A LAKE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 655 THIRD STREET NORTH. SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CRISMON AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. PAUL. COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF. YES. VICE MAYOR. HUTCHINSON.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRISEMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MARTIN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PENNIMAN. YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU.

GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT TAKES US TO ITEM 12.

13 C OH, SORRY. 13 C I'M GOING BACKWARDS, AREN'T I?

[13.C. A Resolution Determining Petition PRMR2407155 to Approve Filling of a Lake on Private Property Located at 809 Wedge Drive, Owned by LT Project Management Inc; and Providing Effective Date. (Bob Middleton, Director of Public Works)]

THANK YOU SIR. NO WORRIES. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION PRMR2407155 TO APPROVE FILLING OF A LAKE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 809 WEDGE DRIVE, OWNED BY LIGHT PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC.

AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. AND AGAIN, THIS IS QUASI JUDICIAL.

SO THE CLERK, MADAM CLERK, ALL THOSE INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY WHO WERE NOT SWORN IN.

PLEASE RISE, PLEASE. RIGHT HERE. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. DISCLOSURES. COUNSEL FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

HAVE SPOKEN WITH NO ONE. TRIED. TRIED TO MEET WITH MR. LOVATO. THAT DIDN'T WORK OUT. PARDON? VISITED THE SITE AND SPOKE WITH PETITIONER.

NO CONTACT. MR. LOMBARDO REACHED OUT TO ME, BUT I WAS UNABLE TO TO MEET WITH HIM.

THANK YOU. KRAMER MET WITH THE PETITIONER AND THEIR AGENT.

AND I DON'T THINK I TALKED WITH STAFF ABOUT IT.

THAT'S ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. NO CONTACT.

FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE? NO CONTACT. FAMILIAR? I VISITED THE SITE. AND NO FURTHER CONTACT WITH THAT.

GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. MAYOR COUNCIL ZACH LOMBARDO.

FOR THE RECORD, AN ATTORNEY AT WOODWARD. PIERCE LOMBARDO, 3200 TAMIAMI TRAIL, NORTH CITY OF NAPLES.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT. AND THE OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF CITY OF NAPLES ARE RIGHT HERE IF YOU WANT TO WAVE.

I'M ALSO JOINED BY NICK WILDER, THE BUILDER ON THE PROJECT.

AND TODAY I PRESENT TO YOU A SECOND AND A LIMITED SERIES ON LAKE STABILIZATION.

THIS IS A VERY SIMILAR APPLICATION TO THE ONE YOU JUST CONSIDERED, BUT A DIFFERENT LAKE ON THE SCREEN HERE IS THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S AERIAL.

AND WHAT WE'RE HAVE HIGHLIGHTED IS THE PROPERTY AND THE LAKE IS BEHIND IT.

THIS IS A LAKE ON THE MOORINGS GOLF COURSE. AND WHAT IS INTERESTING ABOUT THIS LAKE WHEN IT COMES TO GOLF COURSE LAKES, IS MOST GOLF COURSE LAKES ARE PART OF SOME SORT OF STORMWATER PERMITTING SYSTEM, USUALLY A SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT.

WE DID A LOT OF DIGGING HERE, AND THERE IS NO PERMIT HERE FOR THESE LAKES IN THIS LAKE SYSTEM, PROBABLY DUE TO THE AGE OF THE GOLF COURSE. AND WE HAD A REALLY WONDERFUL AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION WITH MOORINGS ABOUT THIS WHOLE PROCESS.

AS YOU'LL SEE IN THE PACKET, THEY WROTE A LETTER OF NO OBJECTION.

BUT ON THIS AERIAL I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT ONE ONE THING BECAUSE IT WILL HELP WITH THE WHOLE ANALYSIS.

AS YOU SEE, THE PROPERTY OWNERS AROUND THIS PROPERTY AREN'T ACTUALLY ON THIS LAKE.

THEIR PROPERTY LINE STOPS BEFORE THE LAKE. AND HISTORICALLY, FROM OUR UNDERSTANDING, THAT WAS THE CASE WITH THIS PROPERTY.

BUT THE LAKE IS ERODING IN SIMILAR TO THE ONE YOU JUST SAW.

AND HERE IS OUR PICTURE OF THE LAKE BANK. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S A I'M NOT AN ENGINEER.

I WOULD CALL IT A 0 TO 1 SLOPE. THERE IS A REALLY THE AGGRESSIVE EROSION HAPPENING HERE AND COMING UP ONTO THE PROPERTY HERE.

AND SO WE'VE APPLIED FOR LAKE BANK MODIFICATION HERE THROUGH THE LAKE PHIL PROCESS.

THIS IS THE ENGINEERED DRAWING SLB. SANDY BOETTCHER P IS THE ENGINEER ON THIS PROJECT.

AND WHAT I WANT TO NOTE HERE, AND IT'S EASIEST TO LOOK AT THIS BACK ON THE AERIAL IS AND I'VE GOT THE POINTER HERE.

WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE COMING OFF THE EXISTING GOLF COURSE SLOPE AND THEN TYING BACK IN BEFORE THE PROPERTY LINE.

SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH MOORINGS, AS YOU SEE IN THE LETTER OF NO OBJECTION.

[06:35:05]

THEY'VE REVIEWED THIS. FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, THEY ACTUALLY ASKED US TO GO FURTHER OUT BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE ON THAT SIDE OF THE LAKE TO, TO WORK ON THE LAKE. BUT WE COULDN'T COME TO TERMS AS TO WHO WAS GOING TO PAY FOR ALL THAT EXTRA FILL.

SO WE KEPT IT AT WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO RESTORE THE PROPERTY HERE, WHICH IS THE SAME GOAL AS THE PRIOR APPLICANT.

THESE ARE SOME OF THE DETAILS THAT SHOW HOW WE'RE ACHIEVING THE GOAL, WHICH IS THE ENGINEERING ON THIS PROJECT.

YOUR APPLICATION CRITERIA FIRST ASKS ABOUT VIOLATIONS OF LAWS, AND I THINK WHAT THIS IS TRYING TO CAPTURE USUALLY IS MOST LAKES THAT I WOULD ASSUME COME BEFORE YOU WOULD HAVE A SOUTH FLORIDA PERMIT AND WE WOULD NEED TO SHOW UP WITH A PERMIT MOD, BUT THAT'S NOT APPLICABLE HERE. THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. IT'S IT'S A LAKE. IT DOES HOLD STORMWATER. AND BUT WE DON'T KNOW VOLUMETRICALLY WHAT IT'S DOING FOR WHAT SYSTEM BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PART OF ANY PERMIT CLASSIFICATION.

WE DID TRY TO LOOK INTO THIS AND WEREN'T ABLE TO COME UP WITH ANYTHING. SO OUR ASSERTION WITHOUT THE PERMIT IS THAT THERE'S NO OBSTRUCTION HERE.

AND I THINK, AS NOTED, WHEN I WAS REFLECTING ON SOME OF THE EMAILS, I WAS GOING OVER HERE, THERE MAY BE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF GOLF BALLS IN THE LAKE THAT ARE IMPACTING THE VOLUME OF THIS, THIS LAKE. ANYWAY THE WE WE HAD ATWELL, YOUR YOUR YOUR RULES REQUIRE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.

SO WE HAD ATWELL GO AHEAD AND PERFORM THAT. AND THEIR CONCLUSION WAS THAT THE LAKE OFFERS MINIMAL, IF ANY, BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL VALUE AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS, IT EFFECTIVELY HAS NO LITERAL PLANTINGS.

AND SO WE WERE ASKED BY STAFF TO PUT IN PLANTINGS WHICH WE WE WILL BE DOING.

THE THIS WAS THESE WERE THE PICTURES AGAIN FROM THE ATWELL MEMORANDUM.

ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IS WHETHER IT INCREASES EROSION AND SHOALING.

WE'RE TRYING TO COMBAT EROSION AND SHOALING. SO WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT DOESN'T. AND THAT'S CERTAINLY OUR ENGINEER'S OPINION AS YOU SEE IN THE MATERIALS. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, THE THE PRIMARY PROPERTY OWNER HERE, THAT SHOULD HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THIS IS THE GOLF COURSE. AND WE HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS AND WENT TO THEIR BOARD MEETING, AND WE ACTUALLY MODIFIED ALL OF OUR DRAWINGS BASED ON OUR MEETINGS WITH THE GOLF COURSE.

SO WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S ANY MATERIAL INJURY. AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS DON'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM BECAUSE THERE'S A SMALL PIECE OF ACTUAL GOLF COURSE BETWEEN THEM AND THE LAKE, WHEREAS WE, FOR WHATEVER REASON, OVER TIME, DON'T HAVE THAT.

SO WE WOULD REQUEST RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL OR AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

AND IN MANY WAYS, I THINK THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE PRIOR APPLICATION.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL VICE MAYOR. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.

JUST LOOKING AT THE PICTURES AND REVIEWING THIS PETITION, I WOULD TELL YOU THAT ACTION NEEDS TO BE TAKEN.

AND IF NOT TAKEN, WHATEVER THE ROOT CAUSE IS OF THIS EROSION IS JUST GOING TO CONTINUE TO TAKE PLACE.

SO I COMMEND THE THE PETITIONERS FOR COMING FORWARD.

AND I HOPE WHATEVER ACTION THIS THIS FILL PROCESS WILL INFLUENCE THE OTHER HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE EXPERIENCING THE SAME, TO TAKE SIMILAR ACTION AND, AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY GOOD FOR THE PROPERTY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. FOR YOUR SERVICE. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. STAFF. SORRY.

LET'S GO TO STAFF REPORT. OKAY. THIS ONE'S JUST A LITTLE BIT LONGER BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF POINT OUT WE WENT THROUGH A LOT OF WORK TO GET TO THIS POINT.

IT WAS A VERY LONG PROCESS. SO I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF RECAP THAT.

AND I'LL PREFACE THIS BY SAYING THAT IF WE DIDN'T MEET CODE, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY.

SO, YOU KNOW, AT THE END RESULT IS THAT WE MET CODE AND, YOU KNOW, RECOMMEND.

WELL, I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO IT, BUT SO A SITE VISIT WAS CONDUCTED PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION RECEIPT.

THE PROPERTY DID HAVE AN ESCARPMENT AREA. THAT'S THAT STRAIGHT UP AND DOWN AREA THAT WAS IN THE PICTURES AT THE EDGE OF THE MOORINGS GOLF COURSE.

AND THIS PROPERTY, THE PORTION OF THE GOLF COURSE.

LAKE DOES TAKE STORMWATER FROM THE SURROUNDING AREA, WHICH PASSES THROUGH A SERIES OF THREE LAKES BEFORE DISCHARGING OFF OF THE GOLF COURSE PROPERTY. THE PROJECT PROPOSES PLACING FILL TO STABILIZE THE BANK.

EXTENDING THE TOP OF BANK WATER WORD INTO THE ADJACENT GOLF COURSE PROPERTY BEFORE THE START OF THE SLOPE, WHICH MEANS RIPRAP AND THE LITTORAL PLANTINGS.

SO FROM THE START OF THE PROJECT, STAFF WAS CONCERNED.

YOU KNOW, WE HAD SEVERAL CONCERNS. A GREATER PORTION OF THE AREA WAS LOCATED IN THE MOORINGS COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY AND INITIAL STAFF CONCERNS RELATED TO THIS PROPERTY OWNERSHIP. THESE CONCERNS WERE RESOLVED WHEN THE CITY'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT BECAME INVOLVED IN A PATHWAY FORWARD WAS DEVELOPED WITH A LETTER OF NO OBJECTION, A LOW NO AND A CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE MOORINGS COUNTRY CLUB TO THE SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY OWNER.

FOR THIS APPLICATION PROCESS. THE MOORINGS COUNTRY CLUB GOLF COURSE DOES NOT HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PERMIT THROUGH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.

[06:40:07]

THERE ARE SEVERAL LAKES IN THE GOLF COURSE THAT RECEIVE STORMWATER FROM THE CITY STORMWATER SYSTEM FOR STORAGE AND WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS.

IT IS UNCLEAR HOW THE CAPACITY OF STORMWATER SYSTEM WOULD BE AFFECTED BY FILLING OF A PORTION OF THE LAKE.

THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL A LITERAL SHELF PLANTING THAT MAY IMPROVE WATER QUALITY AND OFFSET SOME OF THOSE CAPACITY ISSUES.

IMPACTS. HOWEVER, THE CAPACITY LAKE WILL BE REDUCED BY A SMALL AMOUNT IF THIS PROJECT WERE TO GO FORWARD.

THE PLANS DO SHOW SOME DISCREPANCY WITH THE TIE IN, AND THERE WAS A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL BY THE STORMWATER SECTION TO PROVIDE AN AS BUILT SURVEY AND ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION AND CONFIRMATION THAT THE TOP OF BANK ALONG THAT NORTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY TIED IN TO THE NEIGHBORS.

AND WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT. YEAH. YEAH.

AND HE TALKED ABOUT ALL THOSE ITEMS IN HIS PRESENTATION.

SO THOSE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO IN A SENSE IF IT DOES MEET CODE.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO JUST THIS WAS AN INVOLVED PROCESS AND IT TOOK A WHILE, SO.

YEAH, THAT WOULD BE THE QUESTION WHY IT TOOK SO LONG SO WE CAN MAKE THIS PROCESS EASIER.

BUT LET ME AND IT'S PARTIALLY BECAUSE IT STARTED BEFORE THE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED.

YOU KNOW, WE STARTED WORKING ON SOLUTIONS TO THIS PROJECT PRIOR TO AN APPLICATION BEING RECEIVED.

SO AND THEN THE QUESTIONS REGARDING PROPERTY OWNERSHIP HAD TO BE RESOLVED REGARDING THE STORMWATER SYSTEM HAD TO BE RESOLVED.

AND IT'S IT'S IT WORKED OUT REALLY WELL. I MEAN, IN THE END WE WORKED TOGETHER AND GOT AN APPROVABLE PROJECT. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. YEAH.

NATALIE. THANK YOU. NATALIE. WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE PICTURES ON THIS, WE CAN CLEARLY SEE A FAILURE, A COLLAPSING OF THE SHORELINE AROUND THERE. IS THIS DUE TO POOR DESIGN OF THE LAKE ITSELF? DID IT GET TOO DEEP RIGHT AWAY. WHAT CAUSES THIS TO HAVE THIS KIND OF FAILURE? IT COULD BE ANY OF THE ABOVE THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED, OR IT COULD EVEN BE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATED OVER THE YEARS.

IT HASN'T BEEN MAINTAINED PROPERLY. YEAH. OKAY.

WELL, I THINK IT'S ABOUT TO GET BETTER. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. AND THIS QUESTION FOR EITHER FOR STAFF OR MR. LOMBARDO. SO THE OTHER TWO HOUSES ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY THAT ARE ALSO ON THE LAKE, ON ON THE FRONT, THE LAKE, THE ONE SIGNIFICANTLY SO, ONE LESS SO ARE THOSE YOU MENTIONED SOME INTERRELATIONSHIPS WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, BUT I'M NOT SURE I REALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT. BUT ARE THOSE TWO ARE THOSE TWO HOMES? IN A IN A POSITIVE POSITION IN TERMS OF THE SHORELINE BEING STABILIZED.

THERE ARE NO THEY HAVE NO ISSUES. IS THAT THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, THIS HOUSE HERE WITH THE WHITE ROOF AND THEN THE ONE AND THEN THIS ONE.

YES. THIS ONE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE'S NO ISSUES.

AND IF WE LOOKED AT THE SURVEY, WHICH I BELIEVE IS IN YOUR PACKET AND PERHAPS HERE THE IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE WHAT THE, WHAT THE CLUTTER HERE, BUT BASICALLY ESSENTIALLY RECONNECTS BY THE TIME IT GETS TO THIS PROPERTY OWNER'S HOUSE.

AND SO WE AND EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING HERE WILL BE SOLELY BEHIND THIS PROPERTY OWNER'S HOUSE.

SO AND MY UNDERSTANDING AND NOT THAT THIS COULD BE A BASIS FOR MAKING A DECISION, BUT IS THAT THE GOLF COURSE WILL BE REDOING THIS ENTIRE COURSE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

AND TO KIND OF GET TO THIS QUESTION OF HOW DO WE NOT HAVE THIS HAPPEN AGAIN? A THE SOUTH FLORIDA PERMITTING STANDARDS ON THESE LAKES WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A MAINTENANCE EASEMENT FOR THEM TO TRAVEL ALONG SO THAT THEY COULD GET ON THIS SIDE OF IT.

AND HAD THAT BEEN DONE HERE, THERE WOULD ACTUALLY BE A TEN FOOT BUFFER RIGHT ABOUT HERE.

AND THEN SO THAT IT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE TEN FOOT BUFFER AND THEN A 4 TO 1 SLOPE.

SO THERE WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF SPACE BETWEEN THE LAKE AND THE AND THE PRIVATE PROPERTY.

AND SO THE CHANCES OF THIS HAPPENING IN THAT SCENARIO WOULD BE NEXT TO NONE.

BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION SPECIFICALLY, WE'RE NOT AWARE OF THEM HAVING SIMILAR CONCERNS JUST FROM VISUALLY LOOKING AT IT THAT DO THEY HAVE RIPRAP? THIS PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT. THIS PROPERTY OWNER APPEARS TO HAVE SOME SORT OF STABILIZATION OF SORTS, BUT I'M UNCLEAR. WE WE TALKED WITH STAFF ABOUT POTENTIALLY DOING SOMETHING MORE LIKE A SEAWALL STYLE APPROACH BECAUSE THERE ARE THERE'S ONE BASICALLY HERE AND THERE'S SOME OVER HERE ON THE GOLF COURSE.

BUT IT WAS DETERMINED. I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN STAFF MOUTH, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE DISCUSSION WAS GIVEN THE CURRENT VOLUME OF THAT KIND OF ARMORING.

[06:45:07]

IT WOULDN'T BE APPROPRIATE TO DO THAT ON THIS LOCATION, WHICH IS WHY WE WENT FOR THE FILL AND THE LATERAL PLANTINGS, BECAUSE BASICALLY, THE ONLY PLANTS THAT ARE IN THE WATER ON THIS LAKE RIGHT NOW ARE SORT OF OVER HERE, BUT I WOULDN'T CALL THEM LATERAL PLANTINGS. THEY'RE BASICALLY LIKE PLANTS THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY FALLING INTO THE LAKE. YEAH.

SO YOU'RE LATERAL PLANNING. SO OBVIOUSLY BE ANOTHER ENHANCEMENT FOR THAT.

YES. FOR THE LAKE. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M COMPARING THIS WITH LIKE SWAN LAKE. AND BECAUSE THAT'S ONE I'M MORE FAMILIAR WITH.

AND I SAW PIPES GOING INTO THERE. IS IT A IT IS IT A NET RECEIVER OF WATER FROM LIKE THE MALL.

THAT'S TO THE RIGHT OF THAT PICTURE THAT'S SHOWN.

THERE'S ALL THIS WATER FLOW INTO THIS LAKE. THERE ARE THERE IS A STORMWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM.

THIS IS A SWALE AREA, AND THERE ARE INLETS AND PIPES THAT ARE ON.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ON THIS. IT COULD BE ON THIS PART, BUT ON I GUESS AS THE ROAD WRAPS AROUND TO THE NORTH.

THERE'S AN INLET NOT IN THIS LAKE, BUT THE NEXT LAKE TO THE NORTH, AND THE LAKE TO THE NORTH IS CONNECTED TO THIS ONE.

AND I BELIEVE THERE'S AN OUTFALL PIPE ON THIS LAKE TO OUR SYSTEM.

OKAY. SO IT DOES IT DOES FUNCTION AS HOLDING STORMWATER DURING HURRICANES OR DURING RAINFALL EVENTS.

RAINFALL. RIGHT. SO DID WAS BECAUSE OF THE HURRICANE.

IS THAT WHEN THE EROSION TOOK PLACE OR WAS IT JUST OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME? OUR UNDERSTANDING IT WAS JUST A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. THE SHORE HAS NO STABILIZATION WHATSOEVER.

SO IT JUST KIND OF HAS BEEN CHANGING. I'M SURE THE HURRICANE DIDN'T HELP, THOUGH, BUT WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

AND SO WOULD THIS BE ONE OF THESE LAKES THAT WE WOULD DREDGE OR IS IT.

NO. THIS IS A TOTALLY PRIVATE SYSTEM. IT'S A PRIVATE LAKE THAT IS, BUT RECEIVES WATER FROM OUTSIDE OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY.

IS THAT. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. YES. THERE ARE SOME VERY INTERESTING PROPERTY RIGHTS QUESTIONS HERE THAT I THINK WILL BE ADDRESSED AS THE GOLF COURSE GETS REDEVELOPED, BECAUSE IT'S CERTAINLY INTERESTING THAT YOU'RE PUTTING PUBLIC WATER INTO A PRIVATE LAKE.

AND WE DON'T HAVE VOLUMETRIC INFORMATION ON THIS LAKE.

SO IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION. YEAH. I MEAN, IT'S JUST IT'S JUST MORE OF A, MORE OF A QUESTION THAT, YOU KNOW, BUT YEAH, I MEAN, I GUESS CAN I ASK A QUESTION? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CLARIFY THE RECORD THAT THIS IS NOT A LAKE.

IT IS A STORMWATER POND. STAFF. IT'S A STORMWATER POND ON A GOLF COURSE.

RECEIVING WATER FROM ANOTHER? YES. IT'S A STORMWATER PUMP.

YES. THANK YOU. AREN'T THEY ALL STORMWATER PONDS? I THINK LIKE WE JUST CALL THEM LAKES, BUT THEY.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THE RECORD BECAUSE I, I'M, I'M CALLING IT A LAKE BECAUSE YOUR CODE CALLS IT A LAKEFILL PERMIT, SO I'M CALLING IT A LAKE. AND IF IT WERE, IF IT WERE A PERMITTED SOUTH FLORIDA STORMWATER FACILITY, WE WOULD HAVE WE WOULD HAVE REFERRED TO IT AS SUCH. I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A GRAY AREA HERE BECAUSE YOU ARE USING IT AS PART OF YOUR SYSTEM, BUT THERE'S NO DOCUMENTED PERMIT EXPLANATION OF HOW YOU WERE USING IT AS PART OF YOUR SYSTEM.

AND SO THERE ARE LAKES WHERE THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY STORMWATER RETENTION AREAS, AND YOU HAVE MANY OF THEM.

THIS IS KIND OF IN THAT GRAY SPACE. CAN I ASK THE QUESTION, DID YOU, ZACH, DID YOU SAY THEY'RE GOING TO REDO THE GOLF COURSE? AND WOULD WOULD OBTAIN AN ERP FROM THE. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM MY CONVERSATION, BUT I CERTAINLY AM NOT HERE ON BEHALF OF THE GOLF COURSE.

I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND. BUT WHEN WE TALK TO THEM, THEY PLANNED ON DOING THAT. CAN YOU GIVE ME THE DETAIL? IT SAYS LAKE FILL. SO YOU'RE FILLING THE LAKE, AND YOU'RE NOT JUST SECURING THE EMBANKMENT WITH ROCK? THERE'S A LAKE FILL. HOW HOW FAR ARE YOU GOING OUT INTO THE LAKE OR TO THE STORMWATER POND? HE'S HE'S PUT THE FIGURE UP ON THE. SO IT'S IT VARIES.

DEPENDS ON THE WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY. YEAH. SO ON THE TOP OF BANK RIGHT NOW IS BACK HERE ON THE PROPERTY.

AND SO, SO HERE IT CAN BE. IT'S MUCH FURTHER THAN, FOR EXAMPLE, OUT HERE WHERE WE'RE OFF PROPERTY ENTIRELY.

LET ME SEE IF THE DETAIL HAS THE DISTANCE. ARE YOU ON THE SURVEY? THE BOUNDARY. THIS IS THE ENGINEERED. BUT LET'S SEE HERE ON THE SURVEY ITSELF, WHICH YOU HAVE, THE SURVEY DOESN'T SHOW WHERE WE'RE FILLING TO. IT JUST SHOWS THAT IT'S A IT'S A CURRENT SURVEY OF WHAT THE EXISTING STATE OF THE PROPERTY.

AND IF YOU GIVE ME A MOMENT SHOWING, LIKE 1200 SQUARE FEET, THE TOTAL PROJECT IS 1100 SQUARE FEET OR SO,

[06:50:01]

BUT 12 ROUNDING UP BUT THE ACTUAL DISTANCE OUT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

I'M LOOKING. HOLD ON.

I DON'T SEE THAT DIMENSIONED ON HERE. AND I WISH WE HAD SANDY HERE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

SO I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DIMENSION, BUT I WILL SAY THAT WE HAD WE WANTED TO GO MORE OF AN ARMORING ROUTE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY PHIL IS EXPENSIVE AND WE'RE ENCOURAGED TO GO A ROUTE THAT INVOLVED CREATING THE SLOPE AND THE LITERAL LITERAL PLANTING.

SO IF IF THE CONCERN IS THAT WE'RE GOING TOO FAR INTO THE LAKE WE WANTED TO GO THE ARMORING ROUTE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE LESS PHIL, IT'D BE LESS EXPENSIVE TO DO. BUT THIS WAS THE ROUTE THAT WAS THAT WAS AGREED UPON IN OUR WORKING THROUGH THIS WITH STAFF.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE FILLED. YES, BUT NOT PROTECTED WITHIN.

IT'S GOING TO HAVE RIPRAP ON IT ALSO. AND A LITERAL SHELF PLANTING AT THE BASE OF THE RIPRAP.

SO IT'S GOING 1000FT INTO THE LAKE. NO NO, NO.

I MEAN, TO THE STORMWATER POND APPROXIMATELY 13FT INTO THE STORMWATER POND FROM EXISTING TAPAS BANK TO PROPOSE TAPAS BANK AND EXISTING TAPAS BANK IS ON OUR PROPERTY. SO WE'RE SO FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WE'RE PROBABLY ONLY I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GOING OUT SOMETHING LIKE 7 OR 8FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AT THE MOST EXTREME POINT, THERE'S OTHER PLACES WHERE WE'RE BARELY GOING OFF THE LINE.

COUNCIL MEMBER CORRECT. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE ONLY REASON YOU'RE DOING THAT BEYOND BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE IS BECAUSE YOU CODE TELLS US THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE THE 4 TO 1 RATIO FOR THE BANK.

WE'RE YEAH, WE'RE TRYING TO MEET CITY STANDARDS FOR THE SLOPE SO THAT WE DON'T END UP BACK HERE.

THE OTHER OPTION, IF WE IF WE COULD DO, FOR EXAMPLE, A SEAWALL, WE COULD JUST DROP IT RIGHT ON THE EDGE THERE, BUT THEN YOU WOULD GET NONE OF THE LATERAL PLANTINGS. AND THAT WAS NOT THE DIRECTION THAT WE DISCUSSED THIS WITH STAFF.

BUT IF YOU'RE TELLING ME WE CAN HAVE A SEAWALL, I THINK THEY'D BE VERY HAPPY TO HEAR THAT BECAUSE THE DIRT, AS YOU JUST SAID, YOU HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT DIRT EARLIER, IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE TO MOVE DIRT AROUND. SO BUT, BUT BUT THIS IS THE DIRECTION THAT WE WERE WE WERE PUSHED ON.

PART OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS RECAPTURE WHAT WAS HERE BEFORE THE THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS DON'T HAVE THE SLOPE EVEN ON THEIR PROPERTY.

AND TO COMPARE THIS TO THE LAKEFILL THAT YOU JUST HEARD BEFORE, THIS ONE AND THAT ONE, THEY WERE PUTTING THE SLOPE ON THEIR PROPERTY AND THEN GOING INTO THE LAKE, AND THEN THERE WERE SOME FILL THERE. IT WAS NOT AS MUCH, BUT I THINK THE APPLICATION SHOWED SOMETHING LIKE 400 TO 500FT² OF FILL IN THEIR APPLICATION. HERE WE'RE TRYING TO RECAPTURE THE PROPERTY AS IT WAS, WHICH WAS THERE WAS NO LAKE ON IT AT ALL, NOR WAS THERE SLOPE. AND WE'RE PUTTING THE SLOPE BACK WHERE IT WAS, WHICH IS ON THE GOLF COURSE. AND I THINK THE BEST INDICATION THAT THAT'S WHAT WAS INTENDED IS THAT THE GOLF COURSE ITSELF REVIEWED THIS AND SAID, YES, THIS MAKES SENSE, BECAUSE, AGAIN, WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THE LAKE IN FRONT OF OUR CLIENT'S PROPERTY WITHOUT TRESPASSING OR NEEDING AN EASEMENT TO GET TO THEIR LAKE.

OKAY. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? NO. I HAVE DO I HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT? THANK YOU, MR. LOMBARDO. CLOSING REMARKS. JUST APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND YOUR PATIENCE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR THEIR REVIEW. OKAY.

NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER.

I'D LIKE TO. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS RESOLUTION TO FILL THAT SMALL SEGMENT OF THE LAKE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 809 WELLS DRIVE. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN KRAMER AND A SECOND BY VICE MAYOR.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENNIMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

KRISEMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PETRANOFF. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. VICE MAYOR. HUTCHINSON.

YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. PASSES. UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL, WE NEED TO TAKE AT LEAST A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

IT'S 430. SORRY. WE HAVE TO TAKE A BREAK, MADAM MAYOR.

OKAY. YES. I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK ONE QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT TAKES DAVID TO CHANGE OVER.

WE DO HAVE THE 505 HEARING, AND WE DO NEED TO HAVE THAT ON TIMELY, SO I JUST THAT'S FINE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT. YEAH. THANK YOU.

OKAY. WE'RE BACK FROM OUR SHORT BREAK. GOING TO ITEM 12.

[12.E. A Resolution of the City Council of Naples, Florida, Authorizing Participation in a Lawsuit Seeking, Among Other Things, to Declare that Senate Bill 180's Imposition of a Blanket Statewide Prohibition on the Exercise of Home Rule Authority Over Land Use and Zoning Regulations, is Unconstitutional and Should be Enjoined, Retaining Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman, PL to Prosecute the Lawsuit; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Necessary Documents; Providing for Scrivener's Errors; and Providing for an Effective Date. (Matthew McConnell, City Attorney)]

YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF NAPLES, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN A LAWSUIT SEEKING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO DECLARE

[06:55:04]

THAT SENATE BILL 180 IS IMPOSITION OF A BLANKET STATEWIDE PROHIBITION ON THE EXERCISE OF HOME RULE.

AUTHORITY OVER LAND USE AND ZONING REGULATIONS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND SHOULD BE ENJOINED RETAINING VICE CHAIR, HUFFMAN, COLE AND BEHRMAN, PL TO PROSECUTE THE LAWSUIT AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. SO, AS YOU RECALL, AT THE LAST MEETING WE HAD WE CONTINUED FROM THAT MEETING, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS ON ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

I DID CALL YOU ALL IN THE INTERIM PRIOR TO THIS AND KIND OF PROVIDED THE INFORMATION.

I KNEW AS OF THIS MORNING, I RECEIVED ANOTHER EMAIL.

THE TEN GOVERNMENTS REQUIRED FOR THEM TO INITIATE LAWSUIT HAS BEEN MET.

THEY OFFICIALLY HAVE TEN. I WAS ASKED RESPECTFULLY TO NOT DISCLOSE WHO THE TEN ARE IN PUBLIC, SO I WON'T DO THAT. BUT IF ANY OF YOU WANT TO KNOW, THEN I CAN DISCLOSE IT AFTER THE FACT.

HOWEVER, WITH THAT BEING SAID, THEY ANTICIPATE FILING THE LAWSUIT IN THE MIDDLE OF SEPTEMBER.

OUR NEXT MEETING IS SEPTEMBER 24TH. I WILL SAY THERE ARE A LOT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT STILL ARE INTERESTED IN THIS, BUT HAVE NOT HEARD IT. I HIGHLY DOUBT ALL OF THEM ARE GOING TO HAVE MEETINGS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THIS.

I AM ANTICIPATING, BUT I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT IF ENOUGH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WANT TO JOIN AFTER THE LAWSUIT, THAT WE WOULD RETAIN THEM AND THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO ADD US AS ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS.

AND MOTION TO INCLUDE US IN THE LAWSUIT. HOWEVER, WHILE I FEEL PRETTY CONFIDENT ABOUT THAT, I CAN'T BE 100% SURE THAT THAT'S A POSSIBILITY.

SO I WOULDN'T SAY TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. I DO THINK THAT THERE IS A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ONGOING.

I KNOW WE HAVE OUR LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION MEETING ON THE 15TH.

I KNOW I'VE PERSONALLY BEEN REACHING OUT TO SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES.

I HAVE A COUPLE LUNCHES AND PHONE CALLS SET. I'M PERSONALLY WORKING WITH THE LEAGUE OF CITIES AS WELL AND DRAFTING SOME UPDATES THAT THAT WE'RE HOPING TO PROVIDE TO THE LEGISLATOR. BUT WITH THAT SAID, IT'S REALLY A CHOICE THAT YOU ALL HAVE TO MAKE ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO JOIN THIS.

I WILL SAY, JUST TO REMIND YOU, IT'S 10,000 TO JOIN THE INITIAL CASE AND THEN 5000 FOR APPEAL AND 5000 FOR IF IT GOES TO THE SUPREME COURT. THOSE ARE ALL FLAT FEES. SO THAT'S ALL INCLUSIVE OF THE FEES THAT WE WOULD THAT WE WOULD PAY DEPENDING ON THE LEVEL IT GOES.

AND WITH THAT. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID AND CLEARLY I HEARD THE DETAILS IF WE DON'T MAKE THAT DECISION TODAY, YOU ARE UNCLEAR ON WHETHER WE IF WE WERE TO JOIN LATER ON, WHETHER THAT WE COULD DO THAT OR NOT. I WAS TOLD THAT IF ENOUGH WANT TO JOIN, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER MINIMUM REQUIREMENT TO ADD PARTIES.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WOULD JUST ADD IT. IF ONLY THE CITY OF NAPLES JOINED.

BUT IF YOU'LL RECALL, THIS IS THE SAME FIRM THAT HANDLED THE LITIGATION FOR FORM SIX.

SAME THING HAPPENED, STARTED OFF WITH A CERTAIN NUMBER, AND THEN THEY ADDED A BUNCH AFTER THE AFTER THE LAWSUIT.

SO I DON'T WANT YOU TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON WE FOR SURE CAN JOIN LATER, BUT I HIGHLY DOUBT WE WON'T BE ABLE TO IF THAT MAKES SENSE. I FEEL LIKE THE POSSIBILITY OF US JOINING AT A LATER TIME, AS LONG AS THERE'S OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE MADE THAT CHOICE, IT'S PRETTY HIGH. OKAY. COUNCIL QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? KRISEMAN. WELL, I'LL START AND MAKE SOME OF THE SAME COMMENTS I MADE LAST TIME AND ADD A FEW MORE.

I THINK IT WOULD BE A VERY POOR STRATEGIC DECISION ON OUR PART TO JOIN THE LAWSUIT, AT LEAST AT THIS TIME.

FIRST OF ALL, I COULD NEVER SUPPORT SIGNING ON TO A LAWSUIT THAT I HAVE EVEN READ.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE STILL HAVE NOT GOTTEN A COPY OF IT.

THAT'S JUST SORT OF ONE BASIC POINT. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT SAYS.

AND BUT MORE BEYOND THAT. AND I'VE TAKEN THE TIME IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS TO.

TALK TO MEMBERS OF OUR LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION AND, AND TALK TO PEOPLE IN IN THE WORLD OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AND LOBBYING AND OTHERS WHO HAVE HAD KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON.

AND YOU KNOW, THE ONLY GOOD NEWS ABOUT SENATE BILL 180 IS THAT IS IT STATEWIDE? UNLIKE SENATE BILL 250, WHICH MEANS EVERY COUNTY AND CITY IN THIS STATE IS AFFECTED, AND EVERY COUNTY AND CITY HAS PEOPLE WHO ARE QUITE UPSET ABOUT THIS.

SO AND NEXT YEAR IS AN ELECTION YEAR IN FLORIDA.

EVERY HOUSE MEMBER WILL BE UP FOR REELECTION AND HALF THE SENATE WILL BE UP FOR REELECTION.

AND THEY'LL BE HEARING ABOUT THIS. AND I THINK THAT THEY'RE A MUCH MORE PRUDENT COURSE OF ACTION

[07:00:10]

AND ONE THAT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE SUCCESSFUL FOR US AND FOR OTHERS WOULD BE TO WORK WITH THE LEGISLATURE TO DEFINE WHAT THE REPAIRS TO THE BILL WOULD BE, PARTICULARLY WITH SECTION 18 AND 28, WHICH ARE THE TWO SECTIONS THAT ARE INVOLVED, THE PREEMPTION OF LOCAL LAND USE AUTHORITY AND TRY TO DEVELOP, AND THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES IS ALREADY WORKING ON THIS. REBECCA. O'HARE HAS IS DEVELOPING A DOCUMENT ALONG THESE LINES, AND I KNOW MR. MCCONNELL HAS BEEN IN TOUCH WITH HER, PERHAPS OTHERS, AND AND PUT IN FRONT OF THE LEGISLATURE THE CONCERNS ON SOME SORT OF A I THINK THERE'LL BE A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ACROSS THE STATE THAT WILL BE DOING THIS AND AND TRY TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, A COHERENT AND DECENT DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THEY CAN PASS LEGISLATION TO REPAIR THIS BILL IN THE NEXT SESSION.

AND EVEN IN THE SIX WEEKS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS, YOU KNOW, BEGIN TO GET THAT WORK LINED UP.

I THINK FOR US, WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS THAT WE FOCUS ON SEPTEMBER 15TH, WHEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MEETING WITH OUR LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION AND BE ABLE TO GO TO THAT MEETING WITH A MEMORANDUM, A DOCUMENT THAT SAYS, HERE'S OUR THOUGHTS ON HOW THIS BILL SHOULD BE REPAIRED SPECIFICALLY.

AND WE CAN, YOU KNOW, GET A LOT OF THAT INFORMATION ALSO, AND IDEAS FROM THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES TO WALK INTO THAT MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 15TH AND SAY TO OUR DELEGATION HERE IS OUR LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES DOCUMENT, WHICH WE JUST APPROVED.

AND, OH, BY THE WAY, WE SIGNED ON TO THIS LAWSUIT A WEEK AND A HALF AGO.

DOESN'T SEEM TO ME TO BE A GOOD COMBINATION AND VERY SMART POLITICALLY.

AND I KNOW FROM SPEAKING TO SENATOR PASSIDOMO, AND I THINK AND WE KNOW THAT REPRESENTATIVE HAS SAID THE SAME THING.

THEY'RE EAGER TO TALK ABOUT THIS, TO HEAR OUR IDEAS AND TO TRY TO WORK TO FIX THIS.

THE, THE WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THIS LEGISLATION WAS, WAS ORIGINALLY AND PRIMARILY DEVELOPED AS A BILL TO STRENGTHEN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AT THE STATE LEVEL AND SECTION 18 AND 28 WERE ADDED ON TO IT AT THE LAST MINUTE.

THE THE BILL ITSELF, THE STRUCTURE OF THE BILL IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT HAS A LOT OF BENIGN OR POSITIVE ASPECTS TO IT.

AND SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS PEEL OFF THE BAD PARTS AND AND EVERY THERE WAS ONLY ONE OPPOSING VOTE IN THE HOUSE AND ONE OPPOSING VOTE IN THE SENATE TO THIS BILL. SO THAT MEANS IN A LOT OF COMMUNITIES AND VIRTUALLY EVERY COMMUNITY AND COUNTY AROUND THE STATE, INCLUDING THE ONES THAT HAVE ALREADY SIGNED ON TO THIS LAWSUIT, THEIR OWN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES VOTED FOR IT.

RIGHT. SO THAT'S THE SITUATION WE'RE FACING. AND I THINK THAT IF WE PURSUE THIS IN A EFFECTIVE LOBBYING FASHION TO TRY TO POINT OUT WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE AND WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN TO CHANGE THE THE OFFENSIVE PARTS OF IT, IT'S A MUCH BETTER STRATEGY AND A MUCH BETTER CHANCE OF OF HAVING SUCCESS.

AND YOU KNOW, TO ME, LITIGATION LAWSUITS ARE ALWAYS A MATTER OF LAST RESORT, NOT FIRST RESORT.

AND IF WE ENTER INTO THIS LAWSUIT NOW, WE'RE DOING IT AS A MATTER OF FIRST RESORT.

AND I THINK WE'RE JUST CUTTING OFF CONVERSATION AND CUTTING OFF A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO WORK WITH THE LEGISLATURE GENERALLY AND WITH OUR AND WITH OUR OUR LOCAL DELEGATION SPECIFICALLY.

WELL ANYONE? ANYONE ELSE? KRAMER. I'LL SAY. WELL, BEGINNING WITH I'M NOT SIGNING A LAWSUIT THAT I HAVEN'T READ. THAT'S ENOUGH FOR ME.

THAT'S JUST ENOUGH. IT COULD BE THE BEST WRITTEN LAWSUIT EVER.

AND AND EVERY BIT OF PRINCIPLE THAT I STAND FOR.

AND I'M NOT GOING TO SIGN ANYTHING I HAVEN'T READ.

SIGN ON TO IT. SO THAT STARTS THERE. BUT I HAVE TO SAY, I SPOKE WITH FOLKS THAT ARE THAT REPRESENT US AND THEY ARE EAGER TO WORK WITH US.

THEY WANT OUR INPUT. THEY WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT DELINEATED WHAT THE ISSUES ARE, WHAT THE WHAT WE'D LIKE FIXED A BUNCH OF FOLKS IN THE HOUSE TO ACTUALLY HELD THEIR NOSE AND VOTED FOR IT.

THE SENATE EVEN MORE SO. AND FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, I, I WOULD SUPPORT EVERYTHING.

[07:05:03]

RAY JUST SAID AND AND I REALLY THINK IT'S HUGELY IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE READY FOR THAT MEETING WITH OUR LEGISLATIVE GROUP LATER IN SEPTEMBER.

THAT'S ALL. VICE MAYOR. YEAH. THANK YOU. SOME GOOD COMMENTS.

APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS. I'M KIND OF CURIOUS.

YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT PREEMPTIVE MEASURES, AND THIS COULD BE LOOKED AT AS A PREEMPTIVE MEASURE.

THAT WAS TAKING PLACE AND THAT THEY'RE EAGER TO TALK.

WHERE WAS THAT EAGERNESS BEFORE THEY TOOK THESE ACTIONS? WHY DIDN'T THEY REALLY STEP OUT, COME SEE US AND TALK TO US BEFORE THEY PREEMPTED US? PREEMPT HOME RULE. AND SO EVEN THOUGH OR ALTHOUGH I APPRECIATE THEIR EAGERNESS TO TALK PREEMPTING HOME RULE SEEMS TO BE OCCURRING MORE FREQUENTLY THAN LESS FREQUENTLY.

AND SO AND THEN MR. MCCONNELL TALKING ABOUT JOINING THE LAWSUIT BEFORE WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO READ IT, IS THAT THAT IS A LITTLE BIT STRANGE.

I UNDERSTAND THERE NEEDS TO BE A CERTAIN MASS TO FUND IT, YOU KNOW, FUND THE LEGAL ACTION.

BUT BY SUPPORTING ITEM 12 E WHAT ARE WE GETTING WITH THAT? ARE WE ABLE TO. ARE WE ABLE TO SEE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE SUPPORTING BEFORE IT MOVES FORWARD? WELL, LIKE I DO WITH ALL LITIGATION, I WOULD SEND YOU A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT ONCE IT'S FILED.

BUT, I MEAN. YOU ALL DON'T REALLY REVIEW ANYTHING BEFORE IT'S FILED.

I MEAN, RESPECTFULLY, OF COURSE, BUT I MEAN, THERE'S RISK MANAGEMENT FILINGS EVERY DAY.

THERE'S STUFF IN CASES ALL OVER THE PLACE THAT YOU DON'T NECESSARILY READ.

IT'S TRUSTING THE ATTORNEY THAT THE CITY'S HIRED TO PREPARE IT AND FILE IT.

BUT OKAY. THE DIFFERENCE IS WE WOULD BE ABLE TO READ SOMETHING IF WE WAITED AND IT WAS FILED BECAUSE THEN I COULD GET ACCESS TO IT AND READ IT. AND, YOU KNOW, SO THAT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION BECAUSE I WOULD BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY READ IT, SHARE IT, DIGEST IT. AT THAT POINT. OKAY. I'M SORRY, MR. MCCONNELL. THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US RELYING ON OUR OWN CITY ATTORNEY TO READ SOMETHING, AND A LAW FIRM THAT WE HAVE NO ASSOCIATION OR RELATIONSHIP WITH IN FORT LAUDERDALE FROM DOING THE SAME.

AND US SIMPLY TURNING THE KEYS TO NAPLES OVER TO THAT LAW FIRM.

THAT'S A FAIR POINT. I TOTALLY AGREE. AND, BARTON I MUST I'VE GOT TO SAY, I, I AGREE WITH AND CONCUR WITH WITH MY COLLEAGUES. COUNCILMAN, KRAMER AND CHRISTMAN.

BUT IN THE SAME BREATH, I'M ALSO GOING TO SAY THAT VICE MAYOR IS CORRECT AS WELL, FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT, YES, THEY DID START THIS FIGHT. THEY ARE EGREGIOUSLY ATTACKING OUR HOME RULE AND AND IT AND IT IT MAKES OUR JOB A LOT MORE DIFFICULT THAN IT THAN IT SHOULD BE. AND IT IMPEDES OUR ABILITY TO DO OUR JOB WELL.

NOW, WHAT WHAT WE WANT TO DO, THOUGH, IS WE WANT TO TRY TO REMEDY THE SITUATION.

SO NOW WHAT WE HAVE TO DETERMINE IS WHAT IS WHAT ARE THE STEPS THAT ARE IN BEST INTEREST OF OUR COMMUNITY, AND IS THAT JOINING A LAWSUIT AND GETTING IN A ROCK FIGHT, OR IS THAT AND IT'S DIFFICULT TO DO THIS.

I'M SAYING THIS AS AND I'M GOING TO BITE MY TONGUE AS I DO.

SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO DO TO SAY THIS AS A POLITICIAN, BUT TO TAKE OUR POLITICIANS AT FACE VALUE AND ACCEPT THEIR THEIR WORD TO BE TRUE, THAT THEY REALLY DO WANT TO WORK WITH US. AND THEY THEY WERE NOT.

THEY AGREED THAT THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THIS BILL AND IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.

MY INCLINATION IS TO. NOT GET INTO A INTO A FISTFIGHT IN THE ALLEY.

BUT LET'S TRY TO FIX THIS A MORE AGREEABLE FASHION.

AND IF THAT DOESN'T WORK, THEN LET'S BE PREPARED TO GET IN A FISTFIGHT IN THE ALLEY. BUT I AGREE THAT THAT THE LAWSUIT SHOULDN'T BE THE FIRST STEP.

LET ME REPHRASE THAT, BECAUSE THE FIRST STEPS ALREADY BEEN MADE, AND THAT IS THAT THEY'RE STEPPING ON OUR ABILITY TO TO GOVERN. I ACCEPT THAT.

HOWEVER, THE ATTEMPT TO REMEDY THAT SHOULD NOT BE A LAWSUIT RIGHT OFF THE BAT.

I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD TRY TO TAKE THE THE AVENUES NECESSARY TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT AN AMICABLE WAY TO FIX THIS BILL.

THAT IS, IT IS NOT WRITTEN WELL AND IS NOT IN OUR BEST INTEREST.

ANYONE ELSE? PETRANOFF. I SPOKE WITH SENATOR PASSIDOMO AS WELL AND EXPRESSED MY

[07:10:10]

RESERVE ABOUT WE DID THEY DID PASS SB 250 AND WE ASKED TWO YEARS AND TWO MONTHS AGO FOR SOME DEFINITIONS THAT WOULD HELP GUIDE US, AND WE WERE BLOWN OFF. IT WAS UTTER SILENCE UNLESS SOMEBODY GOT GOT AN EMAIL.

SO I ALWAYS THINK PEOPLE ARE A LITTLE LIKE CREDIT BUREAUS.

PAST PERFORMANCE IS A SIGN OF FUTURE PREDICTABILITY.

AND YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THIS COULD BE SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, GETS PUSHED FOREVER.

IT COULD ALSO BE THAT JUST THOSE TEN CITIES THAT ARE JOINING IN THAT LAWSUIT ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT GET RELIEF, GIVEN THE MOST RECENT COURT ACTIONS. SO IT COULD BE THAT THE TEN PEOPLE DELTONA AND WHATEVER THE WHOEVER IS ENJOINED IN THIS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO GET RELIEF. AND WE ARE STUCK WITH WHAT WE'VE GOT.

AND I DON'T, YOU KNOW, THIS THING WAS YOU KNOW, THESE ARE THESE ARE ATTORNEYS THAT READ THINGS AND THEY UNDERSTAND THINGS THAT MANY OF THEM ARE LAND USE ATTORNEYS. AND SO THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING WHEN THEY PASSED THIS.

IT WASN'T THAT. IT WAS ACCIDENTAL. IT WASN'T THAT IT WAS, YOU KNOW, AT THE LAST MINUTE, IT WAS PURPOSEFUL.

AND I THINK THERE IS A FEELING IN TALLAHASSEE TO GET RID OF HOME RULE.

AND THIS IS A HUGE STRIKE. I YOU KNOW, THE UNSAID THING IS, IS WE ARE WE WANT TO ASK FOR 6.7 MILLION NEXT YEAR. AND IT'S THE LAST YEAR OF, YOU KNOW, THAT OUR SENATOR LIVES IN OUR CITY, AND WE'VE GOT ONE MORE SESSION TO DO THAT.

BUT YOU KNOW THAT YOU KNOW, THEY COULD RETALIATE ON THAT WAY.

I KNOW I SPOKE WITH SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT THAT I FOUND IN THE NEWSPRINT ARTICLES THAT ARE PROBABLY JOINING THIS LAWSUIT.

AND YOU KNOW, THEY'RE FEELING THEY'RE AFRAID OF RETALIATORY ACTIONS, INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, A MOVE TO TRY TO REMOVE THEM FROM OFFICE. AND YOU KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN THREATS MADE ON, YOU KNOW, TO SOME OF THESE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, TO THAT EFFECT AND FEAR TO THAT EFFECT.

SO I DON'T I DON'T LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU NEED TO FIGHT AND SOMETIMES YOU NEED TO TO CONCEDE.

AND YOU KNOW, I'M MORE OF A FIGHTING TYPE OF PERSON THAT SAYS ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, YOU KNOW? TWO, TWO YEARS AND TWO MONTHS AGO, YOU KNOW, WE GOT OUR ANSWER, AND OUR ANSWER IS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ANSWER IT.

WE'RE GOING TO KEEP IT IN PLACE. WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THE THUMB ON YOU.

AND NOW THERE'S MORE STUFF IN HERE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING A THUMB ON.

AND I'LL TELL YOU THIS. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I BROUGHT UP WAS, YOU KNOW, OUR ABILITY TO RAISE PERMITTING FEES, FOR EXAMPLE, AND, YOU KNOW, AND, AND YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, FOR EXAMPLE, I'M BUILDING A HOUSE.

SO, YOU KNOW, THEORETICALLY, I THINK ALL OF YOU FOR SUBSIDIZING MY PERMITTING COSTS BECAUSE THEY'RE UNABLE TO LIQUIDATE THEM IF THEY HAVEN'T GONE TO CURRENT YOU KNOW DONE A CURRENT ANALYSIS ON WHAT IT'S ACTUALLY BEING COST BECAUSE THAT WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE DOING PERMITTING, WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE DOING INSPECTIONS, AND THOSE COSTS ARE REAL, AND THEY'LL JUST BE SHIFTED TO THE GENERAL FUND.

IF WE GET A IF WE GET A HURRICANE. THE OTHER PIECE IS WE STILL NEED BURDENSOME AND RESTRICTIVE.

DEFINED. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I PERSONALLY THINK THAT THERE IS AN OVER APPLICATION ON THIS AND IT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO DAMAGED AND DESTROYED PROPERTY. THIS IS THIS IS A HURRICANE RELIEF BILL VERSUS THE ENTIRE JURISDICTION.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'LL WORK WITH IT WITH US ON ON THAT.

I DON'T GET A GOOD SENSE GIVEN THE PAST PERFORMANCE.

SO YOU KNOW, I WOULD, YOU KNOW, I WOULD TEND TO WANT TO JOIN THE LITIGATION, CONSIDERING WE KNOW WHAT IT'S ABOUT.

AND CONSIDERING WE COULD BE LEFT OUT OF IT IF WE GET A GOOD SENSE THAT WE CAN JOIN AFTER THE FACT AND WE DON'T GET REAL, REAL, MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION, THEN YOU KNOW, THEN I THINK THAT BEING ABLE TO JOIN IT IS REALLY OUR ONLY MEASURE TO DO OUR JOBS. WE CAN'T REALLY DO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND, YOU KNOW, IN A MEANINGFUL WAY TO INCREASE RESILIENCY.

YOU KNOW, IF WE FIND THAT, HEY, WE WANT TO REQUIRE THAT THE SEAWALLS ARE X FEET FOR A STREET WE CAN'T DO THAT.

AND SO BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER WOULD SAY YOU KNOW, HEY, IT'S GOING TO COST ME $150,000 MORE.

THAT IS MORE BURDENSOME THAN YOU FLOOD THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO THERE'S THERE'S INSTANCE AFTER INSTANCE THAT IT HURTS THE PEOPLE WE REPRESENT, AND IT HURTS.

YOU KNOW IT. WE MIGHT AS WELL ALL JUST GO HOME ON LAND USE BECAUSE WE'RE OVERRIDDEN ON, ON MOST OF THESE THINGS.

AND WE'RE GOING TO BE TRANSMITTING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN SOME FORM OR FASHION TO I BELIEVE IT'S IS IT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE THAT REVIEWS IT.

I THINK THAT ONE REFERRED TO AS FLORIDA COMMERCE, BUT YEAH.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. OKAY. I THINK THEY YOU KNOW, THEY'VE ALREADY RECEIVED SOME OF THEM.

[07:15:03]

AND I THINK THAT YOU KNOW, THIS WILL BE IT'LL BE AN EXERCISE IN NOTHING.

CONSIDERING THE YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING ON, I THINK, IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ARE GOING TO BE RESILIENCY MEASURES.

AND THEY ALL COME WITH PRICE TAGS. CORRECT. AND SO YEAH, SO SO I WOULD BE ONE TO EITHER PSEUDO JOIN THE SUIT OR IF YOU GET A GOOD IF YOU HAVE A GOOD SENSE OF THAT PERHAPS YOU KNOW WE COULD JOIN LATER AND WE DO WE DO NOT.

WE'RE NOT ABLE TO BE SUCCESSFUL. AND EVEN ANSWERING A SIMPLE QUESTION THAT WASN'T ANSWERED TWO YEARS AND TWO MONTHS AGO, THEN, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE I THINK WE HAVE TO DO THAT.

WELL. AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR, IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION BECAUSE I CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT WE CAN JOIN LATER.

AND BY THE NEXT TIME WE MEET, THE LAWSUIT WILL HAVE BEEN FILED.

SO I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. I MEAN, I HAVE A GOOD FEELING THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO, BUT IF IF WE CAN, I DON'T WANT ANYONE LOOKING AT ME SAYING, I MADE THIS DECISION BECAUSE YOU TOLD ME WE COULD.

YEAH, I LIKE THAT. YOU KNOW, IT'S INTERESTING THAT THOUSAND FRIENDS HAVE JOINED THIS, YOU KNOW, OPINED ON THIS AND JOINED THIS, BUT LEAGUE OF CITIES HAS NOT.

THEY, THEY I GUESS THEY DON'T. THEY NEED TO HAVE STANDING.

I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY HAVEN'T, BUT THEY'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH THEM IN A COLLABORATIVE WAY.

SO I'M JUST WONDERING, ARE THEY ARE THEY REALLY WORKING ON IT? IS IT, YOU KNOW, ARE THEY DO THEY REALLY REPRESENT CITIES? I KNOW A LOT OF THE BIGGER CITIES, YES. LEAGUE OF CITIES IS A GREAT RESOURCE.

I TRUST ME, THEY ARE. THEY DO A LOT OF WORK. THEY DO A LOT OF WORK THAT NO ONE NOTICES BECAUSE THEY THEY GET LANGUAGE REMOVED BEFORE IT'S ADOPTED.

AND PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA WAS EVEN THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

THEY ARE REALLY GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO. THEY ARE A RESOURCE TO US ALL. I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT THEY ARE WORKING ON SOMETHING BECAUSE I HAVE IT AND I'M WORKING ON IT WITH THEM.

I HAVE IT TOO. I MEAN, I HAVE WHAT THEY DID TOO.

I, YOU KNOW, I JUST HAVEN'T SEEN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE I'VE, I JUST HAVEN'T SEEN IT BECAUSE THEY'RE SO EFFICIENT.

WE DON'T EVEN SEE WHAT CHANGES ARE MADE. BUT RIGHT NOW IT JUST FEELS LIKE WE ARE HANDCUFFED AND THAT WE.

YOU KNOW, GIVEN GIVEN THE RESPONSES THAT WE'VE GOTTEN TO DATE FROM OUR PARTNERS IN THE STATE.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO GET GOOSE EGGS. THANK YOU.

SO COUNCILWOMAN PETRANOFF. I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID WITH SENATE BILL 250 APPROPRIATIONS AND TAKING AWAY HOME RULE, SENATE BILL 180 NOW EXPANDING INTO DEEPER AREAS.

LIVE LOCAL. TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHTS TO PROTECT OUR OWN CITIES AND OUR OWN PLANNING AND LONG RANGE PLANNING, PERMITTING FEES, ALLOWING PRIVATE PROVIDERS, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY HAD AN EXPERIENCE ON OUR OWN WITH PRIVATE PROVIDERS.

AND THE LEAGUE OF CITIES HAS LED US DOWN AND I, I AM I HAVE BEEN A GREAT SUPPORTER OF THEM, BUT THEY HAVE LED US DOWN. I HAVE SEEN NOTHING COME OUT OF THEM FROM THIS PROTECTING HOME RULE, AND IT'S EGREGIOUS. I NEVER THOUGHT THAT I WOULD HAVE TO FIGHT FOR MY HOME RULE FOR MY COMMUNITY, AND IT'S A I'LL SAY IT AGAIN, IT'S AN EGREGIOUS FOR THE STATE TO TAKE AWAY HOME RULE.

IT'S UNETHICAL. AND I WON'T FIGHT, BUT I'M GOING TO PURSUE WELL, I'M GOING TO FIGHT FOR OUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE IT'S WRONG, BECAUSE WE NEED TO PROTECT IT. AND I'LL JUST PERSEVERE, JUST LIKE I HAVE IN EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HAS COME OUR WAY.

BUT THIS IS NOT OKAY. THEY'RE NOT CHANGING. I WENT TO THE DELEGATION HEARING LAST YEAR AND SAID TO KATHLEEN AND THE OTHER THREE, PLEASE RELOOK AT 250 AND WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IN REMOVING LOCAL HOME RULE. NOTHING. AND THAT WAS THE SECOND ATTEMPT.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANOTHER WORD. WE CAN DO A CONSENSUS.

OR HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO GO TO THE. OH I'M SORRY.

AND THEN WE'LL GO TO. WELL, AGAIN, I'M COMING LATE TO THIS PARTY, BUT I HAVE TO SAY THAT SOME OF THE REMARKS ARE RATHER COMPELLING ON THIS DAIS TODAY. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT JOINING THE SUIT.

I AGREE. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING I HAVEN'T READ.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE WAY TO GO. I WOULD DEPEND ON YOU, I THINK, TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST WITH YOU, YOUR INSTINCTS. BEFORE I SAY YAY OR NAY ON THAT, I THINK IT'S.

YEAH, I AGREE, BUT FOR US TO SAY, OH, WE DON'T WANT TO ROCK THE BOAT, WE MIGHT GET MONEY.

WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE BRIBERY TO ME. OH, YEAH.

HERE, WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU FOR MONEY, BUT DON'T TAKE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I KNOW I DON'T WANT ANY PART OF THAT.

I'M NOT PLAYING AND KOWTOWING TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

SO I DON'T THAT'S NOT EFFECTIVE TO ME. MAYOR LET'S TAKE A VOTE BECAUSE WE CAN DEBATE THIS FOREVER.

[07:20:05]

I KNOW WE CAN, BUT I JUST, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO SAY, AT LEAST FROM MY STANDPOINT AND PERHAPS OTHERS WHO HAVE SPOKEN I DON'T THINK THERE'S A PERSON I KNOW. THERE'S NOT A PERSON ON THIS DAIS WHO DOESN'T THINK THAT SENATE BILL 180 IS THE MOST DRAMATIC EXAMPLE YET OF OVERREACH ON THE PART OF STATE GOVERNMENT REGARDING HOME RULE.

IT'S EGREGIOUS. IT'S OUTRAGEOUS. IT'S TERRIBLE.

THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS, WHAT IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE STRATEGY FOR REVERSING THIS? YOU MAY REMEMBER AT A MEETING OF THIS COUNCIL BEFORE SUMMER RECESS WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HOME RULE, MAYBE IT WAS WHEN SENATE BILL 180, I TOLD YOU THAT I HAD WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ASSISTANCE, HAD DONE SOME RESEARCH INTO HOW MANY PREEMPTIONS HAVE OCCURRED IN FLORIDA SINCE 2010 AND THE NUMBER AND THAT WAS BEFORE THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION ENDED. THE NUMBER WAS OVER 150 PREEMPTIONS 150.

AND THAT NUMBER IS HIGHER NOW OF ONE KIND OR ANOTHER.

AND, AND YOU KNOW SO MY, MY CONCERN, I MEAN, THE STATE HAS BEEN DOING THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

NOW 180 GOES TO A WHOLE NEW LEVEL AND IS AND IS GETTING MUCH MORE ATTENTION, WHICH IS GOOD.

BUT YOU KNOW, THE STATE IT'S NOT EVEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LAWSUIT THAT WE'VE NEVER NOT SEEN, SO I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ARGUMENTS ARE BEING MADE, BUT AS EGREGIOUS AS THIS IS.

THESE PREEMPTIONS ARE THE QUESTION BECOMES, YOU KNOW, WHERE IS THE LEGAL BASIS FOR OVERTURNING IT WHEN THEY'VE DONE IT OVER 150 TIMES IN THE LAST 15 YEARS ALREADY? WHAT IS THE LEGAL BASIS FOR OVERTURNING THE STATE? YOU KNOW, WHERE'S THE LINE BETWEEN YOU KNOW, DOING SOMETHING THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN SOME PEOPLE'S EYES AND SOMEBODY ELSE SAYING, WE'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH, BUT THAT'S A POLICY DIFFERENCE THAT WE HAVE WITH YOU.

SO A LAWSUIT ALSO, I DON'T REALLY CARE EITHER, ABOUT $6.7 MILLION IN THE LARGER SCHEME OF THINGS.

THAT'S NOT WHY I'M SUGGESTING THIS. I'M SUGGESTING THAT IT WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD BE BETTER ADVISED TO TRY TO HAVE A DIALOG AND SEE IF THERE'S PROGRESS THAT CAN BE MADE TO FIX THIS PROBLEM LEGISLATIVELY.

WHEN A LAWSUIT IS GOING TO BE UNCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER WE WILL PREVAIL.

NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO. AND WE'LL CERTAINLY GO THROUGH YEARS OF APPEALS AND ALL THE REST AND, AND AND SECONDLY, HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF DAMAGING OUR RELATIONSHIPS IN TALLAHASSEE.

OKAY. I'M SORRY TO END THAT CONVERSATION. WE JUST NEED TO TAKE A.

DECISION ON WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD.

AND I'LL JUST TELL YOU, LET'S MOVE ON TO 13 G, WHERE IT GETS MORE EGREGIOUS AND THEY'VE TAKEN MORE HOME RULE AWAY.

SO, KRAMER, YES OR NO FOR THE LAWSUIT? NO. YES.

WELL, HOLD ON, I GOT TO START TAKING. YES. PROBABLY SHOULD BE A MOTION A MOTION.

OKAY. OKAY. MADAM MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION ON ITEM 12 E. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL BY VICE MAYOR.

SECOND, I HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER. PETRANOFF.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. VICE MAYOR.

HUTCHINSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENNIMAN. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. CHRISMAN. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PETRANOFF. YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. PASSES. RIGHT.

4 TO 3. YEAH. YEAH. I'M SORRY. APPROVED. 4 TO 3.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO, MAYOR, FOR THE REST OF THIS, I THINK WE SHOULD UNLESS CITY MANAGER DISAGREES, I THINK WE PROBABLY SHOULD JUST CONTINUE EVERYTHING TO THE NEXT MEETING. OH, NO, MR. MANAGER AND I, I MEAN, MR. YOUNG AND I DISCUSSED.

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THEY CAN SWITCH IT IN. MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS IN ONE MINUTE OR TWO.

SO I WOULD SINCE WE HAVE A ROOM FULL OF STAFF THAT WE PROCEED TO THE HEARING.

[07:25:05]

AND IF YOU WANT TO RECONVENE THAT WE COULD RECONVENE BACK TO THE OTHER AND HOPEFULLY DO IT IN ANOTHER 15 MINUTES.

I MEAN, THE THOUGHT OF CARRYING OVER THESE THREE ITEMS, WHICH ARE VERY MATERIAL.

THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION. THE ONLY THING IS IF, FOR THE RECORD, I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR NEW SYSTEM WOULD DO TO THE VIDEO IF WE STOPPED THIS, START A NEW MEETING, AND THEN STARTED. I DON'T THINK WE CAN, ACCORDING TO DAVID.

I HAD IT. YEAH. WOW. OH, THE MAN SPOKE. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO, MR. YOUNG WE HAVE 13 G AND 13 G AND 15 A. THAT'S CORRECT MA'AM. JUST THOSE TWO.

NO, THERE'S THREE ITEMS YOU HAVE 13, 13, 13 G AND 15 A, MA'AM.

GOT IT. AND WE WILL TAKE A BREAK. YEAH. I BELIEVE DAVID SAID IT WOULD BE A DAVID, AND JESSICA SAID IT'D BE A MINUTE OR TWO.

AND SO THAT WOULD BE A RECESS AS A RECESS AS A RECESS.

OKAY. IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK IN. OKAY. SO COUNCIL.

WE ARE GOING TO RECESS AT 516 AND RECONVENE AFTER OUR SPECIAL MEETING.

WE'RE BACK TO OUR REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 3RD, AND WE'RE CONTINUING ON WITH ITEM 13 D.

[13.D. Consideration and Approval of the 2026 Workshop and Meeting Schedule for the City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). (Gary Young, City Manager)]

MR. MCCONNELL. OH, THAT'S YOU, MR. YOUNG. SORRY, MA'AM.

SO THIS IS THE PROPOSED 2026 CITY COUNCIL AND CRA MEETING SCHEDULE.

I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT A COUPLE. THERE'S A COUPLE MONTHS I WANT TO POINT OUT AND SEE IF YOU AGREE OR IF YOU WANT TO MAKE ANY CHANGES.

AND I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO START IN REVERSE ORDER.

SO I'M GOING TO START WITH THE FEBRUARY, WHICH IS THE ELECTION MONTH.

SO LET ME START WITH THAT FIRST. THE REASON I WANT TO START WITH THAT IS, IS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE ELECTION IS GOING TO FALL.

YOU REALLY ONLY HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE ONE MEETING AND YOU CAN'T.

THERE'S NO POINT. AND THEY'RE NOT SWORN IN UNTIL THE 18TH.

SO HERE'S THE THING THAT I WAS THINKING. YOU ALSO NEED A LAND USE MEETING.

AND IF YOU REMEMBER AS YOUR TIME WHEN YOU'VE BEEN SWORN IN TO COUNSEL, IT'S YOUR SWEARING IN.

THEN YOU HAVE AN ORGANIZATION MEETING. THEN YOU HAVE WHATEVER AGENDA ITEMS THAT YOU NEED AND TO THROW LAND USE ON TOP OF THAT.

IT MADE SENSE TO ME TO SAY, LOOK, MAYBE IF WE CAN JUST HAVE TWO MEETINGS, SINCE YOU'RE ONLY DOWN TO ONE MEETING IN THAT ENTIRE MONTH, HAVE THEM BACK TO BACK AND HAVE THE LAND USE ON THE SECOND DAY.

IT CHANGES ALL OF THE PEOPLE SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE WAITING TO DO THAT.

SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THAT MADE THE MOST SENSE.

AND SO THAT'S WHY IT'S PROPOSED IN THAT WAY. HOPEFULLY IT WON'T BE A FULL DAY BOTH DAYS, BUT AT LEAST IT MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT MORE FUNCTIONAL AND CELEBRATORY WHEN THE NEW COUNCIL IS SWORN IN AS WELL. SO THAT WAS THE THOUGHT PROCESS ON THAT ONE.

AND THEN AS IT PERTAINS TO JANUARY, AS YOU KNOW, WE COME BACK AFTER THE MIDDLE OF JANUARY, BUT BECAUSE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY, THE QUESTION IS, IS DO YOU WANT TO TRY TO STILL HAVE A WORKSHOP IN THAT MONTH? AND IF YOU DID, YOU KNOW, LAST TIME WE HAD THIS SAME SITUATION, YOU DIDN'T WANT THEM BACK TO BACK.

AND YOU SAID, WELL, WE'LL HAVE A WORKSHOP ON TUESDAY AND THE COUNCIL MEETING ON THURSDAY.

THE OTHER PROBLEM WITH THAT IS IT'S ALSO YOU'VE HAD A TENDENCY WHEN IT'S AN ELECTION TIME TO NOT PUSH TOO MANY MEETINGS ON IT.

SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I SAID, IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE IT, IT MAY BE BETTER TO HAVE THEM BACK TO BACK.

SO WE WROTE IT UP THAT WAY, BUT CERTAINLY RESPECT COUNCIL'S OPINION.

AND THEN LASTLY, THE ONLY OTHER ONE THAT I'LL COMMENT ON AS FAR AS THE SCHEDULE IS, WE DIDN'T BOOK A CRA IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER OF 2026, AND I DID THIS FOR A COUPLE REASONS. ONE, IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT.

TWO, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CRA SCHEDULE WILL WANT IT TO BE, AND YOU CAN ALWAYS SCHEDULE ANOTHER MEETING.

BUT HERE'S THE THING, AND I WANT YOU TO REALIZE WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO FACE THIS DECEMBER IS WE HAVE A MEETING ON DECEMBER 3RD, WHICH IS A CRA, WHICH PUTS ME PUBLISHING THE DAY BEFORE THANKSGIVING, THE ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA THE NEXT DAY, WHICH WOULD BE THURSDAY, WHICH IS THANKSGIVING DAY, WOULD BE SEVEN DAYS BEFORE I'M GOING TO PUBLISH THIS.

WE'RE GOING TO PUBLISH THE CRA BECAUSE IT'S THE FOURTH.

DECEMBER 3RD. YES. AND THAT WE HAD A CRA MEETING ON DECEMBER 3RD.

FOURTH. IT'S SCHEDULED NOW IS THE FOURTH, I BELIEVE.

I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS YEAR, SIR. OKAY. AND SO THE POINT BEING IS, IS WE WILL BE RELEASING TWO PUBLICATIONS FOR YOU AND THE AMOUNT OF WORK YOU'RE GOING TO

[07:30:03]

GET THE DAY BEFORE THANKSGIVING IF WE DON'T MOVE UP THE PUBLICATION FOR YOU.

SO WHAT I SAID WAS, LOOK, LET'S JUST LEAVE DECEMBER ALONE.

IF THE COUNCIL AND CRA SAYS WE NEED ANOTHER ONE, IT COULD ALWAYS BE IN NOVEMBER OR IN DECEMBER.

BUT I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS. I THINK IT'S THE FIRST TIME YOU'RE GOING TO SEE ALL OF THOSE IN DECEMBER, IN THAT FIRST WEEK WHEN YOU MOVED IT UP, AND I WAS JUST HESITANT TO PUT IT ON, I CERTAINLY DON'T MIND AMENDING IT AND ADDING WHATEVER YOU WANTED.

I JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW OUR THOUGHT PROCESS AS WE WERE LOOKING AT A CALENDAR.

AND WITH THAT, THAT'S IT. COUNCIL ANY KRAMER.

I HAVE SOMETHING THAT STUCK OUT TO ME. YES, SIR.

BECAUSE I THOUGHT ALL THAT STUFF WAS FINE AND DANDY, BY THE WAY. JUNE 20TH.

AND I LOVE CRA AND OUR CHAIR. I MEAN LOVE. HAVING SAID THAT, JUNE 17TH IS OUR LAST REGULAR MEETING, AND THEN WE WOULD WAIT A WEEK AND A DAY FOR OUR JUNE 25TH CRA BEFORE GOING ON BREAK.

I'M WONDERING IF WE COULD HAVE THAT CRA MEETING ON JUNE 18TH.

I WAS GOING TO TO, TO RAISE THIS MYSELF, AND I WAS GOING TO RAISE THIS IN SOME OTHER CRA MEETINGS SCHEDULE MYSELF. SO CAN I CAN I WORK BACKWARDS? COUNCILMAN. KRAMER. AND AND THEN MAYBE WE'LL GET AND THEN COME BACK TO JUNE.

SO MR. YOUNG. I WAS JUST LOOKING AT MY PHONE TO TRY TO REMIND MYSELF THE CALENDAR FOR REMAINING CRA MEETINGS THIS YEAR. WE HAVE ONE IN OCTOBER. IN LATE OCTOBER.

AND THEN IS THERE DID YOU SAY THERE'S ONE SCHEDULED IN EARLY DECEMBER OR NOT? ACCORDING TO THIS YEAR'S SCHEDULE, THERE SAID DECEMBER 4TH, WHICH WOULD BE THE I THINK IT'S THE THURSDAY AFTER.

I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EARLY DECEMBER. YES, SIR. OKAY.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO I WOULD, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE LOOKING TO NEXT YEAR THAT WE CANCEL THE JANUARY 29TH MEETING. THE JANUARY 29TH MEETING OCCURS FIVE DAYS BEFORE ELECTION DAY.

AND I THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE TO HAVE THAT MEETING THEN.

AND AND THEN ALSO LOOKING AHEAD, WE DON'T KNOW WHO'S GOING TO BE ON COUNCIL.

AND OTHER THAN THE FOUR WHO DON'T HAVE TO RUN THIS CYCLE, DON'T RUN, DON'T GET TO RUN, DON'T GET TO RUN.

YEAH. YOU WANT TO, DON'T YOU? AND AND AND WE ALSO WON'T KNOW WHO THE CRA CHAIR WILL BE, BECAUSE THERE WILL BE ANOTHER ELECTION FOR THAT POSITION AND OTHER POSITIONS AFTER THE NEW COUNCIL IS SWORN IN.

SO SO I THINK HAVING THE MEETING ON JANUARY 29TH DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST IS THAT THAT MEETING BE SHIFTED TO TO THE LAST WEEK IN FEBRUARY OR THE LAST WEEK IN MARCH.

AND WE COULD ALSO IF WE MOVED IT TO THE LAST MEETING WEEK IN MARCH.

IF WE DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS TOO MUCH TIME ELAPSING, WE COULD MOVE THE APRIL CRA MEETING TO MAY AND ELIMINATE THE JUNE MEETING ALTOGETHER.

OKAY, SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? YES, SIR. SO THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION.

AND BY THE WAY AS I LOOK AT THE CRA AGENDA FOR THE NEXT PERIOD OF MONTHS, NEXT 4 OR 5 MONTHS, THE THE PRIMARY AND PERHAPS ONLY IMPORTANT ACTION ITEM THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE I HOPE COMING TO US WILL BE THE 60% DESIGN APPROVAL ON THE 10TH STREET FIRST AVENUE SOUTH INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT, AND PERHAPS SOME SOME OTHER APPROVALS ON AMENDMENTS TO THAT CONTRACT THAT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY GO TO CITY COUNCIL OR CRA.

THAT WOULD HAVE TO OCCUR IN TANDEM WITH THE WITH THE 60% DESIGN.

OTHER THAN THAT, THERE COULD BE A NUMBER OF DISCUSSION ITEMS AND SO ON.

BUT YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, I'M NOT EVEN. DEPENDING ON WHEN THAT 60% DESIGN LANDS THERE MAY NOT EVEN BE NEED FOR BOTH AN OCTOBER MEETING AND A DECEMBER MEETING THIS YEAR.

YOU FOLLOW WHAT I'M SAYING? OKAY. BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, LEAVE THEM ON THE CALENDAR FOR NOW,

[07:35:01]

OBVIOUSLY. BUT LOOKING TO NEXT YEAR, I GUESS I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE MIGHT LOOK AT A, AT A CRA MEETING IN MARCH AND MAY AND AND THEN THE SECOND HALF OF THE YEAR, AUGUST AND OCTOBER.

OKAY. I'LL MAKE THOSE CHANGES. OKAY. NOT FEBRUARY, THE END OF THE MONTH.

I'D SAY MARCH. I'D. I'D SAY I'D SAY MARCH. BECAUSE EVEN EVEN FEBRUARY.

YOU'RE IT. THAT WOULD BE A WEEK OR TEN DAYS AFTER THE NEW COUNCIL WAS SWORN IN.

I THINK GIVEN A LITTLE MORE TIME WOULD BE GOOD.

OKAY. AND RAY, CAN I YOU SAID WE HAD. I HAD THE NEXT ONE ON OCTOBER 9TH.

WAS THAT WRONG? AM I WRONG ON THAT? THAT'S RIGHT.

THAT'S RIGHT. I MISSPOKE. SO? SO WE HAVE ONE ON OCTOBER 9TH AND ONE ON DECEMBER 4TH.

AND AS I SAY YOU KNOW I'M IN FACT, I HAVE A MEETING WITH ANITA TO TO DO ONE OF OUR AGENDA PLANNING SESSIONS NEXT WEEK.

AND YOU KNOW, FIRST THING I'M GOING TO BE LOOKING AT IS WHAT DO WE HAVE PROSPECTIVELY FOR AN AGENDA IN OCTOBER. IS THERE ENOUGH THERE TO WARRANT A MEETING? AND I THINK THAT'S GREAT. AND ESPECIALLY THE DECEMBER MEETING, BECAUSE THAT WAS MY CONCERN, IS HOW MUCH WAS GOING TO BE IN THAT. THAT TWO WEEK PERIOD WAS PRETTY HEAVY.

SO I REALLY PUSHING. SORRY TO DIGRESS ON THIS, BUT I REALLY WANT TO GET THIS 60% DESIGN.

LAID OUT FOR US AND HOPEFULLY APPROVED. I MEAN, THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.

AND YOU KNOW SO IF, IF YOU KNOW ANOTHER. WELL, I WON'T EVEN GET INTO THAT.

BUT HOPEFULLY BEFORE THE END OF THIS CALENDAR YEAR, WE CAN BE IN A POSITION TO TO APPROVE THAT, EVEN IF IT IF IT DOESN'T, IF IT'S NOT READY FOR A REGULARLY SCHEDULED CRA MEETING, WE COULD EVEN HAVE A SPECIAL CRA MEETING ATTACHED TO A COUNCIL MEETING IN JUNE WITH A ONE ITEM AGENDA.

YOU FOLLOW ME? YEAH. YEAH. SO? SO IF YOU CANCEL THE MEETING DECEMBER 4TH IN ORLANDO, THERE'S THE POLICY COMMITTEES. FOR ALL THE DIFFERENT COMMITTEES THAT STARTS THE FOURTH.

SO JUST FYI, THESE ARE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES.

YES. YEAH. LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES. THAT BEING SAID.

OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? VICE MAYOR? YEAH. THE. MAYBE IT WAS ALREADY ADDRESSED, BUT ON HERE IT SAYS JULY 2025.

WAS IT ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT THAT SHOULD BE JULY 2026.

THANKS. YEAH. NO PROBLEM. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, I WOULD TELL YOU THAT THIS NEXT JULY WOULD BE A GREAT TIME TO SHOW YOUR COMMITMENT AND FILL THAT UP WITH CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. AND IF YOU DON'T, I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING.

IF YOU'RE RIGHT, THE TWO OF YOU THAT WON'T KNOW.

BUT. BUT IF YOU DON'T, JULY 11TH IS 7-ELEVEN DAY, AND YOU'RE ALL WELCOME TO COME FILL UP YOUR TRASH CAN OR WHATEVER IN A FEW MONTHS, YOU COULD YOU COULD COME ON OVER AND SPEAK TO US DURING PUBLIC SPEAKING.

OH, YEAH. COMMENT TO MAKE THOSE TYPE OF SUGGESTIONS TO BE THAT GUY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. WITH THAT, YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED, MR. YOUNG. YES, MA'AM, I DO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THAT TAKES US TO 13 G. G. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU.

[13.G. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Naples, Florida, Designating the Planning Department as the Administrative Authority for Receiving, Reviewing, and Processing Plat and Replat Submittals; Designating the City Manager as the Administrative Official Authorized to Approve, Conditionally Approve, or Deny such Submittals Pursuant to Section 177.071, Florida Statutes; Authorizing the City Manager to Delegate Review and Processing Duties to Appropriate Staff within the Planning Department, including the City Engineer or other Relevant Departments; Providing for Scrivener’s Errors; Providing for Conflicts, Severability, and an Effective Date. (Matthew McConnell, City Attorney)]

MAYOR. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPLES, FLORIDA. DESIGNATING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY FOR RECEIVING, REVIEWING, AND PROCESSING PLAT AND REPLAT SUBMITTALS.

DESIGNATING THE CITY MANAGER AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AUTHORIZED TO APPROVE, CONDITIONALLY APPROVE, OR DENY SUCH SUBMITTALS PURSUANT TO SECTION 177 .071 FLORIDA STATUTES AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO DELEGATE, DELEGATE, REVIEW AND PROCESSING DUTIES TO APPROPRIATE STAFF WITHIN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING THE CITY ENGINEER OR OTHER RELEVANT DEPARTMENTS PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S, ERRORS, CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

MR. MCCONNELL, CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME THE PROCESS THAT EXISTS? OR MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE. MR. MARTIN IN THE RECEIVING, REVIEWING, AND PROCESSING OF PLAT AND PLAT SUBMITTALS WHILE SHE WALKS UP. MAY I JUST PROVIDE JUST TWO SENTENCE INTRODUCTION.

INTRODUCTION. YES, SIR. JUST TO RECOLLECT THE MEMORY THIS WAS BROUGHT UP DURING THE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE THAT I PROVIDED LAST MEETING.

SENATE BILL 784, WHICH ESSENTIALLY PREEMPTS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM HAVING PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR PLATS AND PLATS.

[07:40:01]

THERE'S A FEW APPLICATIONS THAT CAME IN OVER SUMMER THAT WE'VE KIND OF TOLD THEM, HEY, WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE BECAUSE YOU ALL WERE IN RECESS.

SO I JUST WANTED TO REMIND YOU ALL THAT WHERE WE STAND AND WHY THIS IS HERE.

DID YOU SAY THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE TOOK AWAY HOME RULE AGAIN? NOT EXACTLY, BUT YES. THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM. THIS JUST COMPLETELY REMOVES CITY COUNCIL FROM THE PROCESS.

IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, BUT I'D BE CURIOUS TO KNOW FROM MISS MARTIN WHICH ONES THE CITY COUNCIL WAS INVOLVED TO BEGIN WITH.

SURE. SO GOOD EVENING. HI. ERIKA MARTIN, PLANNING DIRECTOR.

YOU HAVE TWO, ESSENTIALLY TWO TYPES OF SUBDIVISIONS DEFINED IN YOUR CODE MINOR SUBDIVISION.

AND THEN IF IT'S NOT A MINOR SUBDIVISION, IT'S CONSIDERED A MAJOR SUBDIVISION. ALL MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS GO TO CITY COUNCIL. THERE ARE FOUR INSTANCES OUTLINED IN YOUR CODE WHERE IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A MINOR SUBDIVISION. IF YOU'RE SPLITTING A LOT TO RETURN IT BACK TO ITS ORIGINALLY PLATTED LOTS, LIKE RECREATING ORIGINALLY PLATTED LOTS. THERE'S FOUR SEPARATE OCCASIONS.

THOSE CURRENTLY DO NOT COME TO CITY COUNCIL. ANY LARGER SUBDIVISION.

MAJOR SUBDIVISION CURRENTLY GOES THROUGH THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL. AND THEN SO A LOT COMBINATION CURRENTLY COMES TO CITY COUNCIL, BUT A LOT SPLIT TO RECREATE EXISTING PLATTED DOES NOT.

BUT NOW THIS NEW LEGISLATION, NONE OF THEM WOULD COME TO CITY COUNCIL.

YES, VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU. ERICA. COULD YOU GIVE US A MAYBE SOME EXAMPLES OF MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS THAT HAVE COME TO CITY COUNCIL THAT NO LONGER IF WE LOOKED BACK, THEY WOULD NO LONGER COME TO CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW.

SO THE MOST RECENT MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS YOU'VE SEEN HAVE BEEN RELATED TO, WELL, THERE'S SUBDIVISIONS AND REPLATTING.

SO YOU'VE SEEN LOT COMBINATIONS HAVE COME BEFORE YOU RECENTLY? WE'VE RECEIVED A REQUEST THAT WE PROCESSED A COUPLE YEARS AGO TO TAKE ONE LARGE PLATTED LOT AND CREATE TWO LOTS.

SO THAT'S INCREASING THE NUMBER OF LOTS ABOVE WHAT IS PLOTTED IN THAT SUBDIVISION THAT WOULD COME TO CITY COUNCIL.

YOU SAW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, WHICH IS NOW THE AVENUE PROJECT THAT CAME THROUGH TO REPLAT ALL OF THOSE LOTS TO CREATE THE BUILDING PARCELS THAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTING.

WHAT OTHER ANY OTHER THAT COME TO MIND? MAJOR.

MAJOR SUBDIVISION? YEAH. SO NAPLES SQUARE CAME THROUGH AS A SUBDIVISION.

NAPLES BEACH HOTEL CAME THROUGH AS A MAJOR SUBDIVISION.

SO LARGER PROJECTS, BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT THEY WERE NOT RECREATING ORIGINALLY PLATTED LOTS.

THEY WERE CREATING ENTIRELY NEW LOTS. SO I WANT TO RECAP M DEVELOPMENT NAPLES SQUARE, NAPLES BEACH HOTEL UNDER THIS NEW PLAN BY THE BY, THE STATE WOULD NO LONGER COME BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.

CORRECT. ALL PLATTING MATTERS WOULD BE ADMINISTRATIVE.

THOSE DEVELOPMENTS STILL COME IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL FOR OTHER APPROVAL PROCESSES.

DEVELOPMENTS? YES. SO ANY CONDITIONAL USES, REZONING, ANY OF THOSE SITE PLANS.

THOSE WOULD STILL COME BEFORE YOU SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

JUST THE PLATTING. AND WHAT'S THE IMPORTANCE OF PLATTING? I MEAN, I THINK THE PLATTING IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. THE PLATTING IS WHERE YOU CREATE THE BUILDABLE PARCELS IS PART OF THE PLATTING, FIGURING OUT WHERE STRUCTURES GO. RIGHT. SO A BUILDABLE PARCEL PROVIDES YOUR LOT LINES FROM WHICH YOUR SETBACKS ARE MEASURED.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DOES DOES IT ALSO ALLOW SOMETHING TO BE LARGE ENOUGH TO THEN GO INTO A PD. WELL, SO YES, WE HAVE A MINIMUM FIVE ACRE PARCEL TO REZONE TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE FIVE ACRES OF PROPERTY. NOW THAT CAN BE A COMBINATION OF PROPERTIES TO CREATE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

SO IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY YOU JUST HAVE TO HAVE COMBINED FIVE ACRES OF PROPERTY TO REZONE TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO PLOT THEM AS ONE BUILDABLE LOT, BUT THEY'RE CONTIGUOUS.

CONTIGUOUS? YEAH. WHAT PROTECTION MECHANISMS DO WE HAVE? THE COMP PLAN, WHAT DO WE HAVE THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO PROTECT US? AND SO THIS REALLY JUST ADDRESSES THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PLATTING.

WE DO STILL HAVE STANDARDS IN OUR, OUR CODE. SO IF YOU LOOK IN CHAPTER 54, WE HAVE STANDARDS FOR PLATTING.

SO NO FLEW THROUGH LOTS. I'M SORRY. THROUGH LOTS.

NO FLAG. LOTS. YOU HAVE TO ABUT A CITY RIGHT OF WAY.

[07:45:02]

SO THERE ARE STILL CRITERIA FOR WHICH WE WILL REVIEW THESE REQUESTS AGAINST.

IT'S NOT A FREE FOR ALL, IF YOU WILL. SO WE STILL ARE ABLE TO REVIEW THEM, BUT THE PROCEDURAL MECHANISM IS NOW TAKEN AWAY FROM CITY COUNCIL. WHAT OTHER IN THE COMP PLAN? YOU WERE CORRECT WHEN YOU SAID THE COMP PLAN.

SORRY TO CONFIRM. SO WHAT OTHER MECHANISMS DO YOU HAVE TO YOU, WHICH YOU'RE DEFINITELY GOING TO HAVE TO EXPAND YOUR DEPARTMENT BECAUSE IT'S ONE MORE WHAT ELSE WILL YOU BE BASING THAT ON BESIDES THE COMP PLAN, COMP PLAN AND THE CODE? THOSE ARE THE TWO MECHANISMS THAT WE HAVE. I MEAN, THERE'S STATUTES THAT ADDRESS PLANNING AS WELL.

SO IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DON'T LOSE THESE PROTECTION MECHANISMS THAT ARE IN OUR FUTURE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT CODE.

AND R IS WHERE IS IT STATE IN THE COMP PLAN. SO IT'S NOT THAT THE COMP PLAN SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES PLOTTING, BUT THERE ARE ALL THOSE ALL OF THE ALL OF THE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES WITHIN THE COMP PLAN WILL GUIDE THE DECISION MAKING, PROTECTING STABLE RESIDENTIAL, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THOSE POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES.

JUST A FOLLOW UP QUESTION, VICE MAYOR. YEP. ERICA, SINCE THIS IS A CHANGE AND YOU JUST OUTLINED THE CHANGES THAT WILL TAKE PLACE INSTEAD OF CITY COUNCIL REVIEWING AND DISCUSSING UP HERE ON THESE SPECIFIC AND IT SAYS RECEIVING, REVIEWING AND PROCESSING PLAT AND REPLAT SUBMITTALS, ETC.

AS PART OF THAT, DO YOU STILL HAVE ANY ANY ITEMS THAT YOU'RE INTERPRETING THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO INTERPRET? LANGUAGE OR TERMS. BECAUSE ONCE IT COMES TO YOU, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIND.

I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT. ARE YOU GOING TO BE MAKING INTERPRETATIONS THAT ARE NOT VERY CLEAR? I MEAN, I'M GOING TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, YOU CAN NEVER WRITE A CODE THAT 100% CONCRETELY ADDRESSES EVERY SCENARIO THAT WILL EVER BE PRESENTED TO YOU.

IT JUST DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. SO CAN I TELL YOU THAT THERE WILL NEVER BE AN INSTANCE WHERE SOMETHING IS INTERESTING AND WE HAVE TO INTERPRET IT? NO, YOU HAD AN APPEAL BEFORE YOU RELATED TO A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF A FLAG LOT? YES. YOU KNOW, THAT WAS OUR INTERPRETATION, WAS THAT IT APPLIED TO THIS APPLICATION AND THE PETITIONER DISAGREED WITH US.

SO, NO, THIS WILL NOT PREVENT US FROM INTERPRETING THE CODE.

THAT'S QUITE LITERALLY OUR FUNCTION. AND THEN DO AS PART OF THAT THIS THIS FUNCTION AS PART OF PLANNING THIS SPECIFIC FUNCTION.

DO YOU RECALL SOME THINGS THAT YOU'RE HAVING TO INTERPRET THEM ALL THE TIME? I MEAN, OUR CHAPTER 54 SUBDIVISION STANDARDS ARE NOT GREAT.

AND I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY AGREES WITH ME.

THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ADDRESSED IN A LONG TIME AND COULD BE UPDATED.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. MADAM MAYOR, WHAT STANDARDS? SUBDIVISION STANDARDS. IT'S VERY CONFUSING. WELL.

AND THE WHAT THE SENATE BILL DID IS IT CHANGES THE STATUTE, REQUIRES US TO DO CERTAIN THINGS.

SO EVENTUALLY CHAPTER, YOU KNOW, SECTION 177 071 WILL READ DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY AMENDED.

BUT WE COULD DO IT BY RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE.

MY THOUGHT, BECAUSE WE HAVE APPLICATIONS PENDING AND THEY'VE BEEN PATIENT AND THERE'S CERTAIN TIME FRAMES THAT WE HAVE TO REVIEW THIS AND MOSTLY I BELIEVE ARE RESIDENTIAL IS GET THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED. BUT IT WOULD BENEFIT THE CITY I BELIEVE, TO UPDATE THE CODE AS WELL.

POTENTIALLY DEVELOP SOME STANDARDS THAT YOU ALL WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REVIEW, RIGHT? I MEAN, I WOULDN'T GO AS FAR AS SAYING BEEF IT UP, BUT ADD THINGS IN THERE THAT WOULD MAKE YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE ABOUT THIS BEING AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. BUT ORDINANCES TAKE TIME.

THEY TAKE, YOU KNOW, CRAFTING WORDING. WE'RE DOING A LOT OF THINGS RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S TWO READINGS. BUT THE IDEA IS TO EVENTUALLY CHANGE THE CODE.

I HAD ASKED YOU MR. MCCONNELL, OR MAYBE I ASKED YOU MISS MARTIN, ABOUT A CITIZENS REVIEW COMMITTEE.

FOR PLATS, WOULD THAT BE A PUBLIC HEARING? WELL, THAT'S WHAT I ASKED.

THERE'S NO PUBLIC HEARINGS ALLOWED. NO. WOULD IT HAVE TO BE A PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU HAD A CITIZENS REVIEW COMMITTEE? I MEAN, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THEY'RE DOING BECAUSE THEY CAN'T JUST MEET IN PRIVATE AND MAKE DECISIONS BECAUSE OF SUNSHINE LAW.

[07:50:05]

THEY'D HAVE TO MEET IN PUBLIC. IT'D HAVE TO BE A PUBLIC MEETING. OR STAFF COULD HAVE A COMMITTEE.

SO I WOULD I WOULD ADD TO THAT WE ARE DESIGNATED THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS DESIGNATED BY THIS RESOLUTION AS THE DEPARTMENT THAT PROCESSES THESE, AS WITH ALL OTHER PETITIONS THAT COME BEFORE YOU OR DON'T COME BEFORE YOU, WE SEND THIS OUT TO ALL THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

SO WE'RE NOT JUST IN OUR LITTLE VACUUM OF PLANNING, MAKING THESE DECISIONS.

YOUR CITY ENGINEERS INVOLVED THE STREETS DEPARTMENT, YOUR UTILITIES DEPARTMENT.

WE DO SEND THIS OUT FOR REVIEW TO ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS.

SO WE DO GET INPUT FROM EVERYONE. SO IT'S NOT A COMMITTEE, IT'S JUST THE STAFF REVIEW OF THE REQUEST.

WELL, THAT MAKES THE STAFF REPORTS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY YOU WON'T RECEIVE.

RIGHT. BUT YES. AGREE. YEAH. YOU'LL SEE THAT IN ALL THE STAFF REPORTS WE GIVE YOU.

THERE'S A DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW SECTION WHERE YOU CAN SEE ALL THE COMMENTS THAT OTHER DEPARTMENTS HAVE PROVIDED.

SO I JUST I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE HAS CONCERNS ABOUT THIS.

I'LL LET YOU GO COUNCILMAN AND THEN I'LL SHARE MY POINTS.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT, ASK A QUESTION FOR CLARITY.

JUST TO MAKE SURE AT LEAST I UNDERSTAND. AND PERHAPS OTHERS, PARTICULARLY ANYBODY WATCHING.

RIGHT NOW WITH A WITH ANY KIND OF A PLANT OR REPLANT APPLICATION, THERE'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW THAT YOU GO THROUGH AND YOU PRESENT THAT TO COUNCIL. FOR MAJOR. YES. PLANNING. ALWAYS. PLANNING? YES, ALWAYS. YEAH. AND WHAT I, I ASSUME YOU WOULD, WOULD HAPPEN HERE WITH THIS CHANGE. IS THAT THAT SAME ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS THAT YOU GO THROUGH NOW AND PRESENT TO COUNCIL, YOU WILL GO THROUGH, BUT THAT WILL IT WILL END THERE WITH A DECISION RENDERED BY THE DEPARTMENT.

CORRECT. YEAH. SO AND I'M NOT I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S GOOD.

I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THIS THAT'S WHAT THE.

I'M NOT SAYING IT'S GOOD EITHER. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT THE IMPLICATION OF THIS OF THIS STATE LEGISLATION IS.

AND WHAT, WHAT, WHAT THIS RESOLUTION IS ABOUT.

AND AND THEN, AS WE KNOW, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD I CAN THINK OF A NUMBER OF SITUATIONS SINCE I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN PLATS BROUGHT FORWARD AND BECAUSE OF THE. ISSUES IN OUR, IN OUR, IN, IN OUR CODE, IT'S IT'S RESULTED IN DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS. RIGHT.

YEP. SO CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, LOOKING AT THE CODE AND MODIFYING THAT SHOULD BE A PRIORITY.

OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, AGAIN, FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, THAT WE ALL UNDERSTOOD HOW WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING IT IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU. I, I DO THINK IT PUTS STAFF IN A POLITICAL POSITION, AND IT'S UNFAIR.

HOWEVER THE OTHER PART OF THIS IS, YOU KNOW, NOW DEVELOPERS OR PROSPECTORS CAN GO AND BUY A LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHICH WE'VE ALL SEEN IN THE NEWSPAPER AND SOCIAL MEDIA THAT THEY'RE PURCHASING THESE LARGE PIECES OF PROPERTY AND ON GULF SHORE BOULEVARD. AND TO ME, THE ONE THING THAT IS SPECIAL ABOUT NAPLES IS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE PORT ROYAL AND THE LARGE LOTS AND MAKING THEM.

WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION MAKING THEM SMALLER. LIKE WE HAVE IN THE REST OF THE CITY WHERE IT'S SEVEN FEET SETBACKS OR ZERO SETBACKS REALLY IS DIMINISHING TO THE PROPERTY VALUES.

AND I THINK IT'S ALSO TO OUR QUALITY OF LIFE WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEONE'S AIR CONDITIONER, POOL EQUIPMENT RUNNING SIDE BY SIDE GENERATORS IN YOUR SIDE YARD SETBACKS. SO I THINK IT'S DETRIMENTAL.

AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF STAFF. I JUST THINK THAT AGAIN, I THINK IT'S A POLITICAL SITUATION AND IT'S VERY DISAPPOINTING TO ME.

BUT THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO US. AND I KNOW IT'S BEST INTEREST OF THE STAFF TO PROTECT OUR CITY AND OUR TAXABLE VALUES AND WHO WE ARE AS A COMMUNITY AND WHO WE LOVE. SO DESPITE THE TAKING FROM THE STATE, THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO.

[07:55:06]

CORRECT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE, MR. MCCONNELL? I WOULDN'T BRING THIS FORWARD. THIS IS A A PREEMPTION REQUIREMENT, AND IT DOES AT LEAST GIVE DIRECTION TO APPLICANTS AND STAFF ON HOW TO PROCESS THESE.

SO OKAY, I HAVE A RESOLUTION BEFORE US. I NEED A MOTION.

YES, SIR. MAKE A MOTION. THE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPLES, FLORIDA, DESIGNATING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY FOR RECEIVING, REVIEWING, PROCESSING PLANT AND REPLAT SUBMITTALS, AND DESIGNATING THE CITY MANAGER AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AUTHORIZED TO APPROVE, CONDITIONALLY APPROVE, OR DENY SUCH SUBMITTALS PURSUANT TO SECTION 177 .071. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISMAN. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER. PENNIMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

KRAMER. YES. VICE MAYOR. HUTCHINSON. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

CHRISMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. MARTIN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PETRANOFF. NO. MAYOR. HARTMAN. NO. SO IT PASSES 4 TO 3.

THANK YOU, MISS MARTIN. IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY FOR YOU.

THAT TAKES US TO 13 G. OH, THAT WAS 13 G. TAKES US TO 15 A.

[15.A. An Ordinance Related to Floodplain Management; Amending Chapter 16, Construction, Rehabilitation and Property Maintenance Regulations, Adding Paragraph (C)(1)c. To Section 16-112, Florida Building Code Adopted; Amendments; Amending the Definition of Non-conversion Agreement in Section 16-144, Definitions; and Adding Paragraph 4(H) to Section 16-147, Permits, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, for the Purpose of Requiring a Declaration of Land Restriction (Non-conversion Agreement) for Proposed Development, Including Enclosures Below Elevated Buildings, Crawl/underfloor Spaces That Are More Than Five Feet in Height and Attached Garages; Providing for Codification; Conflicts; Severability; Correction of Scrivener’s Error; Construction; Publication; and an Effective Date. (Stephen Beckman, Director of Building Services)]

WE MADE IT. MAY I MAYOR. NIGHTMARE. YES, SIR.

ADDING PARAGRAPH C1C TO SECTION 16 112. FLORIDA BUILDING CODE ADOPTED AMENDMENTS AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF NON CONVERSION AGREEMENT IN SECTION 16 144 DEFINITIONS AND ADDING PARAGRAPH FORCE H TO SECTION 164716147.

PERMITS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF REQUIRING A DECLARATION OF LAND RESTRICTION.

NON CONVERSION AGREEMENT FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING ENCLOSURES BELOW ELEVATED BUILDINGS.

CRAWL UNDER FLOOR SPACES THAT ARE MORE THAN FIVE FEET IN HEIGHT AND ATTACHED GARAGES PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION.

CONFLICT. SEVERABILITY. CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERROR. CONSTRUCTION, PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU, MR. BECKMAN. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. MAYOR, COUNCIL.

STEVE BECKMAN, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING SERVICES. THERE ARE NO CHANGES BETWEEN THE FIRST AND READING IN THIS READING.

SO I'D RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THANK YOU. AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IT IS MAKING SURE THAT THE FIRST FLOOR. CAN YOU JUST. THE FIRST FLOOR THAT IS NON HABITABLE IS DECLARED CORRECT.

ANY ENCLOSURES TO AREAS BELOW THE MINIMUM BASE FLOOD ELEVATION FOR RENOVATIONS, REMODELS, NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT IS ONLY ALLOWED FOR PARKING STORAGE, BUILDING ACCESS REMAINS THAT WAY.

AND THAT IT'S RECORDED WITH THE DEED THAT THAT THAT IS AN AREA THAT IS FOR THOSE PURPOSES.

SO THAT WAY WHEN, YOU KNOW, HOMES SELL THAT THAT INFORMATION IS COMMUNICATED ALONG TO THE BUYER.

THANK YOU. I DO NOT HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS.