Feb 19, 2026 Naples Airport Authority Meeting

[Naples Airport Authority Meeting on February 19, 2026.]

[00:00:10]

AIRPORT AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, REGULAR MEETING FOR THURSDAY. THIS 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026. I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. I'M TERRY CAVANAUGH, CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, AND I'LL BE PRESIDING OVER THIS MEETING. INFORMATION IS ALSO BEING LIVE STREAMED BACK TO CITY HALL AND AVAILABLE LATER ON VIDEO. IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGARDING ITEM LISTED ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE COMPLETE THE SPEAKER REGISTRATION FORM IS AVAILABLE AND HAND IT TO THE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF THAT ITEM. WE ASK SPEAKERS, LIMIT COMMENTS TO FIVE MINUTES AND THAT LARGE GROUPS NAME OF SPOKESPERSON WHEREVER POSSIBLE. ALL WRITTEN AUDIO, VISUAL AND OTHER MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED TO THE BOARD OR STAFF DURING THIS MEETING WILL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE NA AND WILL BE A PUBLIC RECORD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION.

FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AUDIENCE VIEWING THIS MEETING, I ASK MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, STAFF, LEGAL COUNSEL AND ANY PRESENTERS TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE MICROPHONE AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL THIS MEETING. AS I MENTIONED, BEING RECORDED AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING ON OUR WEBSITE. PLEASE TURN OFF AND SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES AND OTHER DEVICES. BEFORE WE.

ASK FOR A ROLL CALL. COMMISSIONER ALFREDO HERE, COMMISSIONER HERE. COMMISSIONER BURNS IS OUT. CHAIR CAVANAUGH, PRESIDENT AND VICE CHAIR. CHRIS. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BURNS WAS PLANNING TO BE HERE, BUT HE'S HAD A, I THINK OF A HEALTH ISSUE THAT HE HAD TO DEAL WITH.

AND SO WE MISS HIM AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING HIM NEXT TIME. WITH THAT, I ASK ALL TO STAND AND SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I'D ASK ITEM ITEM C, THE AGENDA. MR. ROSANSKY, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR RESEQUENCING OF EVENTS? GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF MINOR EDITS TO THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 15TH MEETING THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU, AND ONE MINOR CORRECTION SCRIVENER'S ERROR ON THE BOARD REPORT. THE PROJECT, SPECIFICALLY THE NORTH QUAD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND AS PART OF THE CAPITAL SUMMARY. NO. NO CHANGE THOUGH IN THE THE CALCULATIONS JUST A GRAMMATICAL EDIT. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I'D ASK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. I'D ALSO LIKE TO RAISE AN ISSUE. I'VE BEEN IN THIS IN THIS POSITION NOW. AND COMMISSIONER FOR A COUPLE YEARS, AND I'M IMPRESSED WITH THE AI CAPABILITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE.

AND OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE FULL VIDEO OF THE MEETINGS. AND YOU AND I HAVE HAD SOME DISCUSSION AROUND THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT AND TIME IT TAKES STAFF AND THE GROWING RESOURCE NEED FOR MANAGING THESE SESSIONS. AND SO I GUESS, CAN WE ENDORSE A THE USE OF THE AI TOOL FOR THE MINUTES TO GO FORWARD TO RELIEVE SOME OF THE TIME AND EFFORT ON YOUR PART? YOU MAY WE WOULD TREMENDOUSLY APPRECIATE THAT THE CITY HAS A RECENTLY DEPLOYED TOOL THAT ENABLES US TO PREPARE A MORE ACCURATE AND SUMMARIZED AI. PREPARED SUMMARY. ACTUALLY, WE'VE PREPARED SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAILED USING MICROSOFT COPILOT THAN WHAT YOU HAD FOR REFERENCE, ONLY THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET. AND SO I THINK WE'RE LEARNING AND EVOLVING AND SO DOES THE AI. SO WE FEEL CONFIDENT THAT WITH THE RIGHT PROMPTS, WE CAN PROVIDE YOU A SUCCINCT, CONCISE SUMMARY OF THE MINUTES WITH THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF CONTEXT AND DETAIL. BUT IT'S AT IT'S AT THE BOARD'S DISCRETION. AND I WILL JUST ADD TO REMIND YOU, WE DO HAVE A STRATEGIC PLAN MEASURE THIS YEAR TO ADOPT AT LEAST 3I3 AI USES IN THE BUSINESS OF THE AIRPORT. AND I THINK THIS ONE BEING RELATIVELY LOW RISK FROM THAT STANDPOINT.

SO I ASK MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, ANY COMMENTARY. YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I TOO WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE NEW VITA MINUTES. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CITY VERSION. SO MAYBE WE COULD HAVE A CITY VERSION OF MINUTES FOR THIS MEETING, AND THEN WE CAN MAKE A

[00:05:05]

AND THAT THAT IS SIMPLY A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT. IT'S TOO MUCH. SO YEAH, I USE A DIFFERENT PERSON. I USE A DIFFERENT PIECE OF SOFTWARE WHICH DOES A VERBATIM, BUT IT ALSO GIVES SUMMARIES CALLED OTTER AI, WHICH IS A BIT LONG IN THE TOOTH NOW, BUT THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER OTHER PIECES OF SOFTWARE OUT THERE WHICH GIVES A SLIGHTLY FULLER VERSION THAN WHAT WE HAVE HERE. SO IF I MAY, I AGREE AI IS THE FUTURE. THE SAMPLE THAT WE SAW TODAY WAS NOT REALLY A SUMMARY. TO ME, IT WAS MORE A SYNOPSIS. YES, IT WAS SO BRIEF THAT I DON'T THINK WE'RE THERE YET, BUT I THINK AI ADAPTS QUICKLY AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET THERE. MAYBE WE SHOULD TRY AGAIN NEXT MONTH AND SEE WHAT THAT AI VERSION LOOKS LIKE COMPARED TO THE HAND ONE, AND THEN DO THAT TRANSITION WHERE WE FEEL WE'RE READY. YEAH, I AGREE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT JUST SAID WHAT THE FINAL VOTE WAS FOR ALL OF OUR MOTIONS, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO IDENTIFY WHO MADE THE MOTION. SECOND, THE MOTION AND IF THERE'S ANY DISSENTING VOTES, WHO WHO DID THAT. AS A PART OF OUR MINUTES TO REFLECT THE RECORD. BUT I DO AGREE THAT THE AI MINUTES ARE VERY GOOD, GOOD DIRECTION FOR US TO GO. THAT'S GREAT FEEDBACK. BACK TO YOU, I THINK. AND SO AGAIN, WITH THE EXTREME OPEN AND WILLINGNESS BY THE COMMISSIONERS TO EMBRACE THE TOOL AND JUST BE ABLE TO NOW REFINE IT AND BRING IT BACK NEXT MONTH, MAYBE A MORE ROBUST MODEL AND CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE ON THAT SO WE CAN AGAIN HAVE A DISCUSSION NEXT MONTH.

THAT'D BE FANTASTIC. I'LL JUST YOU KNOW, WE DID COMPLETE OUR CALCULATION ON WHAT IT TAKES TO PREPARE FOR AND EXECUTE THE BOARD MEETING. AND OVER THE PAST YEAR, THE BOARD MEETINGS AVERAGED SIX HOURS IN LENGTH AND REQUIRE OVER 300 STAFF HOURS. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE CONSULTANT HOURS, HOWEVER, THAT WE DO SPEND APPROXIMATELY 40 TO 45,000 A MONTH ON PREPARATION AND EXECUTION OF THE BOARD MEETING, AND EVEN THAT NUMBER DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL THE CONSULTANT TIME AND HOURS, BUT IT DOES INCLUDE SOME OF IT. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW MOVE FORWARD TO ITEM E. PUBLIC COMMENTS I HAVE FOUR THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO ME AND THAT'S THE TOTAL. SO I'D ASK JAMES DEVORE. FROM REGATTA ROAD TO COME AND SPEAK. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THE WISE DECISION OF THE NA DOD TO EMPLOY HUGHES AEROSPACE CORP. TO ENACT POTENTIAL FLIGHT PATH CHANGES THAT WERE PROPOSED AS A RESULT OF THE PRIOR NOISE ABATEMENT STUDY ACCEPTED BY THE FAA. THE NA DOD DECISION TO EMPLOY HUGHES AEROSPACE HAS LED TO SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF BENEFICIAL CHANGES IN FLIGHT PATH AND AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT, NOT ONLY FOR NAPLES AIRPORT, BUT ALSO MARCO ISLAND, IMMOKALEE AIRPORT AND SSW.

THANK YOU! I LEARNED DURING THE NAPLES AIRPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS AT THE NCC MEETING, AND HIS BRIEF COMMENTS AT THE VERY END OF THE JANUARY NA MEETING, THAT HUGHES AEROSPACE WILL SOON MAKE PRESENTATIONS ABOUT THEIR RECENT WORK ON BEHALF OF NAPLES AIRPORT REGARDING POTENTIAL CHANGES TO TAKEOFF HOLD AT 2000FT, ALTERNATIVE FLIGHT PATHS FOR DEPARTURES, TALKS TO RESOLVE IMPROVEMENTS WITH FLIGHT PATHS AFFECTING RSU AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS. MEETINGS WITH COLLIER COUNTY ABOUT THE REMAINING FLIGHT PATH.

CONFLICTS WITH MARCO ISLAND AIRPORT. I LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE INFORMATIVE UPDATES FROM HUGHES AEROSPACE, AND I HOPE THAT CONSTRUCTIVE CHANGES ARE COMING. I RECOMMEND AND REQUEST THAT ALL ACTIONS TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF NOISE REDUCTION AND AIR SAFETY THAT OCCUR BETWEEN REGULAR NCC AND NA MEETINGS BE ADDRESSED AND COMMUNICATED DURING THE NOISE AGENDA ITEM AT THE SUBSEQUENT NA MEETING. I BELIEVE THAT CHANGE WOULD IMPROVE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE NA BODY. THE NAPLES AIRPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND THE CITIZENS OF COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF NAPLES. I WAIT IN ANTICIPATION FOR THE UPCOMING PRESENTATION OF THE LATEST INFORMATION FROM THE WORK OF HUGHES AEROSPACE, AS I'M CONFIDENT THAT THEIR PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT WILL SERVE OUR COMMUNITY WELL. HAVING WATCHED THE RECORDING OF THE NOVEMBER 6TH, 2025 NOISE COMPATIBILITY COMMITTEE MEETING, IT'S CLEAR MORE NEEDS TO BE

[00:10:03]

MY NAME IS KEITH WEST AND AS YOU SAID, I AM REPRESENTING THE AIRPORT TENANTS COUNCIL. I'M HERE TO EXPRESS OUR EXTREME DISMAY AND FRUSTRATION OF SEEING THAT LANDING FEES ARE AGAIN ON THE AGENDA. WE WENT THROUGH THIS LAST YEAR AND HERE IT IS AGAIN. AND OUR OPPOSITION TO THIS IS IMPLACABLE AND WILL NOT CHANGE. WE DO NOT SUPPORT LANDING FEES UNDER ANY GUISE OR ANY TYPE OF FORMAT THAT IS BROUGHT FORWARD. NOW YOU ALL, IT'S A NEW BOARD AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE WILLING TO EXTEND SOME GRACE AND CONSIDERATION. BUT WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN IS A HISTORY OF PREVIOUS BOARDS NOT ADDRESSING THE REAL PROBLEM. THE REAL PROBLEM IS NOT ABOUT REVENUE. IT'S ABOUT SPENDING. SPENDING AT THIS AIRPORT IS OUT OF CONTROL. I BROUGHT UP AT THE END OF LAST YEAR THAT BETWEEN 2020 AND 2024, PERSONNEL EXPENSES WERE UP 139%. SO HOW IN THE WORLD CAN THAT BE JUSTIFIED? I MEAN, I WAS HERE ON THIS AIRPORT FOR MOST OF THAT TIME PERIOD, AND I DID NOT NOTICE ANY CHANGE OR INCREASE IN SERVICES THAT JUSTIFY THAT KIND OF PERSONNEL SPENDING INCREASE. THERE'S OTHER EXAMPLES, TOO. YOU LOOK AT THAT AIRPORT PILOT SHOT DOWN, WHY IN THE WORLD IS A GOVERNMENT ENTITY, WHICH THIS IS THIS IS A MONOPOLY OF A GOVERNMENT ENTITY. IT'S TAKING IT'S TAKING THE ROLE THAT WOULD TRADITIONALLY BE PRIVATE BUSINESS. AND THE REASON IT'S TAKEN ON THAT AIRPORT, THE THE PILOT SHOP, IS THAT THE PREVIOUS VENDOR COULD NOT MAKE IT WORK, BECAUSE WHY THERE IS NOT A DEMAND FOR AIRPORT PILOT SUPPLIES HERE. I CAN GET ON AMAZON AND GET ANYTHING I WANT DELIVERED TOMORROW. WHY ARE WE RUNNING THAT SHOP? BUT THAT'S JUST A LITTLE EXAMPLE. YOU CAN ALSO LOOK AT THE THE SHRUBBERIES, THE MILLION DOLLARS OF SHRUBBERIES OUT ON AIRPORT ROAD, THE FENCING THAT IS ABOUT TO BE REPLACED, THE PERFECTLY GOOD FENCING THAT IS ABOUT TO BE REPLACED ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE AIRPORT. IT'S JUST AN EMBLEM OF THIS AIRPORT IS TRYING TO FIND MORE AND MORE MONEY. IT CAN'T FIND ENOUGH PLACE TO SPEND THE REVENUE THAT IT'S GETTING ALREADY. AND YET YOU WANT TO PENALIZE THE OPERATORS OF THIS AIRPORT BY IMPOSING LANDING FEES. NOW, THE AIRPORT IS NOT OWNED BY THIS COMMISSION. IT'S NOT OWNED BY THE MANAGEMENT OF THE AIRPORT. IT'S OWNED BY THE CITIZENS. AND THE CITIZENS APPOINT PEOPLE. YOU ALL TO OVERSEE IT. AND I WOULD SAY IN THE PAST THAT THIS OBLIGATION HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXERCISED, THE SPENDING HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT UNDER CONTROL. AND AND IT CONTINUES AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE. SO WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD WE BE LOOKING AT CREATING NEW REVENUE STREAMS WHEN THE PROBLEM IS NOT MORE REVENUE, IT'S WE WE NEED TO BRING BACK THE SPENDING. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I WILL ASK YOU TO, TO DEFEAT OR TO TO MOVE ON FROM THIS IDEA THAT WE NEED TO IMPOSE LANDING FEES HERE AT THE NAPLES AIRPORT. THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE JENNIFER HOLLANDER REPRESENTING RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT NAPLES. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JENNIFER HOLLANDER, AND I'M AN ATTORNEY FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT NAPLES. AND I'M HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS AND SUMMARIZE THE REMARKS THAT YOU RECEIVED YESTERDAY AFTERNOON IN A JOINT LETTER FROM SIX OF THE NATION'S LEADING AVIATION ASSOCIATIONS, THE AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION, THE EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION, THE GENERAL AVIATION MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, THE NATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION, THE NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION, AND THE VERTICAL AVIATION INTERNATIONAL. THESE ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENT PILOTS, AIRCRAFT OWNERS, GENERAL AVIATION MANUFACTURERS, FIXED BASED AND CHARTER OPERATORS,

[00:15:05]

AS BACKGROUND. AT THE JANUARY 15TH, 2026, BOARD MEETING, A PROPOSAL WAS PUT FORWARD TO IMPOSE LANDING FEES TO DISCOURAGE CURFEW VIOLATORS AND DISCOURAGE FLIGHTS BY OPERATORS NOT BASED AT ABF, AS THE AUTHORITIES COUNCIL CORRECTLY RECOGNIZED AT THAT MEETING. THE PROPOSAL IS FACIALLY ILLEGAL. THE AIRPORT HAS A VOLUNTARY CURFEW. ANY PROPOSAL TO MAKE THOSE RESTRICTIONS MANDATORY, SUCH AS BY IMPOSING NIGHTTIME RECORDING IN PROGRESS, WOULD CONFLICT WITH THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY AUTHORITY'S IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, GRANT ASSURANCE ASSURANCES AND THE AIRPORT NOISE AND NOISE AND CAPACITY ACT OF 1990, WHICH MANDATES THOROUGH STUDY AND FAA APPROVAL OF ANY ACCESS RESTRICTIONS, AMONG OTHER STATUTES. LIKEWISE, ANY LANDING FEES INTENDED TO DISCOURAGE OPERATIONS, WHETHER LIMITED TO TRANSIENT OPERATIONS OR OTHERWISE, WOULD CONFLICT WITH FAA GRANT ASSURANCES AND THE AIRPORT NOISE AND CAPACITY ACT. THE ASSOCIATIONS NOTED THEIR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BOARD REQUESTED STAFF TO PROVIDE DATA TO CONSIDER HOW ON HOW TO MAKE THE AIRPORT MORE SELF-SUFFICIENT. HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO THEIR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE AIRPORT WILL CONTINUE TO RELY ON FEDERAL GRANTS AND, BASED ON PRIOR BUDGET DISCUSSIONS, DOES NOT NEED TO RESORT TO LANDING FEES AS AN ADDITIONAL REVENUE SOURCE. IMPORTANTLY, UNLIKE MANY AIRPORTS WITH 20 YEAR GRANT OBLIGATIONS, APF IS OBLIGATED TO REMAIN OPEN IN PERPETUITY AS A RESULT OF FEDERAL FUNDS USED TO ACQUIRE THE LAND. ANY ACTION TO FORGO FEDERAL GRANTS WOULD BE CONSIDERED IRRESPONSIBLE GOVERNANCE FOR AN ASSET THAT SERVES THE CITY OF NAPLES, COLLIER COUNTY, AND THE SURROUNDING REGION. FINALLY, THE ZONING RELATED RELATED ORDINANCES PROPOSED BY THE CITY OF NAPLES NOT ONLY JEOPARDIZE THE CRITICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NAR AND THE CITY, BUT ALSO ARE LIKELY PREEMPTED AND IN CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LAW AND APF'S GRANT OBLIGATIONS. THE ASSOCIATION'S PREVIOUSLY URGED CITY COUNCIL NOT TO PROCEED WITH THOSE PROPOSALS. IN CLOSING, THE SIX NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS STRONGLY URGE THE BOARD TO ABANDON THE PURSUIT OF LANDING FEES AND TO URGE THE CITY NOT TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT SPEAKER IS JOSE CABRERA, REPRESENTING THE NAPLES JET CENTER AND FLORIDA AVIATION BUSINESS ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU. CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS. DIRECTOR OF. SO LANDING FEES ARE OBVIOUSLY A BIG TOPIC AS WE'VE HEARD TWO ALREADY. PREVIOUS COMMENTS. THE RECONSIDERATION OF THEM HAS REALLY PUT US IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'VE HAD TO RAISE FLAGS AND CONCERNS. AGAIN, STAKEHOLDERS. AS YOU SAID, I, I SAID ON THE BOARD, AS A VICE PRESIDENT FOR THE FLORIDA AVIATION BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, IT'S AN EXAMPLE. YESTERDAY WE WERE IN TALLAHASSEE NORMAL DAY ON THE HILL VISITING LEGISLATORS. AND USUALLY WE TAKE THIS TIME ONCE A YEAR AND WE TALK ABOUT BILLS THAT ARE PASSING THROUGH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE CONCERNING GENERAL AND BUSINESS AVIATION. AND WE HAD A LOT OF GOOD CONVERSATIONS. THERE ARE FOUR DIFFERENT MATTERS BEING ADDRESSED, WHETHER IT'S FOSSIL UTILIZATION OF CHEMICALS AND FOR FIREFIGHTING AND SOME THINGS THAT ARE BEING HANDLED IN THAT WAY. THERE'S AN ADS-B BILL GOING THROUGH THE HOUSE AND HOW AIRPORTS ARE GOING TO UTILIZE IT. AND I GOT SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THAT. ONE, EV TOLLS BILLS. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE NAPLES LOCAL BILL FOR APPOINTMENTS OF THIS SAME COMMISSION, INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND COSTS FOR ADS-B BILL. YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND IT AS AN ORGANIZATION. WE TALKED TO LEGISLATORS YESTERDAY. THE REASON WHY THEY'RE TRYING TO APPROVE THE UTILIZATION OF THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY IS BECAUSE AIRPORTS COST MONEY TO OPERATE. BUT LET'S CONCENTRATE ON THIS AIRPORT. HERE. WE HAVE A BUDGET THAT WAS APPROVED WITHOUT LANDING FEES. IS A WORKING BUDGET NO ISSUES. THERE WASN'T A NEED FOR NEW LANDING FEES. INSTEAD, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY ADDRESSING THE CURFEW, THE VOLUNTARY CURFEW AND SIMILAR THROUGH ADDITIONAL FEES AND DISCOURAGING THINGS.

WELL, I'D LIKE FOR YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER BEFORE HAVING THAT CONVERSATION AND THROUGH THE CONVERSATION I'VE HAD, IS PERFECTION ACHIEVABLE? THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE. WHAT IS TOLERABLE AND ACCEPTED THRESHOLD FOR ACHIEVEMENT, RIGHT? SO IS 98% CONSIDERED TO

[00:20:04]

MARGIN INCREASES US AS TENANTS. WE ARE AT A RETAIL MINUS SETUP WHEN WE CONSUME FUEL AND SOME TENANTS CONSUME FUEL. I HAVE TENANTS IN MY HANGARS. THEY CONSUME FUEL AT A RETAIL MINUS SETUP. RIGHT. I BELIEVE MARGINS HAVE INCREASED SINCE TO COVER OTHER COSTS AND EXPENSES.

OPERATING THE AIRPORT WHEN MARGINS ARE INCREASED. OUR RETAIL PRICE ALSO INCREASES BECAUSE WE'RE ON A RETAIL MINUS. WELL, HOW ABOUT MOVING TENANTS TO A COST PLUS STRUCTURE SO THAT IF YOU ARE IN NEED TO INCREASE THE RETAIL PRICES, THEN OUR MARGINS ARE NOT INCREASED. BUT THOSE ARE TRANSIENT AIRCRAFT ARE INCREASED. RIGHT. SO WE WE'RE LEFT AT A COST. PLUS COST OF THE AIRPORT GOES UP, OUR COST GOES UP. BUT NOT THE MARGIN OF THE AIRPORT IS MAKING ON THE TENANTS. WE ARE PRO UNDERSTANDING THAT TRANSIENTS NEED TO PAY FOR THEIR UTILIZATION OF THE AIRPORT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THE LOCAL PEOPLE. SO LET'S DO THAT. LET'S FIGURE OUT WAYS TO FOR THEM TO PAY A BIGGER, BETTER SHARE OF THE UTILIZATION OF THE AIRPORT RATHER THAN HITTING THE TENANTS WITH RATE INCREASES, WITH FUEL INCREASES AND OTHER SIMILAR. LASTLY ON. LEASES, I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, BUT I THINK IT HAS TO BE RESTATED. WE'VE HEARD THAT SOME EXAMPLE T-HANGARS RATE INCREASES WELL, SUPPLY AND DEMAND SITUATION. ALL RIGHT. I CAN UNDERSTAND SUPPLY AND DEMAND, BUT WE ALSO COMMISSION AND A DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE AUTHORITY TO DEVELOP T-HANGARS TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEMAND, TO INCREASE THE SUPPLY FOR T-HANGARS. AND GUESS WHAT? THAT WAS DENIED. SO YOU CAN'T SAY THAT. OH, WELL, WE DON'T HAVE THE SUPPLIES WE NEED TO JACK UP THE PRICES. BUT WHEN WE SUBMIT A PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE SUPPLY, THEN IT GETS TONIGHT.

SO WHICH IS IT THERE. THERE WAS A POTENTIAL OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR THE LOCAL PEOPLE AND IT WAS DENIED. THOSE ARE THE MATTERS THAT NEED TO BE RECONSIDERED. IN CONCLUSION, LANDING FEES WERE ALREADY DISCUSSED. DISCARDED MOVE ON. THE BUDGET IS SET. NEW FEES ARE UNNECESSARY. LET'S CONCENTRATE TIME AND EFFORTS AND ADDRESSING THE MATTERS THAT MERIT THE SAME.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS THIS TIME? NONE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NOW WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT ITEM ITEM F1 PRESENTATION ON THE CITY OF NAPLES ORDINANCE. SO THIS HAS BEEN A TOPIC THAT HAS BEEN ON OUR AGENDA FOR A WHILE BY

[00:25:01]

IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. AWESOME. THE CITY ATTORNEY ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT MENTIONED THAT HE WOULD BE DISCUSSING IT INTERNALLY, BUT WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY DETAILED FEEDBACK. NO. SO AGAIN, BASED UPON THAT, I GUESS I THINK WHAT WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE THAT AFTER A ROBUST DISCUSSION, WE TRY TO HAVE A CONSENSUS THAT SAYS THE DOCUMENT THAT WE HAVE IN TOTAL IS APPROPRIATE AND IS SUPPORTED BY THE AUTHORITY COMMISSIONERS. FROM THAT STANDPOINT, WE HAVE PETER KIRSCH ON THE LINE TO GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF WHERE WE STAND CURRENTLY AND TO GIVE HIS ANALYSIS OF THE DOCUMENT AND WHY IT SHOULD BE SUPPORTED IN TOTAL. AND WITH THAT, I GUESS UNLESS THERE'S ANY OPENING COMMENTARY OR QUESTIONS FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, I'D LIKE TO. AND, CHRIS, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO AT THIS POINT. NO, CHAIR, I THINK YOU'VE SUMMARIZED IT VERY WELL. SO WITH THAT, I WOULD AGAIN LIKE TO INTRODUCE PETER AND CAN YOU HEAR ME, PETER? I CAN INDEED. GOOD MORNING, GOOD MORNING. GOOD. HAVE A FORMAL PRESENTATION TODAY. BUT I WANTED TO GIVE A COUPLE OF PREPARATORY COMMENTS ABOUT THE DRAFT OF THE CITY ORDINANCES THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. YOU MAY RECALL THAT WE PREVIOUSLY HAD A STAFF LEVEL PROVIDED CITY STAFF WITH A SET OF RED LINES OF THE ORDINANCES THAT WAS DELIBERATELY VERY MODEST IN THE PROPOSED CHANGES, WE TOOK OUT OR PROPOSED TO TAKE OUT LANGUAGE THAT WAS PARTICULARLY TROUBLESOME FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. FOLLOWING THAT, THE CITY AND CITY STAFF MADE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS ABOUT THE ORDINANCE THAT SUGGEST TO US THAT THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY THE LEGAL ISSUES AND THE LEGAL CONSTRAINTS THAT ARE IMPOSED ON THE AUTHORITY. AND SO, AS A RESULT, WE PREPARED A SECOND SET OF RED LINES THAT IS MUCH MORE EXPLICIT ON A COUPLE OF KEY ISSUES THAT WE BELIEVE ARE LEGALLY, CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO THE AUTHORITY. SO NUMBER ONE IS THE AUTHORITY. SOMEONE MAY ASK, WHY ARE WE BOTHERING TO TO COMMENT ON THIS ORDINANCE OR A CITY ORDINANCE HAS EXISTED FOR YEARS AND HAS NOT BEEN A PROBLEM. THAT IS ALL CORRECT. HOWEVER, UNDER OUR GRANT ASSURANCES, PARTICULARLY THOSE OF YOU WHO WANT TO FOLLOW IT, GRANT ASSURANCE NUMBER FIVE, THE AUTHORITY HAS AN OBLIGATION TO PROTECT ITS RIGHTS AND POWERS TO OPERATE THE AIRPORT AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND ITS LAND USE POWERS AND THE AUTHORITY HAS NOT BEEN AN ISSUE FOR THIS AUTHORITY FOR LITERALLY DECADES. HOWEVER, RECENTLY IT HAS BEEN, AND BECAUSE OF THE ISSUES THE CITY HAS RAISED AND THE ATTEMPTS THE CITY HAS MADE TO REGULATE AERONAUTICAL ACTIVITY AT THE AIRPORT, IT IS. IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE AUTHORITY UNDER ITS GRANT ASSURANCES TO PROTECT ITS RIGHTS, PROTECT ITS AUTHORITY TO CONTROL LAND USE ON THE AIRPORT. SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE'RE EVEN GETTING INVOLVED AT ALL, RATHER THAN JUST LETTING THE STATUS QUO BE AS IT IS. THE SECOND KEY ISSUE TO THINK ABOUT, AND I'M GOING TO I APOLOGIZE FOR A LITTLE BIT OF LEGAL 101 HERE, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WHEN AN ORDINANCE PRESENTS LEGAL PROBLEMS, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT WAYS IT CAN PRESENT PROBLEMS. ONE IS WHAT'S CALLED FACIALLY AND THE OTHER IS, AS APPLIED. A FACIALLY PROBLEMATIC ORDINANCE IS AN ORDINANCE THAT, JUST READING IT ON ITS FACE, PROPOSES TO TAKE ACTION. THAT'S ILLEGAL. AND AS APPLIED CHALLENGE OR AN AS APPLIED PROBLEM WITH THE ORDINANCE IS ONE THAT IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO LEGAL INTERPRETATION THAT MAKES IT VALID, BUT ALSO SUSCEPTIBLE TO LEGAL INTERPRETATION THAT MAKES IT INVALID. AND AN AS APPLIED MEANS YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE, THE LAW, IN A PARTICULAR INSTANCE. WE HAVE BEEN TRYING VERY HARD TO AVOID

[00:30:06]

OF COURSE, IT COULDN'T DO SO ANYWAY. THAT LAW THAT THE AMENDMENT TO THE AUTHORITY'S ENABLING ACT WAS INTENDED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT WHEN THERE IS PROPERTY THAT IS SUBJECT TO LOCAL LAND USE, THE CITY RETAINS THAT AUTHORITY. AND WE AGREE THE CITY RETAINS THE AUTHORITY IN THOSE AREAS WHERE FEDERAL LAW HAS NOT PREEMPTED THEIR AUTHORITY. THAT IS, THE NON-AERONAUTICAL FUNCTIONS OF THE AIRPORT. SO WITH THAT INTRODUCTION, MR. CHAIR, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR HOWEVER YOU WISH TO PROCEED, I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. ANY WAS VERY CLEAR TO ME. I'M SORRY. IT'S CLEAR. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. HAVE NO QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER NUMBER. VERY CLEAR. UNDERSTOOD. ACKNOWLEDGED. OKAY.

NOW, SO WITH THAT BEFORE, I GUESS I MOVE FOR CONSENSUS OR MOTION AS A WE'RE LOOKING FOR CONSENSUS ON WHETHER OR NOT TO FORMALLY SUBMIT THESE REVISIONS TO THE CITY. OKAY. SO AGAIN, I AGAIN, I WAS NOT I WAS A RANDOM LISTENER TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING YESTERDAY. I GUESS WE DO HAVE THE COUNCIL FOR THE CITY HERE. AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND, BUT I GUESS I'M A LITTLE UNCLEAR BECAUSE I GUESS THERE WAS AGAIN, NEW, NEW, NEW COUNCIL. WE WELCOME THAT LEADERSHIP. WE LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING A STRONGER AND MORE VIBRANT RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM. I'VE ALREADY REACHED OUT TO MR. KROLL, WHO I GUESS, AND SO. YES, PLEASE. SO SO BUT I WOULDN'T. SO I GUESS WHAT I DID HEAR THAT THERE WAS DISCUSSION AROUND THEM, PERHAPS DROPPING THIS ACTIVITY. AND OBVIOUSLY THOSE ARE RANDOM COMMENTS. I KNOW THEY WEREN'T ENDORSED IN TOTAL FROM THAT STANDPOINT. AND I, I DO NOT ENVY YOU IN TERMS OF YOUR LIFE. FROM MY STANDPOINT. I HAVE FUN EVERY DAY. SO AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO WELCOME ATTORNEY MCCONNELL HERE. THAT WOULD THE CITY COUNCIL. AND WE WOULD OPEN UP THE MIC TO YOUR COMMENTS.

AND MAYBE IF YOU WOULD BE WILLING, ANY QUESTIONS WE MIGHT HAVE. SURE. I DON'T WANT THIS TO TURN INTO TOO MUCH OF A Q&A, BECAUSE I THINK THE IDEA HERE, AND I KNOW MR. YOUNG HAS REACHED OUT TO MR. ROSANSKY TO SCHEDULE A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND

[00:35:01]

[00:40:02]

NAPLES UTILIZATION PLAN, WHICH WAS LAST PRESENTED IN 2021. OUR OFFICE WAS THEN ASKED TO GO THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAY OUT THE PROCESS OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE FOR CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE UTILIZATION PLAN AND WHETHER OR NOT THE NAPLES JET CENTER WAS DEPICTED ON THE UTILIZATION PLAN. BECAUSE OF THE BOXES THAT WERE USED ON THE UTILIZATION PLAN, THAT DID NOT INCLUDE SPECIFIC DETAIL. OUR OPINION STATED THAT IT WAS NOT CLEARLY DEPICTED, AND ALL SITE PLANS AND ALL UTILIZATION PLANS MUST GO TO CITY COUNCIL, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAYS. SO THAT'S A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF OF WHAT OUR OPINION STATES, WHEREAS WHERE THE CORRELATION IS. SO THEN WHERE THAT STEMMED FROM OR WOULD THAT CREATED WAS JUST, OKAY, LET'S NOT LEAVE THIS OPEN FOR INTERPRETATION. LET'S JUST CLARIFY SOME OF THE THINGS IN THE CODE SO THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN. THAT'S ULTIMATELY THE ONLY GOAL HERE. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH IT, THEN THAT'S FINE. I THINK COUNCIL ULTIMATELY IS GOING TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER WE NEED AN ORDINANCE OR NOT, AND THAT'S UP TO THEM. THE PROCESS HAS BEEN THE SAME. WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE PROCESS. IT'S JUST WE BELIEVE THE COMP PLAN REQUIRES CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL BECAUSE IT SAYS IT IN PLAIN LANGUAGE.

REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THIS IS AN AERONAUTICAL FUNCTION OR NOT. CORRECT. AND I GUESS MY QUESTION TO MR. KIRSCH IS WHY HAVE THE OTHER PLANS NOT DIFFERENTIATED AERONAUTICAL AND NON-AERONAUTICAL, BUT THE AIR HAS NEVER HAD AN ISSUE WITH IT AND THEY'VE BEEN APPROVED. WHY CHANGE THINGS NOW? BUT WHY NOT MAKE THINGS MORE CLEAR? BECAUSE THIS ORDINANCE IS INTRODUCING NEW LANGUAGE THAT IS NOT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. YES, BECAUSE ALL THE UNDERLYING LANGUAGE IS BRAND NEW. CORRECT? AND SO WHY NOT MAKE PROVIDE FURTHER CLARITY BY, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THERE'S A DISTINCTION BETWEEN NON AERONAUTICAL AND AERONAUTICAL AND COMPLY WITH ALL REGULATIONS, NOT JUST OUR LOCAL REGULATIONS. BECAUSE IF THERE IS A CONFLICT WITH THE CITY'S REGULATIONS, THE HIGHER AUTHORITY WOULD PREVAIL. CORRECT. POTENTIALLY.

BUT I THINK THE REASON YOU'RE SEEING A LOT OF UNDERLINE IS BECAUSE OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS OUR CONTROLLING DOCUMENT. OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES NEED TO BE IN LINE WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, I THINK, TO DO WHAT MR. KIRSCH IS SAYING. WE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THESE REGULATIONS ARE STEMMING FROM THE POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE WAY I READ IT, NO, BECAUSE YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE JUST PROVIDES MORE SPECIFICITY THAN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS GENERAL, JUST LIKE OUR MASTER PLAN IS GENERAL. AND THERE'S MORE SPECIFICITY IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. SO YOU'RE PROVIDING THE SPECIFICITY AS A PART OF YOUR LDC, CORRECT? RIGHT. AND SO YOU WOULDN'T NEED TO AMEND THE COMP PLAN. YOU'RE JUST PROVIDING THAT THE MORE SPECIFICITY IN THE LAND CODE AND THE COMP PLAN GENERALLY SAYS WE NEED A UTILIZATION PLAN, WE NEED A MASTER PLAN AND THOSE THINGS, BUT IT DOESN'T PROVIDE THAT SPECIFICITY WHICH YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE. OKAY. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT WHEN WE DO HAVE THIS JOINT MEETING, I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY, VERY BENEFICIAL IF ALL THE ATTORNEYS, INCLUDING THE

[00:45:04]

AND THE OTHER POINT IS, IN TERMS OF WHAT COMMISSIONER ARNOLD TALKED ABOUT, THAT KIND OF A LEGAL ISSUE THAT I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT RESOLVED BEFOREHAND BY THE ATTORNEY. SO WE'RE NOT DEBATING THAT AS INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'D LOVE TO SAY WE AGREE. HERE'S WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND USE STATUTES. AND THEREFORE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DISCUSS IT FOR 45 MINUTES AND NOT COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THOSE KIND OF GROUND RULES WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO HAVING A VERY PRODUCTIVE MEETING. SO I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP. I WOULD I WOULD ALSO ADD, GIVEN THAT WE HAVE TWO NEW MEMBERS HERE WHO MAYBE ARE NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH THE NAPLES JET CENTER ISSUE AS THE THREE OF US OR TWO OF US, BOB, THAT WE HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE BRIEFING DOCUMENT SO WE CAN GO INTO THAT PROPERLY BRIEFED. CHAIR, IF I MAY, MATTHEW, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU BELIEVE QUARTERLY MEETINGS ARE REQUIRED WHEN THE COMP PLAN ACTUALLY SAYS QUARTERLY SLASH ANNUALLY? AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NEVER BEEN QUARTERLY MEETINGS BETWEEN THE FAA AND THE CITY. HOWEVER WE DO, I DO APPEAR EACH YEAR TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AND WE PRESENT OUR BUDGET, WHICH INCLUDES A DETAILED SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT AT THE AIRPORT. SO AT A VERY MINIMUM, IT'S MY BELIEF THAT WE HAVE BEEN HONORING THAT STATEMENT IN THE COMP PLAN, BUT I'M LESS CLEAR ON THE STATEMENT ITSELF QUARTERLY, ANNUALLY AND WHAT THAT EVEN MEANS. SURE, I CAN SEND YOU THE POLICY. I READ IT THAT IT SAYS QUARTERLY. I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR SAYS QUARTERLY ANNUALLY. I DON'T HAVE THE POLICY IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I JUST READ IT YESTERDAY. WHAT IT SAYS AGAIN, MY JOB AS CITY ATTORNEY IS TO ADVISE COUNSEL. OUR CONTROLLING DOCUMENT IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHILE I CAN APPRECIATE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS, I THINK IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. THAT'S A REQUIREMENT BY THE CITY. SO WOULD IT BE THE CITY'S OBLIGATION TO CALL UP MR. ROSANSKY AND SAY, WE NEED A QUARTERLY MEETING, PLEASE? CORRECT. AND I BELIEVE THOSE ACTIONS. MR. ROSANSKY, FOR A QUARTERLY MEETING VERY RECENTLY, YOU KNOW, CITY MANAGER REQUESTED WE SCHEDULE A JOINT WORKSHOP. I GET I GET A LITTLE FRUSTRATED IN TERMS OF THAT.

THERE'S A LARGE AMOUNT OF DEDICATED CITY EMPLOYEES MANAGING ALL THESE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE IT EFFECTIVELY, AND THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION, I BELIEVE, TO INFORM THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON AND BEING DEALT WITH IN THEIR OFFICES. AND SO THIS IDEA THAT SOMEHOW BUILDINGS WERE BUILT HERE AND NOBODY KNEW ABOUT THEM, I SEE IT AS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY TO MAKE SURE THEY'VE GOT GOOD COMMUNICATION WITHIN THEIR ORGANIZATIONS ALL THE WAY UP TO THE TOP TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ISN'T ANY CONFUSION OR LACK OF TRANSPARENCY. AND I APPRECIATE THAT. I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE FOR THAT STANDPOINT. NO PROBLEM, NO PROBLEM. YOU GOT A LOT GOING ON. THIS IS JUST ONE ITEM OF A LONG LIST OF THINGS YOU'RE DEALING WITH WITH A NEW CITY COUNCIL. AND I, FOR ONE, APPRECIATE AS A CITIZEN, I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK AND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH FOR THE CITIZENS OF NAPLES. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO THANK YOU. SO NEXT TIME I SEE YOU WILL BE AT A QUARTERLY OR JOINT MEETING. BUT I APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. THANKS. SO WITH THAT I GUESS I'D LIKE TO GET A. SO I THINK I DID HEAR A CONSENSUS WITH REGARDS TO ACCEPTING MR. KIRSCH'S DOCUMENT HERE AS, AS THE DOCUMENT THAT IS WENT OUT TO THEM AND WE FULLY ENDORSE IT IN TERMS OF OUR POSITION WITH REGARDS TO THE ORDINANCES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED BY THE CITY.

MR. KIRSCH, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS FOR US, OR DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. KIRSCH WHILE HE'S ON THE LINE? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, CHAIR. I BELIEVE HE IS GOING TO STAY ON JUST IN THE BACKGROUND IN CASE. ANY QUESTIONS?

[00:50:16]

JUST A QUICK OVERVIEW OF RATES AND CHARGES. SO INITIALLY THE AIRPORT PRESENTS RATES AND CHARGES. WE DO AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY FISCAL YEAR. YOU KNOW THE AIRPORT IS USER FEE BASED.

SO WE AGAIN WE DO NOT TAKE ANY LOCAL TAX DOLLARS. AND ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE FUNDED BY THE AUTHORITY THROUGH USER FEES AND SOME GRANTS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. WE DO LOOK AT OUR BUDGET ON A COST RECOVERY MODEL. SO WHEN WE GO TO ESTABLISH RATES AND CHARGES, WE LOOK AT OUR BUDGET EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR TAKEN BY THE THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE COMING IN. AND WE CURRENTLY DO CHARGE A FEE. WE CALL IT A AIRFIELD COST RECOVERY FEE. IT'S ACTUALLY EMBEDDED IN THE PRICE OF FUEL. SO I'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT IN A SECOND. BUT WHEN WE DID THE RATES AND CHARGES, WE ALSO LOOKED, YOU KNOW, AS PART OF YOU KNOW. YOU KNOW, THE FAA OVERSIGHT, YOU KNOW, ALL AERONAUTICAL USERS HAVE TO HAVE HAVE AIR AIRFIELD ACCESS. WE DO IT ON A FAIR, REASONABLE BASIS. SO ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS. THE NEXT SLIDE JUST TALKS ABOUT OUR OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE YEAR. AND WE HAVE NOT CHANGED THIS. THIS IS THE AMENDED BUDGET THAT WAS DONE A COUPLE MEETINGS AGO. THE NEXT SLIDE IS OUR FIVE YEAR FORECAST. THIS IS WHAT WE DO AS PART OF OUR OUR LAST BUDGET. WE DID THIS IS PULLED FROM THERE. WE DO A55 YEAR CASH FORECAST TO SEE WHAT OUR PROJECTED EXPENSES PROJECTED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE. YOU CAN SEE THEIR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ARE EXPECTED TO BE ABOUT $110 MILLION OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. WE DO HAVE GRANT PROCEEDS OF ABOUT 42 MILLION IN THERE AS WELL. AND BELOW THERE ARE SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT THAT WE HAVE FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. SO OVERVIEW OF LANDING FEES PER FAA POLICY AND LANDING FEES CAN BE ASSESSED TO RECOVER THE COST TO OPERATE THE AIRFIELD. AGAIN, HISTORICALLY, WE'VE CHARGED THIS IN THE ACR, THE AIRFIELD COST RECOVERY FEE THAT'S CURRENTLY $0.75 PER GALLON. WHEN USERS BUY FUEL. SINCE THE AIRPORT SELLS ALL THE FUEL AT THE AIRPORT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS BEEN AN EASY WAY TO COLLECT THIS FEE IN LIEU OF THE LANDING. SO THE NEXT THING WE LOOKED AT IS WE DID A COMPARISON OF LAST FISCAL YEAR OF HOW MANY AIRCRAFT LANDINGS, HOW MANY FUEL TRANSACTIONS THEY HAD, YOU KNOW, SO WE LOOKED AT, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY 98% OF THE JETS PURCHASED SOME AMOUNT OF FUEL, ABOUT 60% OF THE PISTON AIRCRAFT PURCHASED FUEL. SO THAT SHOWS YOU THOSE LANDINGS. THEY DID CONTRIBUTE TO THE COST OF THE AIRFIELD THROUGH THE THE ACR FEE. SO TYPICALLY ARE BASED ON THE WEIGHT OF THE AIRCRAFT.

SO I'LL DO A SLIDE HERE. THAT KIND OF SHOWS HOW THAT WORKS. BUT OTHER AIRPORTS DO THIS. AND THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, A MODEL THAT'S USED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. AGAIN, THIS IS A SLIDE THAT SHOWS. JUST SO FOR YOUR INFORMATION, YOU KNOW, THE SMALLER PLANES ARE YOU KNOW, THE CESSNA'S ARE ABOUT 2 TO 3000 POUNDS UP TO THE, THE THE LARGER JETS ARE OVER, YOU KNOW, THE THE MOST POPULAR CRAFT HERE IS LIKE THE PHENOM 300. I THINK THAT'S AROUND 9 OR 10,000 POUNDS. SO THE DIFFERENT WAYS OF COST RECOVERY, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE DO IT NOW. IT'S INCLUDED IN THE PRICE OF FUEL. THE PROS OF THIS IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A VERY EFFICIENT PROCESS. IT'S JUST PART OF THE FUEL COSTS. WHEN THEY PURCHASE IT, WE BILL IT AND COLLECT IT AT THE TIME OF SERVICE. YOU KNOW, THE LARGER AIRCRAFT THAT TAKE MORE FUEL OBVIOUSLY PAY MORE IN THAT FEE THAN THE SMALLER AIRCRAFT DO. THE CONS, YOU KNOW, THE AIRCRAFT THAT DON'T BUY FUEL. YOU CAN SEE IN THE EARLIER SLIDE, YOU KNOW, 60% OF THE PISTON PLANES DIDN'T

[00:55:02]

AND THEN I'LL POINT OUT THAT THE, YOU KNOW, USERS THAT USE THE UL94 FUEL, WHICH THE AUTHORITY AND THE BOARD AGREED TO SUBSIDIZE, THEY DON'T PAY ANY, ANY ANYTHING TOWARD THAT BECAUSE WE SUBSIDIZE THAT, THAT COST. SO THE SECOND METHOD IS THROUGH THE LANDING FEES. AND THIS WILL BE A SEPARATE BILL THAT THE USER GETS AT THE WHEN THE AIRCRAFT LANDS. THE PROS ARE THAT, YOU KNOW, ALL AIRCRAFT. WOULD THAT LAND AT THE AIRPORT WOULD SHARE IN THE COST RECOVERY OF THE MAINTAIN THE AIRFIELD. THE THE HEAVIER PLANES WOULD OBVIOUSLY PAY MORE BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON WEIGHT. SOME OF THE CONS ARE THAT IT WOULD BE BUILDING COLLECTED BY A THIRD PARTY. BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEXITY OF DOING THIS, WE WOULD OUTSOURCE THAT. AND IT WOULD TAKE PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, 30 TO 60 DAYS FOR THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY TO COLLECT IT VERSUS A FEW DAYS THE CURRENT, THE WAY IT'S DONE. I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE ARE SEVERAL OR THERE'S A BILL AT THE STATE OF FLORIDA RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD PROPOSE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD PROHIBIT USING ADSB. THAT'S BASICALLY THE GPS TRACKING OF AIRCRAFT. IT PROHIBITS THAT TO BE IN FOR BEING USED TO BILL AIRCRAFT A LANDING FEE. SO THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO USE A CAMERA SYSTEM, WHICH WE CURRENTLY HAVE INSTALLED. WE'VE HAD IT FOR 5 OR 6 YEARS NOW. THEY BASICALLY TAKE A PICTURE OF THE AIRCRAFT WHEN IT LANDS AND THEN USE THE THAT INFORMATION TO, TO BUILD THE THE AIRCRAFT OWNER. SO THAT WOULD ENTAIL, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD CHARGE A, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A PERCENTAGE WE'D HAVE TO PAY LATER ON IN THE BOARD AGENDA. IF THE BOARD CHOOSES TO GO THROUGH WITH LANDING FEES. THERE WAS A CONTRACT WITH THE COMPANY THAT DOES THIS. IT'S ABOUT A 9 TO 10% FEE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO PAY. SO WE LOOKED AT TWO OPTIONS. ONE WAS CHARGING THE LANDING FEES TO ALL AIRCRAFT THAT LAND HERE, $5 A THOUSAND WOULD GENERATE 1.7 MILLION FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS FISCAL YEAR. AGAIN, SINCE THE BUDGET'S ALREADY BEEN SET FOR THIS YEAR, WE WOULD MAKE THIS REVENUE NEUTRAL SO WE WOULD REDUCE THE PRICE OF THE FUEL, YOU KNOW, THE FEE THAT'S EMBEDDED IN THE PRICE OF THE FUEL WOULD GO DOWN TO OFFSET THIS $1.7 MILLION. SO IT WOULD BE REVENUE NEUTRAL TO THE AUTHORITY FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR. OPTION TWO WOULD ONLY BE TO CHARGE TRANSIENT AIRCRAFT. SO ALL ATTENDANTS WOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THIS. AND THE SAME $5 PER THOUSAND DOLLAR MINIMUM WOULD GENERATE ABOUT $900,000 IN REVENUE. AND AGAIN, THE TRANSIENT FUEL PRICE WOULD GO DOWN NOW. SO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE FUEL PRICES, YOU KNOW, IN OUR RATES AND CHARGES, I BELIEVE TENANTS PAY TWO FOR JET FUEL, PAY 210 A GALLON. RIGHT NOW, TRANSIENTS COULD PAY UP TO 350, DEPENDING ON IF IT'S DURING SEASON OR OFF SEASON. SO THAT THAT FEE WOULD BE ADJUSTED.

AND THE LAST SLIDE IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF HOW MUCH THESE LANDING FEES WOULD BE. JUST TO PUT IT IN RELATIVE TERMS, YOU KNOW, FOR A SMALL SINGLE ENGINE PLANE, IT'D BE 10 TO $15. AND YOU CAN SEE THE QUANTITY OF LANDINGS, YOU KNOW, 61,000 LANDINGS HERE LAST YEAR, OVER HALF OF THEM WERE FOR THE SMALLER PLANES, THE LARGER JETS, AGAIN, THE PHENOM 300, ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR JETS, WOULD PAY $85 FEE AND THE LARGER JETS COULD PAY UP TO ALMOST $400 FEE.

WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. WHAT WAS THERE A DECISION NOT TO CHARGE THE FEE FOR THE UL? UL IS ABOUT $3 A GALLON MORE THAN THE NORMAL AVGAS THAT MOST PISTON AIRCRAFT USE. SO THE BOARD A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO MADE A DECISION TO MAKE THAT THE PRICE THE SAME, SO WE COULD GET USERS TO USE THE UNLEADED FUEL VERSUS THE LEADED FUEL. SO IT WAS A DECISION MADE AT THE TIME. COMMISSIONER ARNOLD, IF I MAY ADD, THE UNLEADED AVGAS IS MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY AND THERE IS AN INDUSTRY WIDE PUSH TO PHASE OUT THE TRADITIONAL AVGAS, THE 100 OCTANE LOW LEAD FUEL 100 LX IT'S REFERRED TO AS, BUT WE'RE NOT QUITE THERE YET. THE TECHNOLOGY IS PROGRESSING. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF FUELS THAT ARE IN TESTING, HOWEVER. THIS 94 OCTANE FUEL CAN BE USED BY A ABOUT ONE THIRD OF THE BASED PISTON AIRCRAFT AT THE AIRPORT. BUT WE SURVEYED THIS IS MAYBE 2 OR 3 YEARS AGO. WE

[01:00:04]

INSIDE THE QUIET SOLITUDE OF YOUR HOME, YOU'RE HEARING ALMOST NO NO SOUND AT ALL. SO SOUND OF A PLANE, EVEN 250 EVENTS IS ENOUGH TO CAUSE PROBLEMS. I UNDERSTAND THAT, I UNDERSTAND IT'S ONLY 2%, BUT I'M TRYING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. THAT'S WHY I PROPOSED THE LANDING FEES. IN THIS CASE. KEITH AND I AGREE 100%. WE GOT THIS REVENUE. WE GOT THIS EXCESS REVENUE. I SEE THAT AS AN ISSUE. I SEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REDISTRIBUTE WHERE THOSE COSTS ARE GOING TO, BECAUSE TODAY THE COSTS FOR THESE NOISE STUDIES THAT WE DO. AND BY THE WAY, WE HAVE TEN PAGES OF NOISE REPORTING IN THIS THING. WE HAVE DOZENS OF PEOPLE WORKING ON IT. THOUSANDS OF HOURS ARE SPENT BY THE FAA TO ADDRESS NOISE AND SOMEONE'S COVERING IT.

AND THAT'S SOMEONE IS YOU TODAY. AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CAUSING THE BIGGEST PART OF THE PROBLEM ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS THE NOISE. SO I'D I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT BALANCE SHIFT THAT THE FOLKS WHO ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE NOISE ARE PAYING SOMETHING TOWARDS HELPING COVER THESE COSTS. THAT'S MY GOAL. AND ACTUALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE COST RELIEF FROM YOU WHO ARE CURRENTLY PAYING FOR THOSE INFRACTIONS AND NOT INCURRING THEM. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM. I KNOW YOU GUYS OBJECT AND YOU'VE USED THE WORD IMPLACABLY OBJECT. I HOPE TO CHANGE YOUR MIND. I WANT TO AGAIN SEE THE COSTS REDISTRIBUTED TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CAUSING THE COST TO THE NA, BE THE ONES THAT ARE SHOULDERING SOME OF THIS BURDEN,

[01:05:05]

THAT'S MY GOAL. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. I'D JUST LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, THAT I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH YOU VERY ELOQUENTLY SAID COMMISSIONER DALBERTO. I'M ALSO, AS A SEGUE TO THAT, VERY AWARE THAT WE ARE SOMEWHAT NEUTERED. I GUESS YOU CAN ONLY NEUTERED PART OUR PART 161 INITIATIVE LAST YEAR, AND I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO START THAT AGAIN.

AND I SEE THE IMPOSITION OF LANDING FEES AS A GOOD SOURCE OF REVENUE TO TO PAY FOR THIS INITIATIVE. WE KNOW THIS IS A MULTI-YEAR INITIATIVE. AND SO THAT ALSO COMES IN WITH HOPEFULLY SOME NOISE REDUCTION. SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THIS. I LIKE THE ANALOGY OR THE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOUT THE DECIBEL LEVELS DURING THE DAY VERSUS AT NIGHT. AND WE'RE WE'RE WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GOOD NEIGHBORS TO ALL OF OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND, AND TRYING TO. PROVIDE A NEXUS BETWEEN THE THE VIOLATORS AND THE COST TO PROVIDE SOME OF THESE STUDIES FOR NOISE ABATEMENT AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. I THINK THAT'S GOOD INFORMATION TO HAVE. I JUST AM NOT SURE I HAVE ALL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION TO DETERMINE IF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED TODAY IS THE THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT, I MIGHT ADD THAT AS I ARRIVED THIS MORNING, I ASKED MR. ROSANSKY AND HE ASKED DONALD BYRON, ARE WE SELLING FUEL DURING THE CURFEW HOURS JUST TO FIND OUT WHO WE ARE OR NOT? BECAUSE MY CONTENTION IS THAT THEY'RE NOT CONTRIBUTING. AND JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO, MAYBE WE CAN ADD THIS TO THE RECORDS BYRON DROPPED OFF THAT WE'VE THIS FISCAL YEAR, WHICH IS STARTING OCTOBER 1ST, WE'VE HAD 15 SALES OF FUEL DURING THE CURFEW HOURS. NOW THE FULL SERVICE IS NOT AVAILABLE. IT'S CLOSED. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SELF-SERVE. WE'VE HAD 15 SALES DURING THE CURFEW HOURS. THIS INDICATES TO ME WITH 250 VIOLATIONS OR MORE THAT NO, THEY'RE NOT CONTRIBUTING IN ANY WAY TOWARDS THE COSTS, THE SIGNIFICANT COST. AND YOU TALK ABOUT PART ONE 6161. THAT'S ANOTHER $5 MILLION PROJECT. I'M NOT SURE I WANT TO GO THAT WAY.

WE'VE ALREADY SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, 2 OR $3 MILLION ON NOISE, AND WE'RE TRYING TO COVER IT. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE RIGHT PEOPLE ARE CONTRIBUTING TO IT, NOT JUST THE GOOD TENANTS WE HAVE HERE AND THE GOOD OPERATORS WE HAVE HERE. WE SPREAD THAT LOAD. I'D LOVE TO REVISIT THINGS LIKE YOU TALKED ABOUT HANGAR LEASE FEES AND HANGAR FEES, AND ALSO PUT SOME PREDICTABILITY TO IT AND ALSO REALIZE, LET'S LET'S SPREAD THESE COSTS APPROPRIATELY. SO YOU FEEL BETTER. CAN YOU HELP ME? I'M A LITTLE I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT. THERE'S LANDING FEES IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO IMPOSE THEM ACROSS THE BOARD 24 OVER SEVEN, 24 HOURS A DAY. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. BUT YOU KEEP ON TALKING ABOUT CURFEW.

AND SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE NEXUS IN TERMS OF YOUR THINKING IN TERMS OF CURFEW AND LANDING FEES? THANK YOU FOR ASKING ME THAT. I WANT TO CLARIFY. YEAH. MANY AIRPORTS, MANY, MANY AIRPORTS, PARTICULARLY THE TOP AIRPORTS IN THE COUNTRY THAT LOOK LIKE OURS IN TERMS OF SERVICE CHARGE, LANDING FEES FOR ALL OPERATORS. WE DON'T. WHAT I WANT TO DO IS TO NONRESIDENTS. TRANSIENT OPERATORS HAVE A SPECIFIC FEE FOR THEM, BECAUSE OUR LOCAL RESIDENTS ARE ALREADY CONTRIBUTING THROUGH THEIR LEASE FEES AND THROUGH THEIR HANGAR FEES, AND THROUGH THEIR PURCHASES OF FUELS. EVERY DAY, THEY'RE CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS OUR COSTS AND SPECIFICALLY OUR NOISE COSTS. THE TRANSIENTS WHO ARE NOT BUYING FUEL ARE NOT, ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING. NOW, IF THEY DO BUY FUEL, THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING. AND THIS IS WHAT KEITH IS PROPOSING, AN OPTION TWO, YOU'RE GOING TO GET BACK YOUR LANDING FEES BY THE DISCOUNTS YOU BUY IN THE FUEL. AND FOR THOSE OPERATORS, PARTICULARLY FOR FLYING IN CURFEW HOURS, THEY'RE NOT BUYING FUEL, SO THEY'RE NOT CONTRIBUTING IN ANY WAY. SO IF WE DO THIS, TRANSIENT OPERATORS ACROSS THE BOARD, THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE REALLY GOING TO BE THE ONES NOT BUYING FUEL, AND THAT TURNS OUT TO BE THE SUBSET THAT'S COMING IN DURING CURFEW HOURS. MY CONTENTION IS THAT, IS THAT TRUE, THAT MOST OF OUR VIOLATORS ARE TRANSIENT? NOT NECESSARILY. THERE ARE SOME WHO ARE NOT. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, THESE THESE OPERATORS HERE STRIVE VERY HARD TO ENSURE THEIR CUSTOMERS FLY IN DURING REGULAR HOURS. AND THEY DO A

[01:10:01]

LANDING AND THEN A TAKEOFF. RIGHT. AND THEY'RE ALSO IN MUCH SMALLER SINGLE ENGINED PISTON AIRCRAFT. CORRECT. WERE THERE NOISE FOOTPRINT IS LESS THAN A. IT'S ALL RELATIVE. SOME PEOPLE ARE ANNOYED BY THE JETS. SOME PEOPLE ARE ANNOYED BY THE FLIGHT TRAINING. NOW YOU CAN IF YOU WANT TO. THE BEST DATA POINT WE HAVE ON WHETHER IT'S TRANSIENT OR BASED IS IN THE NOISE REPORT AND THE THE CURFEW VIOLATIONS. I WILL HAVE THAT IN OUR REPORT TODAY. RIGHT. IT'S IN YOUR BOARD REPORT. CORRECT. SO AS TERRY, COMMISSIONER CAVANAUGH IS IS POINTING OUT, IS THERE IS COMMENTS REGARDING THE CURFEW VERSUS THE TRANSIENT. AND MAYBE WE OUGHT TO LOOK AT JUST THE TRANSIENTS IF WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE PROVIDING THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE OPERATIONS. INDEED, I THINK TO SAY ONLY CURFEW WOULD BE VIOLATION OF SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE HEARD TODAY. AND I AGREE WITH THAT. IF YOU SAY TRANSIENTS, THEY'RE NOT PAYING LEASE FEES, THEY'RE NOT PAYING RENTAL FEES. IF THEY'RE HERE DURING OPERATING HOURS, THEY'RE PROBABLY BUYING FUEL AND THEY'RE THEY'RE GETTING THERE. THEY'RE GETTING THE TRANSIENT LANDING FEES REIMBURSED TO THEM THROUGH THE FUEL DISCOUNTS. IF THEY'RE NOT BUYING FUEL, THEN THEY'RE CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS THE NOISE ABATEMENT COSTS THAT WE HAVE. AND GENERALLY THE ONES WHO ARE FLYING AT NIGHT ARE BUYING THE LEAST AMOUNT OF FUEL. SO THAT'S THE THAT'S THE CONTEXT OF THEM HAVING A BIGGER BURDEN. THE POINT IS THAT EVERYONE WHO OPERATES AT THE AIRPORT, AND PARTICULARLY CONTRIBUTES TO THE NOISE THAT WE'RE INCURRING SO MUCH COST ON, SHOULD BE CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS THOSE COSTS ARE GOOD, RESIDENTS ARE GOOD. HANGAR GUYS ARE OPERATORS HERE, RESIDENTS HERE ARE ALL CONTRIBUTING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER FOR THOSE THAT ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING. AND THAT'S SUBSIDIES, TYPICALLY TRANSIENT OPERATORS. I THINK POINT ON PAGE FIVE OF KEN'S PRESENTATION, 40% OF PISTON AIRCRAFT DID NOT PURCHASE FUEL IN THAT SITUATION, SO 40% NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE COST OF RUNNING THE POSSIBLY, POSSIBLY, POSSIBLY BECAUSE IF YOU'RE FLYING DURING REGULAR HOURS, THEY MIGHT BE BUYING FUEL AND THEREFORE THEY WOULD SEE THERE. THIS IS ACTUALLY SAYING THAT 60% OF PISTON ENGINED AIRCRAFT PURCHASE FUEL, WHICH IMPLIES 40% DID NOT. RIGHT? YEAH, 40% ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE COST OF. SO THE QUESTION IS, NOW THAT WE'RE RECOVERING THOSE COSTS, IT'S NOT A REVENUE GRAB. I WANT TO TAKE THAT OFF THE TABLE. WE'RE WE'RE RETURNING THAT. THE QUESTION IS WHO DO WE RETURN THAT TO. THE PROPOSAL HERE SAYS WE RETURN IT BACK TO THOSE USERS, THOSE SAME USERS, WHICH IS CERTAINLY ONE OPTION. I'M NOT SURE I'M FULLY SATISFIED WITH THAT. I THINK THERE'S THE OTHER FOLKS WHO ARE CONTRIBUTING AND NOT HAVING VIOLATIONS, AND MAYBE WE SHOULD SEE THEM SEE THE REIMBURSEMENT WE CAN DO. YEAH. AND WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM? ARE TWO BIGGEST SOURCES OF REVENUE OR FUEL SALES AND RENTS AND LEASES. AND I KNOW RENTS AND LEASES CONTINUES TO BE A PROBLEM. I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON THAT AS SAYING, MAYBE THIS IS WHERE WE ADDRESS THE RETURN OF SOME OF THAT MONEY. CHAIR, IF I MAY. I KNOW THERE'S SOME POTENTIAL COMPLIANCE ISSUES MENTIONED TODAY. SO WE DO HAVE COUNCIL. MR. KIRSCH STILL ON IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK HIM ANY QUESTIONS. YEAH. MR. KIRSCH, CAN YOU GIVE US ANY FEEDBACK BASED UPON WHAT YOU'VE HEARD OVER THE LAST 20 MINUTES? YES, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF ISSUES WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT. IF YOU ARE IMPOSING A LANDING FEE WITH THE PURPOSE OF DISCOURAGING CURFEW VIOLATIONS, YOU NEED TO GO THROUGH A PART 161 STUDY BEFORE YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO THAT. THE REASON IS THAT THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE A USE OR ACCESS RESTRICTION.

ESSENTIALLY, IT WOULD BE TAKING THE VOLUNTARY CURFEW AND MAKING IT MANDATORY. SO YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL IF YOU TALK ABOUT THAT BEING AN OBJECTIVE, YOU CERTAINLY CAN CHARGE FEES FOR CERTAIN KINDS OF OPERATIONS, BUT NOT IF THE BASIS IS TO DISCOURAGE THOSE OPERATIONS. SO THAT'S THAT'S PART NUMBER ONE. PART NUMBER TWO IS THAT IT IS GENERALLY NOT PERMISSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN TRANSIENT AND BASED AIRCRAFT FOR PURPOSES OF A LANDING FEE. BUT THERE'S AN IMPORTANT EXCEPTION WHERE YOU CAN DO THAT. AND THAT IS IF YOU HAVE AN AIRCRAFT OWNER THAT LEASES SPACE FROM THE AUTHORITY DIRECTLY, YOU CAN, AS AN ELEMENT OF THAT LEASE, PROVIDE

[01:15:02]

SO I DON'T WANT TO SAY YOU CAN'T DO THAT. IT JUST YOU NEED TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT IT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE NOT DISCRIMINATING AGAINST PEOPLE WHO ARE FREQUENT USERS OF THE AIRPORT, BUT DON'T HAPPEN TO TO HAVE ANY LEASE ARRANGEMENT WITH THE AUTHORITY. ANYTHING ELSE FROM STAFF OR COUNSEL ON OUR SIDE HERE? I WOULD JUST ADD THAT. TO BE CERTAIN IT WOULD BE, I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF WE HAD A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO WORK THROUGH SOME OF THE TECHNICALITIES WITH COUNCIL ON THIS. IF IF THIS WAS AN INITIATIVE YOU WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH. OKAY. SO AGAIN. THERE WAS IT WAS ON THE AGENDA HERE TO TO TAKE A VOTE FROM THAT STANDPOINT. CORRECT. YEAH. WELL THIS ITEM IS PRESENTATION. THE ACTION ITEM APPEARS LATER IN THE AGENDA. THE ACTION ITEM IS TO HIRE THE THIRD PARTY FIRM, ENGAGE A THIRD PARTY. SO THIS PART IS TO GAIN CONSENSUS ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD. WE DON'T NEED TO AGAIN. ONCE AGAIN, WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THE CONSULTANT IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO MOVE FORWARD.

SO CORRECT. SO I GUESS MAYBE IS IT A CONSENSUS OR A MOTION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT IN TERMS OF ENDORSING AND ACCEPTING LANDING FEES? WELL, WE ON THIS ITEM, WE JUST NEED A CONSENSUS. SO I GUESS I SO I DID I DID RAISE THE MOTION. THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME AMBIGUITY HERE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CERTAINLY ALIGNED WITH, WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ON HOW TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOVER THE COSTS THAT WE'RE INCURRING FOR NOISE. WE HAVE MILLIONS THAT WE'VE INVESTED THUS FAR. AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE STUDY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER $5 MILLION. THIS SHOULD BE COVERED BY THIS SHOULD BE COVERED REVENUE. AND IT SHOULD NOT GO BACK TO PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE PROBLEM.

I THINK EVERYONE SHOULD CONTRIBUTE THEIR FAIR SHARE. SO I THOUGHT LANDING FEES WERE A WAY OF DOING THAT. AGAIN, THE PROBLEM YOU TALK ABOUT IS NOISE CREATION. THE COSTS THAT WE EXPEND TO ADDRESS THE NOISE ISSUES. I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL THAT WE DON'T CONNECT LANDING FEES WITH WITH THAT ISSUE FROM THIS, I GUESS, IF I MAY, THE CHALLENGE, YOU KNOW, LANDING FEES, FAA HAS SOME POLICY ON THIS AND IT'S TO PRIMARILY TO RECOVER THE COSTS TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE AIRFIELD. SO IT HAS TO BE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE AIRFIELD. WHEREAS NOISE IS A FACTOR IN EXPENSES DRIVEN FROM NOISE ARE A FACTOR. THAT'S JUST ONE PORTION OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE, I THINK, KEN, INCLUDING NOISE. WHAT DO WE IN OUR COST CENTER CALCULATIONS ATTRIBUTE TO THE AIRFIELD? IT'S ABOUT 12 MILLION A YEAR OR FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR. AND THAT DIDN'T INCLUDE SOME OF THE THE NOISE, THE FLIGHT PROCEDURE STUDIES WERE DOING, SOME FOR THE 161. SO WE CAN'T JUST TARGET THE NOISE ASPECT. IT'S ENCOMPASSING ALL OF THE COSTS OF THE AIRFIELD, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY, AS KEN EXPLAINED, YOU KNOW, CALCULATED INTO THIS AIRFIELD COST RECOVERY FEE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ALLOCATED THROUGH FUEL. ARE YOU? I NEED SOME HELP. I NEED SOME HELP. I FEEL LIKE I'M RUNNING INTO A LOGJAM HERE AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET OUT. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROCEED. YEAH. THERE'S

[01:20:01]

IT'S COST RECOVERY. IT'S COST RECOVERY. UNDERSTAND THAT. MAYBE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE AND DISTASTEFUL, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S THE WAY THE THE STATUTES AND THE FAA, I TEND TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE STATUTES. SO SO I NEED SOME, SOME, SOME HELP HERE. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE'LL GO FORWARD FROM HERE. YOU HAVE PROVIDED, I THINK, SOME GOOD FEEDBACK TODAY.

I WOULD JUST ASK BECAUSE YOU WANTED A PRESENTATION TODAY. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU ALLOW US TO WORK ON THIS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. AND, YOU KNOW, WE WE COULD BRING IF YOU IF YOU WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD, WE COULD BRING THAT FURTHER REFINEMENT BACK TO THE NEXT MEETING. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS DEVELOP FURTHER. OKAY. AND CERTAINLY TAKE THESE COMMENTS WE'VE HEARD INTO CONSIDERATION. I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD NOT TAKE. YES, YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK I'M HEARING FROM OUR MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH NOT HAVING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A CONSENSUS AND THAT WE ASK STAFF TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE ISSUE, AND WE WILL HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MONTH. OKAY. COULD WE THANK YOU FOR THAT? THEN COULD WE TABLE THEN THE ACTION ITEM RELATED TO THAT? YES. OKAY. SO WE'LL TABLE THE ACTION ITEM. AND THE OTHER THING I JUST WANT TO IS AGAIN AS DISTASTEFUL AS IT MIGHT BE FOR SOME OF US, I WANT TO MAKE THE PUBLIC I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS THAT, YOU KNOW, ANYBODY THAT LANDS A PLANE OR TAKES OFF AND CURFEW HOURS IS NOT BREAKING THE LAW.

CORRECT? THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO UTILIZE THIS AIRPORT 24 HOURS A DAY. SO I THINK WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, 98% I THINK IS A REMARKABLE NUMBER BASED UPON THE TRAFFIC WE HAVE HERE AND THE TYPE OF TRAFFIC WE HAVE. SO AGAIN, I THINK WE OUGHT TO COMPLIMENT THE AVIATION COMMUNITY, COMPLIMENT THE STAFF. AND I JUST WANTED TO FINISH THIS TOPIC WITH WITH THAT RECOGNITION IN TERMS OF AND THE FACT THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE REVENUE NEUTRAL AS I UNDERSTAND IT. SO THEREFORE, IF WE ADD LANDING FEES, WE TAKE AWAY FROM AND SO THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF TALK ABOUT WE TALK ABOUT THE WORK STAFF WAS DOING BEFOREHAND IN TERMS OF PREPPING FOR MEETINGS. THIS WAS GOING TO BE A MESSIER WAY TO GATHER REVENUE FOR NO REAL ECONOMIC BENEFIT, TO DISTRIBUTE, REDISTRIBUTE REVENUE AND COSTS.

BUT IT WASN'T GOING TO CREATE A BOTTOM LINE BENEFIT FOR ANYBODY. SO I JUST WANT TO GET THAT. AND SO WITH THAT, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON FROM THAT STANDPOINT. IT'S NOW 10:00. AND PETER, WE DON'T HAVE A CLARIFICATION. DO YOU WANT US TO FOCUS ON THE TRANSIENT AIRCRAFT. NOT ALL USERS OR I GUESS I THINK THAT'S SOME OF THE FEEDBACK WE'VE HEARD TODAY, UNDERSTANDING THE CONCERNS PETER HAD FROM THAT STANDPOINT. SO OKAY. SO THAT'S HELPFUL. OKAY. CAN WE TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK. SURE. LIKELY RECONVENE THE MEETING PLEASE. WE'LL CONTINUE WITH THE AGENDA ITEM G NOISE. THERE IS NO NOISE ISSUES AT THIS TIME. JUST WANT TO LET THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT ON FEBRUARY 26TH, THERE WILL BE A NOISE COMPATIBILITY COMMITTEE MEETING. FROM THAT STANDPOINT, THE TIME AND THE SITE IS ON OUR WEBSITE H CONSENT AGENDA. THERE ARE NO CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS AT THIS TIME. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO ACTION ITEM I WHICH WE AGREED WE WILL. WE TOOK OFF TABLE TABLE AT FOR AGAIN FOR THE DISCUSSION WITH REGARDS TO OUR POSITION ON LANDING FIELDS AND A SUBSEQUENT MEETING ITEM J NEW BUSINESS. THERE IS NO NEW BUSINESS ITEM K OLD BUSINESS THERE IS NO OLD BUSINESS ITEM L BOARD REPORT. AND AGAIN. WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO. ANY COMMENTS LOOK AT THIS REPORT. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS WITH REGARDS TO THIS ITEM, EITHER FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR FROM THE STAFF. SIR, MY ONLY QUESTION WAS AGAIN, THE THE PART 139 INSPECTION WILL TAKE PLACE SOMETIME THIS SPRING, CORRECT? YES. THE ONLY COMMENTS I, I ALREADY HAVE PAGE 16 THE AIRCRAFT ACTIVITY. IT'S JUST INTERESTING TO SEE HOW JET TRAFFIC JANUARY 24TH JAN 25 JAN 26. UP JUST OVER 12% IN TWO YEARS AND UP 7% IN IN THE LAST

[01:25:05]

IS THAT CORRECT? NOT YET. NOT YET. I LIKE YOUR ENTHUSIASM FOR. SO THEN THAT AND THEN TO MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE HERE, OBVIOUSLY RECOGNIZE NAPLES AIR CENTER AND RAISED 1.4% OF THEIR OPERATIONS FOR CURFEW VIOLATIONS. SO ADMIRABLE. VERY ADMIRABLE. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S A THERE'S A NEW NAME ON THE LIST WHICH I CERTAINLY DON'T RECOGNIZE, WHICH IS FLORIDA FLIGHT TRAINING CENTER. I JUST WONDERED IF WE REACHED OUT TO THEM AND WHAT THEIR COMMENTS WERE. WE MOST CERTAINLY HAVE REACHED OUT TO THEM. I'LL INVITE MR. FAGAN. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON ANY ENGAGEMENT WITH THEM AT THIS TIME, OR YOU HAVEN'T HASN'T MADE THIS TIME, BUT WE'LL FOLLOW UP WITH THEM. AND ON JANUARY WE HAVE AMERICAN AVIATION ACADEMY. DID WE REACH OUT TO THEM? I ASSUME WE DID. WE REACH OUT TO EVERYBODY? YES.

WE HAVEN'T BEEN SUCCESSFUL. NO. NO RESPONSE. WE'LL WE'LL FOLLOW UP ON THAT AS WELL, SIR. OKAY.

GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? WE'LL MOVE ON TO M EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. WOW. THERE ALREADY. THANK YOU. CHAIR I HAVE A HANDFUL OF ITEMS. YOU HAD ASKED LAST MONTH FOR PRESENTATION ON PERMANENT NOISE MONITORING. AND WE WERE UNABLE TO SCHEDULE THE VENDOR IN VIRUS SUITE TO APPEAR HERE TODAY.

THEY THEY WILL BE AT THE NCC MEETING NEXT WEEK GIVING PRESENTATION. AND WE HAVE TEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR THEM TO APPEAR AT YOUR MARCH MEETING. GIVE A MORE DETAILED PRESENTATION. I BELIEVE YOU YOU LIKELY SAW THAT NEWLY ELECTED COUNCILMAN CRAW WAS APPOINTED AS THE LIAISON TO THE NCC. SO WE'VE REACHED OUT TO HIM JUST TO BEGIN COORDINATION, AND PARTICULARLY SINCE THERE IS AN NCC MEETING NEXT WEEK. NEXT SLIDE. LAST MONTH THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT REPAIRING, MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE OBSERVATION DECK. WE DID SEEK A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS. ONE WHICH WAS REPLACING THE ONLY THE NECESSARY DEFICIENT.

WOOD MEMBERS AND THEN DOING A SUPERFICIAL SANDING AND PAINTING OR STAINING. PROBABLY A BETTER WAY TO SAY IT, ROUGHLY $25,000. SO WE ARE PROCEEDING WITH THAT. YOU WILL SEE THAT THE CHALLENGE WITH THE BIGGER PROJECT IS IT DOESN'T YET APPEAR ON AN AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN. YOU WILL SEE IN APRIL A MORE COMPLETE PRESENTATION OF THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN. THERE ARE CERTAIN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE REALLY DO NEED TO TRY AND MOVE FORWARD. AND AT THAT TIME, WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD SUBMIT THIS TO THE CITY TO BE PROCESSED UNDER THE CURRENT CITY CODE. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO CONTINUE TO WAIT ON WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN WITH THIS DRAFT. PROPOSED CITY ORDINANCE.

AND AGAIN, CLARIFY FOR MY PURPOSES, THE UTILIZATION PLAN IS A UNIQUE DOCUMENT TO THIS AIRPORT AND TO THE CITY. CORRECT? CORRECT. IT IS NOT AN FAA REQUIREMENT, NOT AN FAA DOCUMENT. IT'S A LOCAL CONSTRUCT. DOESN'T EXIST ANYWHERE ELSE THAT WE'RE AWARE OF. IT WAS CRAFTED IN THE MID 90S WHEN THE NAR WAS PREPARING ITS LAST MASTER PLAN UPDATE,

[01:30:03]

YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS A HANGAR THAT WAS I'M NOT AWARE OF. THAT PROJECT WAS REMOVED AT THE WHEN IT CAME BEFORE WHEN IT WAS INTENDED TO COME. NO. YES. WHEN IT WAS PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL, IT WAS APPROVED TO BE INCLUDED BY THE AIRPORT BOARD. THE PAB AT THE TIME RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. AND THEN THERE IS CONSTERNATION OVER THE HANGAR PROJECTS AT THAT TIME. AND THEN, AS A GESTURE OF GOODWILL, WE WE REMOVE THOSE HANGARS. THE COUNCIL APPROVED THE REST OF THE PLAN. NOW, I ACTUALLY DISAGREE WITH SOMETHING THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID EARLIER BECAUSE THERE'S A STATEMENT, HE SAID THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SAID NO MORE HANGARS. THAT IS NOT CORRECT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE MINUTES, YOU WILL SEE THAT IS NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT WHAT HAPPENED. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO MADE A STATEMENT. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SEE ANY MORE HANGARS, BUT THERE WAS NOT A COUNCIL ACTION THAT SAID NO MORE HANGARS. I REMEMBER THAT VIVIDLY BECAUSE I'VE HAD TO PULL UP THE MINUTES FROM THAT MEETING SEVERAL TIMES NOW. THE UTILIZATION PLAN IS GENERAL AND CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE, AND IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN.

SO THE VERY, I WOULD SAY. SO, THE MASTER, THE MASTER PLAN IS GENERAL AS WELL. YES. BUT THE UTILIZATION PLAN KIND OF PROVIDES MORE SPECIFICITY TO DENOTE WHAT IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE THE GENERAL AREAS OF THE AIRPORT. IS THAT HOW IT. YES, BUT THEY ARE STILL CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE, RIGHT. FOR PLANNING PURPOSES, IT'S WIDELY RECOGNIZED THAT A MASTER PLAN IS A PLANNING DOCUMENT. THE THE MASTER PLAN. FAA DOESN'T EVEN APPROVE A MASTER PLAN. THEY APPROVE THE PRODUCT OF THE MASTER PLAN, WHICH IS CALLED THE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN.

THAT IS A VERY DETAILED SET OF ENGINEERING SHEETS. ACTUALLY, OUR ALP IS 21 ENGINEERING SHEETS. EXACTING DETAIL COORDINATES EVERYTHING. AND THE UTILIZATION PLAN. THIS LOCAL CONSTRUCT IS ONE PAGE. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN ONE PAGE. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN INTENDED WITHOUT A

[01:35:04]

MOVING ON. JUST A COUPLE. I JUST SAY, CHRIS, BEFORE YOU MOVE ON. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. NO NEW HANGARS WAS NOT A CITY VOTE. I THINK THAT'S VERY USEFUL FOR US. I'LL EVEN SHARE THE MINUTES FROM THAT MEETING BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IT COMES UP SO OFTEN.

LET'S SEE THE THE LAST THING THAT I'D LIKE TO MENTION IS WE HAD A I ATTENDED A WEBINAR INVITED BY THE CONSERVANCY. THEY ARE UNDERTAKING A HIGH LEVEL PLANNING INITIATIVE FOR COASTAL RESILIENCY. AND THEY ARE FOCUSED. THEY'VE ENGAGED A CONSULTANT, A VERY REPUTABLE CONSULTANT THAT HAS DONE A LOT OF WORK WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, AND THEY ARE LOOKING TO IDENTIFY AT A HIGH LEVEL, RECOGNIZING ULTIMATELY, THE CITY AND THE COUNTY HAVE MORE AUTHORITY TO MOVE THE BALL FORWARD TO IDENTIFY WHAT NATURE BASED SOLUTIONS WOULD BE BEST FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, TO HELP MAKE OUR COMMUNITY MORE RESILIENT AGAINST STORMS. SO THEY MENTIONED THAT THEY ARE SEEKING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PILOT PROJECTS. I THOUGHT, WOW, THERE'S YOU KNOW, WE'RE FOCUSED ON RESILIENCY AS WELL. MAYBE THERE IS OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO CONSIDER. OF COURSE, THIS BOARD WOULD HAVE THE FINAL DECISION AND AFTER RECEIVE MORE

[01:40:01]

INITIATING MORE WORKSHOPS, JOINT WORKSHOPS BETWEEN THIS BOARD, IS THERE A NEED FOR A LIAISON, AND PARTICULARLY IF IT'S QUARTERLY INSTEAD OF ANNUALLY? I WOULD SAY I THINK VERY GOOD POINT. IF WE DO THAT, GREAT. IF WE DON'T, THEN YES, THERE IS I THINK HOW MANY WORKSHOPS HAVE WE HAD? I DON'T REMEMBER TWO. WE IN THE TIME I'VE BEEN IN NAPLES, TYPICALLY WE'LL HAVE A JOINT WORKSHOP ONCE EVERY FEW YEARS. YEAH. SO IF WE IF WE DO MOVE TO ONCE A QUARTER, I THINK THAT'S GREAT. WE DON'T NEED THAT. BUT IF WE DO ONCE EVERY 3 OR 4 YEARS, I THINK WE DO. I JUST I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF MEETING ONCE A QUARTER. NO, I'M NOT SAYING I AM. I'M JUST I'M JUST SAYING I KNOW AGAIN, THAT'S JUST IT'S OVERKILL. IT'S UNPRODUCTIVE TO BOTH LEVELS OF BOTH ORGANIZATIONS WORKLOAD. AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT KIND OF GOOD WORK PRODUCT WE GET OUT OF THAT. SO I AGREE WITH YOU. I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. BUT IF WE IF WE ARE WORKING TOWARDS THAT, THEN WE DON'T NEED A LIAISON. YEAH. AND I THINK THE ONLY THING WITH THE LIAISON, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT INDIVIDUAL IS SPEAKING ONLY ON MATTERS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN A ENDORSED HERE, OTHER THAN INJECTING PERSONAL. ABSOLUTELY.

OH YEAH. YEAH. ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY. I THINK IT'S SORT OF THE THE EMISSARY. SPONGE OF OF ABSORBING, OF LEARNING AND INFORMING THIS BOARD. REALLY AND TRULY IS THAT WHAT'S GOING ON? AND JUST FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT. AND IT WON'T SURPRISE YOU. THERE'S LIMITATIONS UNDER THE SUNSHINE LAW. THIS BOARD CAN'T NECESSARILY DELEGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL MEMBER, ANY DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY. THE ENTIRE DECISION MAKING PROCESS HAS TO BE IN THE SUNSHINE. AT A PUBLICLY NOTICED MEETING. HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY ANY OF YOU CAN SPEAK ONE ON ONE AS LONG AS NO FELLOW COMMISSIONER IS WITH YOU, WITH ANY SINGLE MEMBER OF CITY COUNCIL. AND OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE ONE PERSON THAT'S OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE ONE ON ONE CONVERSATIONS, THAT'S FINE AS WELL. BUT THERE CAN'T BE ANY NECESSARILY LIKE DELEGATED AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THAT. IN

[01:45:07]

THAT WOULD CHANGE THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY. I THINK I DID SHARE WITH YOU THAT IT'S MOVED THROUGH SUCCESSFULLY THROUGH ALL THE COMMITTEES THAT IT WAS REFERRED TO IN THE HOUSE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DID TAKE A VOTE ON THE BILL. SO NOW IT'S BEEN REFERRED TO THE SENATE AND WILL BE MOVING THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS THERE. SO THE RULES COMMITTEE, THE RULES COMMITTEE, I BELIEVE, YES. AND IT PASSED 112 TO 114. THE. THERE'S SOME NO, WE DON'T KNOW WHY THAT THERE IS THAT ONE VOTE. BUT WE DID NOTICE THAT WHEN THEY OPENED VOTING THERE, IT WAS ONLY OPEN FOR A COUPLE OF SECONDS. AND THERE WAS A LOT OF INITIAL NO VOTES THAT CHANGED TO YES VOTES. SO PROCEDURALLY, MAYBE I KNOW, I JUST DON'T KNOW. I NO EXPLANATION FOR THAT. I THOUGHT THAT VOTE WAS INTERESTING, BUT WE HAVE NO EXPLANATION. COUNCIL REPORT IS THE NEXT ITEM. ITEM N HAPPY TO DEBRIEF AND REPORT. THERE'S NO PENDING LITIGATION OR OTHER LEGAL MATTERS TO DISCUSS AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE GO TO ITEM O, MISS JARAMILLO, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? WE DO. THE ONE THAT YOU HAVE. OH. YOU HAVE TO YOU. LIKE AGAIN TO INVITE JAMES DEVOY BACK UP TO THE PODIUM. I HAVE THREE REQUESTS FOR THE NA TO EMPLOY AND DIRECT HUGHES AEROSPACE TO INVESTIGATE AND EXECUTE FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO NAPLES AIRPORT FLIGHT PATHS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING FLIGHT SAFETY AND REDUCING FLIGHT PATH NOISE HEARD ON THE GROUND. FIRST, I'M REQUESTING THE NA TO DIRECT HUGHES AEROSPACE TO REVISIT THE HIGHER FOR LONGER APPROACHES TO LANDING AT NAPLES AIRPORT. I READ AN ARTICLE IN THE NAPLES PRESS ON OCTOBER 17TH, 2025 THAT CONTAINED QUOTES FROM CAPTAIN STEVEN MEYER AND KEITH WEST. THOSE QUOTES LED ME TO BELIEVE THAT A STEEPER ANGLE MAY BE MANAGEABLE WITHOUT COMPROMISING AIR SAFETY. COMMISSIONER ALBERTO IS AN ENGINEER, SO I ASSUME HE CAN RECALL THAT THE OPTIMUM SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM LIES ALONG THE CONSTRAINT. I HOPE COMMISSIONER OF ALBERTO WILL SUPPORT DEFINING THAT CONSTRAINT, NAMELY THE STEEPEST SAFELY POSSIBLE DESCENT ANGLE ON APPROACH TO LANDING AT NAPLES AIRPORT, A CHANGE TO AN EVEN STEEPER DESCENT ANGLE COULD BE ANALYZED, PREPARED AND READY FOR SUBMISSION AFTER THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD OF RECENT CHANGE IS COMPLETE. SECOND, I'M REQUESTING THE AIR TO MOVE THE CAPITAL ITEMS FOR NOISE ABATEMENT AND MONITORING TO THE TOP OF THE PRIORITIZED, PRIORITIZED LIST OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR NAPLES AIRPORT. BY TAKING THIS ACTION, M.A.A.

WOULD SHOW THAT IT IS A IN ALIGNMENT WITH AND SUPPORTIVE OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES NEEDS FOR AIRPORT AND FLIGHT PATH NOISE REDUCTION. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HAS MADE CLEAR THAT THERE ARE PRESSING MAINTENANCE ITEMS IN THE CAPITAL PLAN THAT MAY WELL COST MORE IF DELAYED.

REGARDLESS, IT'S TIME TO PRIORITIZE THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY FOR NOISE ABATEMENT AND THEN ADDRESS THE REMAINING ITEMS ON THE CAPITAL PLAN. THIRD, I'M REQUESTING AN NA TO PROCEED BY DIRECTING HUGHES AEROSPACE TO INVESTIGATE AND RECOMMEND ALL ACTIONS NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THE FAA APPROVED METHODS FOR NAPLES AIRPORT TO EVALUATE FLIGHT PATH COMPLIANCE TO INCLUDE ONE NOISE OPERATIONS MONITORING SYSTEM. NARMS TWO PUBLIC VIEW REAL TIME FLIGHT TRACKING THREE NAV STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURES, SIDS FOUR NOISE MONITORS, AND FIVE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL MONITORING. FOR REFERENCE, PLEASE CONSIDER THAT IN JANUARY 2026, CHANGES WERE IMPLEMENTED TO METHODS AND TOOLS WERE MADE AT PALM BEACH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TO TRACK ADHERENCE TO PRECISE, PREDEFINED ROUTES DESIGNED TO AVOID SPECIFIC AREAS. THE FAA APPROVED COMPLIANCE METHODS AT PALM BEACH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOW INCLUDE NOISE AND OPERATIONS MONITORING SYSTEMS. NOM'S TWO PUBLIC VIEW THREE NAV STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURES,

[01:50:06]

IT'S ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTED HERE AND I COMMEND THE AIRPORT FOR THAT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NOW CONTINUE WITH ITEM, THE CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS. WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA BEFORE WE GO TO THE OPEN FORUM. ONE IS THE ITEM ONE THE JOINT WORKSHOP WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. SO AGAIN, BASED UPON DISCUSSIONS EARLIER TODAY, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED IN TERMS OF WHERE THAT PROCESS STANDS. SO MAYBE SO WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO AND WE'RE WILLING TO MEET WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO GET A DATE. WELL, NO, I WANTED YOUR FEEDBACK TODAY. I KNOW YOU'VE PROVIDED SOME FEEDBACK TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. HOWEVER, I'VE BEEN COORDINATING WITH THE CITY MANAGER. I WOULD APPRECIATE VERY. I THINK I CAN TRY AND SUMMARIZE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE ALREADY BROUGHT UP, AND ONE OF WHICH WAS MAKING CERTAIN THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS ARE AVAILABLE IN PERSON TO ATTEND THE MEETING. AND NEXT ONE WOULD BE, I GUESS, A CLEAR AGENDA, CLEAR I OKAY, CLEAR AGENDA. AND YOU CAN SPECIFY ANY ITEMS YOU KNOW YOU THINK ARE IMPORTANT TO TO INCLUDE AND PERHAPS NOT INCLUDE. I HEARD EARLIER A STATEMENT WHEN IT WAS BEING DISCUSSED THAT COME TO THE MEETING WITH A PROPOSED SOLUTION SO THAT WE'RE NOT DEBATING IT IN THE MEETING. YEAH. AND I'D LIKE TO GET TO WHAT COMMISSIONER ARNOLD TALKED ABOUT WAS, AGAIN, HAVE A BODY OF WORK. THAT'S NOT DEBATABLE. HERE'S THE LAW. THE LAWYER, THE LAWYERS AGREE TO IT FROM THAT STANDPOINT. SO WE'RE NOT NEITHER SIDE OR INDIVIDUALS GOING TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE THAT POSITION. SO LET'S NOT SPEND TIME TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING WE CAN'T CHANGE. SO AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE YOU KNOW, THE DEFINITION OF AVIATION VERSUS NON-AVIATION ASSETS. AND YOU KNOW, I GUESS I THINK WE'RE OF THE MIND THAT THAT'S CLEARLY DEFINED. AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL TO COME TO US WITH THAT AS AN UNDERSTANDING, AS OPPOSED TO DEBATING THAT IN THIS WORKSHOP. AS ONE EXAMPLE. THE ATTORNEY SAID THAT THE PROPOSED REVISIONS WOULD REQUIRE A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT WAS HIS COMMENTS, AND I DON'T SEE HOW IT WOULD IF WE'RE FURTHER CLARIFYING WHAT THE COMP PLAN REQUIRES. AND I THINK HIS POINT WAS HAVING THAT DEFINITION BETWEEN AERONAUTICAL AND NON-AERONAUTICAL AVIATION

[01:55:04]

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE DRAFT AGENDA AS A BODY BEFORE WE SCHEDULE THIS? I WOULD YEAH, I THINK AGAIN, IT WOULD BE MORE USEFUL FOR US TO HAVE VISIBILITY TO THAT AND GIVE INPUT. SO WE'RE UNIFIED IN WHAT WE THINK. THE IMPORTANT POINTS ARE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR AGENDA AND CLEAR GOALS. YEAH. AND FROM WHAT WAS JUST SAID, WHAT I HEARD WAS SOME GOOD COMMENTS ON.

AND CHRIS IS PROBABLY SOMETHING YOU WOULD WANT TO REACH OUT TO THE CITY MANAGER ON. BUT ALLOWING I MEAN, WE CERTAINLY WILL AUTHORIZE OUR AVIATION COUNSEL, PETER KIRSCH, TO HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY'S AVIATION COUNCIL HAS AUTHORITY PRIOR TO THE WORKSHOP TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. KIRSCH, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF THAT AUTHORITY HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE SO THAT SOME OF THESE PRELIMINARY, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY MEETING OF THE MINDS IN SOME ISSUES, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO PROBABLY MEET ON THE MINDS OF ALL ISSUES. BUT AS MUCH AS THEY CAN COME TOGETHER ON THIS IS THE THIS IS THE FOUNDATION THAT WE CAN WORK OFF OF. AND THEN SECONDLY, I JUST THROW OUT THERE THAT THERE WAS SOME MENTION TODAY THAT CITY COUNCIL, OR AT LEAST SOME CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, MAY HAVE DISCUSSED AN OPTION OF JUST NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE.

AND SO WE JUST NEED TO UNDER I GUESS IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW IF IF THEY'RE THINKING THAT OR MAYBE THEY'RE I THINK CITY ATTORNEY MENTIONED THAT MAYBE THEY WANT TO HAVE THE JOINT WORKSHOP BEFORE MAKING THAT DECISION. BUT BUT ANY FEEDBACK WE COULD GET ON THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO US, BECAUSE CLEARLY IT WOULD CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AND WHAT WE THINK MIGHT. EVEN IF THEY DECIDE NOT TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE, WE STILL MAY WANT TO SHARE OUR COMMENTS AND OUR POSITION. COOL. CLEAR. I ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. YES, YES, YES, ABSOLUTELY. AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR THAT. YOU KNOW, THAT THAT MR. KIRSCH HAS HAD PRODUCTIVE, YOU KNOW, TIME WITH, WITH THEIR COUNSEL AND THAT HE IS PREPARED BASED UPON THAT TO BE BOTH PREPARED TO BE FULL PARTNERS IN THE DISCUSSION FACE TO FACE. OKAY, OKAY. I HAVE MY DIRECTION. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM THEN, IS THE DRAFT WORKSHOP AGENDA FOR OURSELVES FOR THE MARCH 5TH. I GUESS IT WAS CALLED ONBOARDING, BUT I THINK MY POINT IS JUST TO I'LL CALL IT CONTINUING EDUCATION FOR ALL BOARD MEMBERS FROM THAT STANDPOINT. SO AGAIN, YOU WANT TO. YEAH. AND WE CAN WE'LL SIMPLY CALL IT A WORKSHOP. BUT THANK YOU CHAIR. SO WE WE HAVE SOME TOPICS. I TRY TO KEEP IT AS SIMPLE AND STREAMLINED THAT WE WOULD INCLUDE IN THE MEETING, THE WORKSHOP MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE HELD HERE ON MARCH 5TH.

I'VE RECEIVED ONE BIT OF REQUEST IN PREPARATION FOR TODAY'S MEETING THAT WE CONSIDER INVITING THE NCC CHAIR, AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GREAT IDEA. AND SO WE'D LIKE WE'D INTEND TO DO THAT. I DON'T THINK WE'VE YET CHECKED WITH HIM. MAKE SURE HE'S AVAILABLE.

THE EARLY PART OF THE DAY WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT. I KNOW EACH OF YOU HAVE SPOKEN WITH OUR CONSULTANT, MISS MINA, WHO'S GOING TO HELP FACILITATE THE MEETING AND IDENTIFYING WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT AND HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF GOVERNANCE WITH STATE STATUTE AND OUR BYLAWS.

AND THERE'S BEEN A REQUEST TO DISCUSS HOW TO SET POLICY. WE, OF COURSE, WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT EFFICIENCY. I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER ARNOLD BROUGHT UP WANTING TO HAVE AN IDEA OF THE ANNUAL CALENDAR, THE, THE, THE RHYTHM AS TO WHAT WHAT'S TAKES PLACE WHEN. AND THAT SUDDENLY HAD REMINDED ME THAT, OH MY GOSH, WE ARE ABOUT TO ENTER BUDGET PREPARATION SEASON. KEN IS VERY EXCITED AND AS IS THE WHOLE FINANCE TEAM, THEY'VE ALREADY BEGUN THEIR PRELIMINARY STEPS. YOU WON'T SEE A DRAFT UNTIL JUNE, BUT IT TAKES A FEW MONTHS TO GET THERE. SO THEN WE INTEND TO HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE WITH MR.

[02:00:03]

ITEM ITEM FOUR IS ON PRIMARILY ON COMMUNICATION AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT. AND THIS NOTION OF THE LIAISON TO THE CITY, WHICH WE'LL DISCUSS IN MORE DETAIL. WE WOULD LIKE TO INVITE EACH DEPARTMENT HEAD AND CERTAIN OTHER KEY LEADERS IN THE ORGANIZATION TO GIVE A VERY BRIEF PRESENTATION ON WHAT IT IS THEY DO IN THE ORGANIZATION. I THINK SOME OF THE GREAT WORK THAT TAKES PLACE DAY IN AND DAY OUT IS DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF VISIBILITY AND ISN'T APPRECIATED. AND I CAN POINT TO OUR SAFETY MANAGER, MR. TOM HERMAN, WHO WE HAVE AN INCREDIBLE SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, OUR FUEL QUALITY CONTROL MANAGER, RUN BY MR. EMIL GARCES, A DEDICATED TEAM OF PEOPLE THAT ENSURE TAKE THE DELIVERY AND INSPECT THE TRUCKS EVERY DAY AND ENSURE THE HIGHEST QUALITY OF FUEL IS MADE AVAILABLE HERE. AS PART OF OUR MISSION TO OPERATE A SAFE AIRPORT, I'LL ALSO MENTION THE LEASING OFFICE, WHICH REPORTS UNDER THE HR DEPARTMENT. BUT AS A LOT DOES A LOT OF TREMENDOUS WORK WITH OUR TENANTS PROVIDING SERVICE DAY IN AND OUT. REALLY, I COULD GO ON ABOUT EVERY DEPARTMENT, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE INTENT FOR THE WORKSHOP. JUST TO GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW THERE, THERE IS AN ITEM ON A PANEL DISCUSSION WITH FORMER COMMISSIONERS. I THINK THIS PART OF IT IS PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO COME OFF THE AGENDA BECAUSE OF SOME LACK OF AVAILABILITY, BUT WE WE WILL PROVIDE SOME FORMER COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ANY CURRENT COMMISSIONER, SHOULD YOU DESIRE A SOUNDING BOARD OR SOMEBODY WHO'S KIND OF BEEN IN THE SEAT BEFORE YOU, JUST AS SOMEONE WHO CAN UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THAT YOU'RE IN AND THEN CLOSE WITH ANY FOLLOW UP ACTION ITEMS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ABSOLUTELY. AS CHRIS SAYS, WE ALL SPOKE WITH MRS. MICHAEL AND GAVE HER VIEWS. I'M VERY HAPPY WITH THIS. WE'LL TRY AND GET DONE BEFORE DINNER, INCLUDE DINNER. THANK YOU. IN THE SUNSHINE. VERY GOOD. NOW WE'LL MOVE ON. I'LL ASK MY FELLOW IF THEY HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR ANYTHING ELSE TO DISCUSS. ALSO, REMEMBER THIS TIME, THIS IS THE POINT WHERE YOU CAN ASK FOR AN AGENDA ITEM TO BE PUT ON THE AGENDA AT THE NEXT MEETING FROM THAT STANDPOINT. SO I'M GOING TO GO TO MY RIGHT HERE AND START WITH COMMISSIONER. I HAVE NO COMMENTS TO ADD TODAY. GREAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. NOT SURPRISINGLY, I DO. QUITE INTERESTING LISTENING TO THE LAST PUBLIC SPEAKER BECAUSE WHAT I WAS INTENDING TO PUT TOWARDS THIS AUGUST BODY IS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO TO DO MORE WORK ON INVESTIGATING THE CURRENT DEPARTURE PROFILES OF AIRCRAFT. I HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO MENTIONED TO ME THAT SOMETIMES THERE'S A JET THAT TAKES OFF THAT'S LOW AND FAST AND NOISY. SOMETIMES THEY'RE HIGHER AND SLOWER AND QUIETER. NOW, OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF THIS IS PERSPECTIVE, BUT I DO I DO NOTICE THAT MYSELF. AND OKAY, MAYBE SOMETIMES IT'S IT'S AN OLD STAGE THREE FALCON 50 OR WHATEVER. SOMETIMES IT'S NETJETS STAGE FIVE. IT'S JUST WHISPER QUIET ALMOST. BUT I DO NOTICE THAT SOME FOLKS SEEM TO BE TAKING A SHALLOWER. TAKEOFF ANGLE TO TO OTHERS. I THINK THAT WOULD. AND OBVIOUSLY SOME FOLKS ARE TURNING A LOT SOONER THAN OTHERS AS WELL. SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE USEFUL. AND MAYBE IT TIES INTO THE NOISE AS WELL, SO WE CAN MORE UNDERSTAND WHERE NOISE IS OR IN ADDITION TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE NOISE IS COMING FROM AND IF THERE'S A BETTER PRACTICE THAT'S NOT BEING CURRENTLY ADOPTED. OBVIOUSLY SAFETY IS ABOUT YOU SAY THAT IF WE DID THAT, I GUESS I'M I GUESS WHAT WHAT DO WE HAVE WITHIN OUR POWER TO DO ABOUT THAT AGAIN? ONCE THE ONCE THE AIRCRAFT IS IN THE AIR, IT IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE PILOT AND THE TOWER AND THE FAA CONTROLLERS. AND SO WE AND THAT'S PART OF MY FRUSTRATION IS, IS THAT THAT'S THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION. SO WE CAN ASK THE STAFF TO DO A LOT OF WORK.

WE GET SOME GOOD DATA, BUT THEN WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? I THINK IF WE CAN ANALYZE

[02:05:03]

NEXT WEEK'S NCC MEETING. GREAT. THANK YOU CHRIS. ACTUALLY ON MONDAY SIR. OH, MONDAY. OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE? NOPE. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. YES I DO HAVE SOME UPDATES. THANK YOU.

IN TERMS OF MEETING FOLKS. SO WE HAD TWO COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS COME OUT AND VISIT THE AIRPORT TO TOURS. PEARL HARBOR DID TWO TOURS. THEY WERE SO EXCITED. WHEN THE FIRST GROUP WENT BACK, THEY TOLD A WHOLE BUNCH OF RESIDENTS, AND THEY SIGNED UP FOR ANOTHER TOUR ALMOST IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER. VERY WELL RECEIVED. THE SECOND WAS VERY MEANINGFUL. I THINK IT WAS WITH THE OMA GROUP AND THE HOMEOWNER GROUP. ALL OF THEM CAME. IT WAS MANDATORY THAT THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION, EVERYONE ATTENDED AND THEY ATTENDED AND EVERYONE MEETING THE BOARD, THE BOARD, THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION BOARD. AND AFTER THE TOUR, WHICH WAS VERY WELL RECEIVED, THE FORUM STAYED TO HAVE A MEETING. SO WE MET WITH THEM AND WE TALKED AND IT WAS A VERY, VERY GOOD MEETING. THEY WANT TO RESET RELATIONSHIPS WITH US. THEY WANT TO HAVE POSITIVE, CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS AND THEY WANT TO WORK TOGETHER. AND IT WAS VERY, VERY WELL RECEIVED, VERY HAPPY. I'M VERY HAPPY ABOUT THAT. I THINK YOU ARE TOO, CHRIS. WE HAVE TWO MORE TOURS COMING UP IN THE NEAR FUTURE. SHORES IS ONE AND THEN THE MOORINGS IS THE OTHER. THEY'LL BE COMING UP SOON, SO REALLY HAPPY TO SEE THAT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. I THINK ANOTHER MAJOR EVENT THAT HAPPENED THIS MONTH WAS THE WINE FESTIVAL. AND CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU AND YOUR TEAM. YOU DID AN INCREDIBLE JOB RECEIVING THOSE AIRCRAFT AND FIRE TRUCK WITH CANNED WATER CANNONS IN THE BAND WAS THERE. THE RED CARPET WAS OUT, FANTASTICALLY WELL RECEIVED AND IT WAS QUITE BLESSED TO ATTEND QUITE A COUPLE OF THE WINE FESTIVAL EVENTS. AND WE TALK ABOUT STAKEHOLDER GROUPS AND THIS IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDER GROUP. BUT MANY, MANY PEOPLE PRAISED THE AIRPORT, PRAISED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE AIRPORT TO THEIR MEANING HERE IN NAPLES AND THEIR LIVES HERE IN NAPLES. VERY REFRESHING TO HEAR, BUT AGAIN, VERY, VERY POSITIVE. ANOTHER EVENT WE HAD, WE HAD THE PLANE TALK EVENT THIS MONTH AND IT WAS AT NORRIS CENTER, AND INDEED WE HAD A GREAT TURNOUT. I BELIEVE WE HAD 30 PEOPLE THERE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE LARGEST ATTENDANCES WE'VE HAD VERY INTERESTING MIXED COMMENTARIES THAT WE WERE, OF COURSE, IN THE NAPLES AREA. WE HAD SOME THAT WERE CONCERNED ABOUT NOISE, AND WE HAD SOME THAT WERE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE AIRPORT AND SOME WHO HAD LONG EXPERIENCES AND SAID, IT'S A LOT BETTER THAN IT USED TO BE. SO IT WAS VERY INTERESTING TO HEAR FROM ALL THESE VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS. THERE WAS A LITTLE GLITCH IN THE PLANE TALK SESSION. I JUST WANT TO BRING THIS UP. OF COURSE, MR. BURNS IS NOT HERE. I'D RATHER DO IT WITH HIM PRESENT, BUT I'LL JUST BRIEFLY INTRODUCE HIM. WHEN THE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT REQUESTED FOR A VOLUNTEER. I SIGNED UP, AS YOU ALL KNOW, AND SHE SAID, GREAT. SHE SAID, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, ONE PERSON TO BE ATTENDING BECAUSE OF THE SUNSHINE LAW. BUT MR. BURNS DECIDED TO ATTEND ANYWAY, WHICH CAUSED SOME FRICTION WITH THE WITH THE NA MEMBERS THAT WERE THERE. THEY WERE NERVOUS OR SHOULDN'T BE TOO. OBVIOUSLY IT WAS DISRESPECTFUL TO ME BECAUSE I WAS HOSTING THE EVENT AND HE WAS NOW THERE. AND THEN HE DECIDED HE WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING, WHICH NOW WAS A CONFLICT WITH THE SUNSHINE LAW, TO HAVE TWO COMMISSIONERS THERE. THERE WAS ONLY ONE CIVIL WAY OF

[02:10:08]

OKAY, ONE LAST THING. I WANT TO INTRODUCE YOU TO MY NEW BEST FRIEND, MY NOISE METER AND INTERESTING DBS. WE NOT FAMILIAR WITH DBS. OUR DECIBELS OF NOISE. IT'S IT'S UNFAMILIAR TO US. IT'S HARD TO TELL WHAT IT IS, BUT FOR REFERENCE, I'VE BEEN RECORDING THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE MORNING, AND I'VE RECORDED THE PEAK NOISE IN THE ROOM. AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF REFERENCE TO 70 TO 80 BEING DANGEROUS WITH 77.2. SO MY MY HEART IS NOT FEELING TOO GOOD AS AN AVERAGE OR THAT WAS THAT WAS THE PEAK. THE PEAK. YEAH, THAT WAS THE PEAK, WHICH IS WHAT WE REFER TO IN MANY CASES. AND AS I SAID EARLIER, ON ROAD TRAFFIC, RESTAURANTS, PLAYGROUNDS ARE ALL IN THE VICINITY OF ADP. THIS IS WHY THOSE NOISE MONITORS IN THE COMMUNITIES ARE GOING TO BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL. WE ALL NEED TO FAMILIARIZE OURSELVES WITH WHAT IS WHAT IS IT WE'RE REALLY HEARING. SO WE CALL REFERENCES TO LIKE THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION THAT SAYS YOU SHOULD LIMIT YOUR EXPOSURE TO ADP. WELL, WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN? WELL, WE HAVEN'T READ YET. AND THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION SAYS IS LIMIT YOUR

[02:15:02]

YEAH, 40 HOURS A WEEK. SO WHEN WE HEAR PEOPLE COMPLAINING 40 ADP ON A SINGLE EVENT CASE AND THEN SAY THAT, WHO SAYS WE SHOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS? WELL, THEY SHOULDN'T BE HAVING 40 HOURS A WEEK. BUT ANYWAY, MY POINT IS TO MAKE SURE I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THESE LEVELS ARE AND TO SHARE WITH MY PEERS WHAT IT IS SO WE CAN ALL BECOME FAMILIAR WITH NOISE LEVELS.

GRANDDAUGHTER CAN I BORROW THAT? YEAH. CONGRATULATIONS. THAT'S IT. COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER ALBERTO. THAT'S ALL. OKAY. THANK YOU. MY LAST COMMENT IS. THERE'S AN ISSUE THAT WE DID NOT TALK ABOUT TODAY AS A AS AN AUTHORITY, AND THE CITY HAS NOT TALKED ABOUT IT, BUT I THINK IT'S PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE CAN BE DOING AS, AS APPOINTED AND ELECTED OFFICIALS. AND THAT IS TO DEAL WITH THE AIRPORT LEASE. IT IS MEANINGFUL BOTH IN TERMS OF FROM AN OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT AND FROM A FINANCIAL STANDPOINT FOR THE CITY. THE CITIZENS CAN BENEFIT GREATLY FROM A RENEGOTIATED LEASE, BUT WE AS THE PARTY THAT BENEFITS FROM THAT LEASE, DO NOT HAVE THE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO RAISE THAT ISSUE. I WAS PLEASED TO HEAR A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, KRAMER INDICATE THAT WAS ON HIS AGENDA TO TRY TO WORK WITH. I HOPE THAT'S SOON. WE HEAR FROM THE CITY THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO ENGAGE US BECAUSE I, FOR ONE, AND OPEN TO A POSITIVE AND FAIR NEGOTIATION THAT WOULD BENEFIT BOTH PARTIES. AND I THINK, AGAIN, THE CITY NEEDS THIS. IT COULD BE VERY MEANINGFUL. BUT I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST THAT I, FOR ONE, AM GOING TO BE LESS INCLINED TO MOVE FORWARD ON A LEASE NEGOTIATION IF WE CONTINUE TO DEAL WITH THESE ORDINANCE ISSUES THAT CREATE AN UNCLEAR LANDSCAPE GOING FORWARD FOR THE AUTHORITY. I DON'T HAVE THE FIDUCIARY RESPONSE. I HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DEAL EFFECTIVELY AND PROTECT THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY. I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST THAT, AGAIN, WE I THINK MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS ARE RECEPTIVE TO THAT IDEA AND THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE. AND SO I GUESS I WOULD WANT TO MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT THAT, AGAIN, I LOOK FORWARD TO THE WORKSHOP WITH THE CITY. I LOOK FORWARD TO DIALOG WITH CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE RESOURCES. BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE.

IT'S A CLEAR ONE ITEM ISSUE, AND IF WE PUT OUR HEADS TOGETHER, WE CAN GET THIS DONE.

BUT WE'VE GOT TO GET THE NOISE AWAY FROM OTHER THINGS AND DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CITY SO WE CAN PRODUCE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF REVENUE FOR THE CITY IN TERMS OF THE NEEDS THEY HAVE THAT HAVE ALL BEEN HAVE BEEN ITEMIZED IN TERMS OF THE LAST ELECTION. SO THAT IS MY. WOULD YOU LIKE US TO REQUEST THAT BE ON THE AGENDA? I, I WOULD HOPE I GUESS NO, I GUESS THEY ARE THE. SO I GUESS FROM A STANDPOINT OF OF YOU KNOW THERE THE I KEEP ON HEARING IT FROM OUR STANDPOINT. YOU KNOW AS A CITIZEN. YES. AS A COMMISSIONER. NO. THEY SHOULD BE PUTTING ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE THEY'RE THE PARTY THAT THEY THINK IT NEEDS TO BE BENEFIT FROM A REVISED LEASE. SO SAID ANOTHER WAY. SORRY, WOULD YOU MAYBE YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THAT. YOU WOULD BE WELCOME TO ADD THAT TO THE AGENDA. ABSOLUTELY. I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT. OKAY. BUT RECOGNIZING I DIDN'T HEAR FROM EVERY COMMISSIONER, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE RECOGNIZING THAT I ALSO FEEL THAT THE ORDINANCE ISSUE HAS TO BE COMPLETELY RESOLVED BEFORE I WOULD BE OPEN TO AGAIN DEALING WITH THE LEASE. I SUSPECT THAT WILL ALSO BE AN ITEM AT THE WORKSHOP. YES. SO IT WOULD HAVE TO WORK HAND IN HAND. I WAS JUST GOING TO COMMENT THAT THE LEASE IS BETWEEN TWO PARTIES, THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF NAPLES, SO BOTH WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOME AGREEMENT ON WANTING TO ENTER INTO ANY KIND OF MODIFICATION, I WOULD THINK, AND WE, AS THE AUTHORITY, WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A CONSIDERATION IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO THE CITY UNDER A RENEWED LEASE. FROM THAT STANDPOINT. AND AGAIN, THE FAA WOULD HAVE TO SEE THAT AS A FAIR QUID PRO QUO. SO ALTHOUGH THE FAA MAY NOT BE A SIGNATORY, THEY'RE STAKEHOLDER IN THIS AS WELL. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. WE WOULD HAVE TO GAIN THEIR

[02:20:01]

SO AGAIN, SO WE PAY FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. NOW, I HAVE NO IDEA IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE CITY CHARGES US, WHETHER THEY'RE MAKING MARGIN ON THAT, I WOULD HOPE THEY ARE TO SOME DEGREE, OR AT LEAST BREAKING EVEN, ALTHOUGH I'M A LITTLE, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT SOME OTHER THINGS THAT THEY EXAMPLE THE CITY DOCK IS, IS A PRIVATE IS A PUBLIC ENTITY THAT ALSO CHARGES FOR FUEL. ALSO CHARGES FOR SPACE FOR BOATS. AND I THINK THE CITY HAS A TOUGH TIME MAKING MONEY ON ON THAT ASSET FROM THAT STANDPOINT. SO THERE ARE INTERESTING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE CITY ALL THE WAY AROUND. BUT YEAH, RIGHT NOW I WOULD SAY WE'RE REVENUE NEUTRAL TO THE CITY AND THEY WOULD LIKE US TO BE REVENUE POSITIVE. AND WITH THAT WE WILL ADJOURN AND THEN WE WILL HAVE THE, IF I MAY, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO FOLLOW UP WITH CITY MANAGER TODAY. SO IS THIS SOMETHING NOT THIS IS WHAT WE EXPECT TO BE ON THE AGENDA, BUT WE WOULD INVITE IT TO BE ON THE AGENDA. IS THAT OR I WANT TO HEAR FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS. WELL, HERE'S HERE'S MY VIEW ON IT. AND I'M SORRY I DIDN'T HEAR. DID IT COME UP AT ALL YESTERDAY AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING? I NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, I DIDN'T HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO LISTEN TO THE ENTIRE MEETING, THOUGH. I'D LIKE US TO MODEL VARIOUS SCENARIOS. WHAT WHAT POSSIBLY COULD THAT CONTRIBUTION BE TO THE CITY? THEY START VALUING THE PER ACRE 750 ACRES. HOW MUCH IS THAT AT RETAIL? THAT COULD BE A VERY BIG NUT. IT'D BE A NEGOTIATED UNDERSTAND. BUT THAT'S WHY MODEL VARIOUS DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. AND WHERE WOULD WE GET THAT REVENUE FROM? AS YOU DID WITH THIS LANDING THING, YOU START LOOKING AT YOUR REVENUES AND HOW TO STAY REVENUE NEUTRAL. NOW YOU HAVE REVENUE PLUS TO COVER VARIOUS SCENARIOS. AND WHERE WOULD THAT COME FROM? FUEL LEASES, RENTS, HOW MUCH CHANGE WOULD THAT BE? AND WE OWE IT TO OUR RESIDENTS TO, YOU KNOW, TO UNDERSTAND THEIR VIEWPOINT BEFORE WE GO, ASSUMING AN INCREASE THAT'S GOING TO BE MEANINGFUL, POSSIBLY EVEN CLOSING DOWN BUSINESSES THAT CAN'T OPERATE WITH THOSE NEW NUMBERS. IT'S A FAIR QUESTION. THERE'S THERE'S THERE'S SOME EXAMPLES IN INDUSTRY WHERE LEASE LIKE THIS HAS BEEN RENEGOTIATED. I THINK SOME ANALYSIS. YOU CERTAINLY WE WOULD HAVE TO PREPARE OR THE CITY WOULD LIKELY PREPARE AND WE WOULD LIKELY WANT TO PREPARE AN APPRAISAL AS A STARTING POINT. I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT BEFORE WE INVITE SUCH A MEETING. I GUESS I'M A LITTLE LEERY TO HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT HAS A NUMBER ON IT, AND THEN WE HAVE TO. WE'RE ALREADY, YOU KNOW, NEGOTIATING A NUMBER BEFORE WE NEGOTIATE THE OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS. I THINK WE OUGHT TO AGREE ON WHAT WHAT THE LEASE OUGHT TO LOOK LIKE IN TERMS OF THE CONSIDERATION WE WOULD GET AS AN AUTHORITY. AND THEN MAYBE CONCURRENTLY OR AFTER THE FACT, WE SAY, OKAY, WE AGREE. NOW, YOU KNOW, WHY DON'T WE BOTH HIRE A REAL ESTATE AVIATION EXPERT AND HAVE EACH ONE OF THEM GIVE A NUMBER AND WE SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE? I DON'T KNOW, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT COMING UP WITH A NUMBER BEFORE WE EVEN GET TO THE TABLE ON THE DISCUSSION. SO THE I'LL JUST ADD THAT I CAN TELL YOU WITH CERTAINTY TODAY THAT THE RELATIVELY SHORT REMAINING TERM OF THE LEASE IS AFFECTING OUR ABILITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS IN THE SAME WAY WE HAVE IN THE PAST. WE HAVE ROUGHLY 42 YEARS LEFT. A TYPICAL LAND LEASE IS FOR 30 YEARS. THERE IS A PROGRAM, A LEASE TERM BUYBACK PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS US TO EXTEND ADDITIONAL TERM ON THESE LEASES FOR PURCHASE. WE HAVE A

[02:25:01]

THAT TAKES THEM THREE YEARS TO DEVELOP A NEW FACILITY. WELL, THAT WAS UNDER IDEAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PAST. SO TAKE ARGUABLY TAKES LONGER TODAY. AND THEY GOT 27 OR SO YEARS BENEFIT. AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT. WELL TENANT OFTENTIMES LIKES THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUY ADDITIONAL TERM. I CAN'T OFFER THAT MAXIMUM TERM THAT WE HISTORICALLY HAVE OFFERED, WHICH IS USUALLY AN ADDITIONAL 20 YEARS. WE CAN'T DO THAT RIGHT NOW. SO I WANT TO CAUTION AGAINST THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. DON'T DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC ANSWER HOW TO DO THAT, BUT JUST WANT TO ANTICIPATE BEFORE WE WALK INTO THIS. SO I GUESS I GUESS I SORT OF, YOU KNOW, AS A CITIZEN, I THINK WHAT YOU KNOW, A REVISED LEASE IS APPROPRIATE. AND AS A COMMISSIONER, I THINK EVERYBODY'S LEASE IS APPROPRIATE BASED UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS WE SETTLE ON. FOR THAT STANDPOINT, WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET THERE. WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH IT. BUT I GUESS I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT DIALOG WITH THE NEW CITY COUNCIL AND WITH THIS BOARD TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO. IS, IS A RIGHT CIVIC AND FIDUCIARY DUTY FOR THE CITIZENS. BOTH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. NOW, AGAIN, I THINK THE TIME IS RIGHT. IT MAY TAKE LONGER THAN I WOULD HAVE HOPED, AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE A NON ISSUE FOR ME IN TERMS OF AS THIS PLAYS OUT FOR ALL OF US, ABSENT A CONSENSUS FROM THE BOARD, WE WON'T MENTION THAT WHEN I FOLLOW UP WITH THE CITY MANAGER TODAY. SO ARE YOU COMFORTABLE? YOU HAVE DIRECTION FOR THAT. YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONSENSUS WHAT I'M HEARING TODAY. SO YOU ARE. SO I'M PROPOSING THAT WE IN OUR WE THIS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND HIS DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY RAISED THE LEASE AS AN ISSUE OF INTEREST. SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT. AND THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, I WOULD I'M NOT SURE I'M 100% IN FAVOR OF IT, BECAUSE I COULD ARGUE THE SAME AS A CITIZEN AND AS A BOARD MEMBER, THAT THE COST, THE LEASE COSTS WOULD BE AN IMPACT, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW. THEY'RE REALLY I MEAN, WE WOULD BE ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT THAT IS CHARGED FOR THAT LEASE, THE TIME FRAME I WOULD ENTERTAIN DISCUSSING. BUT WE HAVE AMPLE TIME TO TALK ABOUT THAT. I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO DO THAT AT THIS, THIS TIME. SO I WOULD I WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO ADD SOMETHING AT THIS POINT TO KNOW I'M IN FAVOR OF DISCUSSING IT, RAISING IT WITH THE WITH THE, WITH THE CITY. AS CHRIS SAYS, WE ARE GETTING CLOSE TO THAT SORT OF 30 YEAR SWEET SPOT, SO CLIENTS CANNOT BE EXTENDING. I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE NEED TO DO AN ANALYSIS OF WHERE THE ADDITIONAL FUNDS REVENUES NEED TO COME FROM. WE WENT DOWN A RABBIT HOLE IS WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE A RABBIT HOLE WITH THE AIRPORT RELOCATION, WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE FINANCING AHEAD OF TIME, IS SPENT A LOT OF MONEY AND THEN DECIDED THAT NO WHERE COULD WE FIND $2 BILLION AND THAT KILLED IT. AFTER WE'D SPENT ABOUT 400,000 ON THE I THINK IT WAS. WAS IT AIRPORT RELOCATION? 400,000? YEAH. SO I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE IN THAT SITUATION. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS. LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. ABSOLUTELY. BUT I THINK WE DO NEED TO KNOW THIS IS THE 800 POUND GORILLA IN THE ROOM. WE DO NEED WE DO NEED TO APPROACH THIS I SO YES, I'M IN FAVOR. YOUR VOTE IS IN. I UNDERSTAND THE NEED, BUT I FEAR THE CONSEQUENCE. AND I HATE TO PROCEED BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT I'M GETTING INTO BEFORE I GET INTO IT. I'D LIKE TO HAVE A BETTER FEEL OF WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN TO OUR PRICING, WHERE WE GET THE REVENUES FROM TO PAY THE CITY. AND WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN TO THOSE STAKEHOLDERS THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED? I WANT TO HAVE A FEEL FOR THAT, NOT TO KNOW, NOT TO SAY THAT I NEED THE PRECISE NUMBER. WE'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW THE PRECISE NUMBER, BUT WE KNOW BALLPARK IT'S NOT GOING TO BE $10 INSTEAD OF ONE. AND WE KNOW IT'S NOT GOING TO BE $1 BILLION EITHER. BUT WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? AND WHAT WOULD THE CONSEQUENCE IN TERMS OF WHAT REVENUES WE'D HAVE TO RAISE TO, YOU KNOW, WHERE WOULD THE SOURCES OF REVENUES BE? WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN TO THOSE STAKEHOLDERS? I WONDER HOW A

[02:30:02]

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU I APPRECIATE THE CONSIDERATION. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS THAT THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.