13) NEW BUSINESS

[13.A) A Resolution for the Purpose of Approving Task Order No. 26-01-60-70-26V14 between the City of Naples and WSP USA, Inc, a New York Corporation Authorized to Do Business in the State of Florida, Formerly Known as WSP USA Environment and Infrastructure Inc., a Nevada Corporation Authorized to Do Business in the State of Florida for Engineering Services to Revisit and Review of the Current Stormwater Ordinance and Regulations and Assist in Development of the Enhanced Ordinance and Establishing Stormwater Utility District Including Jurisdictional Boundaries in the Amount of $230,077.10; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Task Order; and Providing an Effective Date.]

YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. A RESOLUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPROVING TASK ORDER NUMBER (260) 160-7026 V ONE FOUR BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND WSP USA, INC. A NEW YORK CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FORMERLY KNOWN AS WSP, USA ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. A NEVADA CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES TO REVISIT AND REVIEW THE CURRENT STORMWATER ORDINANCE AND REGULATIONS AND ASSIST IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENHANCED ORDINANCE AND ESTABLISHING STORMWATER UTILITY DISTRICT, INCLUDING JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $230,077.10. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE TASK ORDER AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU, MR. YOUNG. GOOD MORNING, MAYOR. BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO DAN AND DOCTOR GEORGE SHOULD BE HERE. I THINK HE'S ON HIS WAY. BUT THIS IS A RESOLUTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF OUTLINING AND TRYING. WE'VE HAD A STUDY DONE BEFORE IN A CERTAIN AREA, SPECIFICALLY, WHAT STORMWATER INFLUENCES OUR CURRENT WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OUR CITY BOUNDARIES INFLUENCES OUR STORMWATER WITHIN OUR OUR CITY BOUNDARIES. AND THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO DO THAT AS A CITY WIDE INITIATIVE IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN ALL OF THE INFLUENCES THAT ARE COMING INTO OUR STORMWATER AND IN SOME CASES, STORMWATER SYSTEM, IN SOME CASES OUR STORMWATER LAKES. SO THAT'S JUST THE GENERAL OVERVIEW. AND WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO DAN TO BEGIN THE PRESENTATION. AND DOCTOR GEORGE SHOULD BE HERE SHORTLY. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING SIR. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING COUNCIL. DAN ORENSTEIN, CITY ENGINEER. PLEASED TO SPEAK WITH YOU ALL THIS MORNING. SO IF WE CAN SWITCH TO THE. OKAY. THANK YOU. EXCELLENT. IF WE CAN SWITCH TO THE POWERPOINT, THE BEFORE YOU IS A PROPOSED ACTION FOR ADOPTING RESOLUTION FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR. REVISIT AND REVIEW OF THE CURRENT STORMWATER ORDINANCE AND REGULATIONS. THIS IS TO ASSIST IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENHANCED ORDINANCE AND ESTABLISHING THE STORMWATER STORMWATER UTILITY DISTRICT, INCLUDING JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES. TO SUMMARIZE, THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES AN ENGINEERING AND LEGAL EVALUATION OF THE CITY'S STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING AREAS THAT NEED TO BE REVISITED. JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES. OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE RIGHTS CONNECTED WITH STORMWATER PONDS AND LAKES.

MS4 AND NPDES REQUIREMENTS. REVIEW OF THE ARTICLE SIX STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PORTION OF THE CODE. REGULATION AND TAXING RATES FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. SINGLE FAMILY HOME REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND INSPECTIONS. INTEGRATION OF TIDAL FLOODING INTO OUR STORMWATER REGULATIONS AND CRITERIA. DESIGN CRITERIA REFERENCE. SO REVISITING THOSE IN THE CODE, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS FOR TIDAL FLOODING REGULATION, ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE AND REGULATORY MECHANISMS, AND AS WELL WATER

[00:20:02]

QUALITY AND QUANTITY CRITERIA, AS WELL AS POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ANY ADOPTING ANY CHANGES TO THE REGULATIONS. OKAY. SO HERE YOU CAN SEE THAT FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE AREAS, WE DO HAVE SERVICE BOUNDARIES THAT EXTEND OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. THAT'S ON THE THE FIRST MAP. THE SECOND MAP SHOWS OUR 12 STORMWATER BAYS AND BASINS IN TOWN. SO AS WELL AS CONTRIBUTING TO OUR IN TOWN AS WELL AS OUTSIDE OUR DISTRICT.

SO THAT'S KIND OF A FIRST BRUSH OF WHERE OUTSIDE THE CITY, THE TOTAL LIMITS COULD BE. THE THIRD ITEM IS A MAP OF OUR STORMWATER LAKES. AND THERE ARE 31 STORMWATER LAKES IN TOTAL.

AND AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY THIS KIND OF EFFORT IS NECESSARY, ON THE LAST PAGE IS THE SWAN LAKE BASIN. THIS IS ALL THE CONTRIBUTING AREA TO SWAN LAKE. YOU CAN SEE THERE. YOU GOT THAT TONYA LAKE, YOU GOT THIS HUGE BASIN AND IT PARTLY EXTENDS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. SO THAT'S ON THE EAST SIDE OF US 41. SO WE SEE THAT THERE ARE AREAS THAT ARE THAT ARE FEEDING INTO THE CITY STORMWATER AND OUR ISSUES AND WHAT WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR, FOR MANAGING THAT, IT'S NOT DIRECT. THAT MAY NOT BE DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TODAY. THE GOAL OF THIS IS FOR IS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE. EXCUSE ME. SO NEXT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT FINANCIAL IMPACT AND UTILITY ENTERPRISE STRENGTHENING CONSISTENT WITH THE SERVICE BOUNDARY AND AND NOT AS A POLITICAL BOUNDARY. WE EXPECT THIS TO PROVIDE A POSITIVE LONG TERM BENEFIT.

THIS WILL PROVIDE STABLE LONG TERM UTILITY REVIEW FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

IT WILL SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE, LIFE CYCLE, LONG TERM INVESTMENT, AS WELL AS ENHANCE ENTERPRISE FUND PERFORMANCE. IN TERMS OF BONDING AND FINANCIAL CAPACITY, WE EXPECT THE STUDY TO AND THE FINDINGS TO IMPROVE DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIOS, REVENUE STABILITY AND SUPPORT FAVORABLE BOND RATINGS, AND REDUCE BORROWING COSTS. SO THAT'S OVERALL FOR ESTABLISHING OUR STORMWATER UTILITY DISTRICT. NOW, AS PART OF OUR MANY EFFORTS ACROSS THE CITY FOR OVERHAULING OUR APPROACH TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND REGULATIONS, THIS WILL ALIGN WITH OUR CITY PURE PUBLIC UTILITIES RENEWAL PROGRAM. WE HAVE SEVERAL PROJECTS IN THE WORKS TO RENEW INFRASTRUCTURE ACROSS THE CITY. THIS WILL ASSIST, ALIGN, ASSIST AND ALIGN WITH OUR STORMWATER UTILITY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY. IT SUPPORTS LONG TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND INTEGRATED INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING, INCLUDING WATER, WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER. BECAUSE ANYTIME WE WANT TO REPLACE STORMWATER, WE ALSO NEED THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IS IT A GOOD TIME TO REPLACE THE WATER AND THE WASTEWATER PIPES? FURTHERMORE, IN PURSUIT OF THIS STUDY, WE WILL DO AN INTERGOVERNMENT. WE WILL LOOK AT OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION. THIS WILL REINFORCE OUR PARTNERSHIP WITH COLLIER COUNTY. IT WILL PREVENT DUPLICATION AND CLARIFIES A CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE RESPONSIBILITY WITH ACCOUNTABILITY. SO WE WILL CLEARLY DEFINE SERVICE ROLES BETWEEN THE CITY FOR STORMWATER UTILITY JURISDICTION, COUNTY FOR STORMWATER RESPONSIBILITY, AND AS WELL AS STATE WHERE THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. THE BCBB COLLIER COUNTY INTERLOCAL WITH BCCBCBB. HOW THAT ALL PLAYS TOGETHER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. IF I MIGHT THANK YOU FOR THE SHORT TO THE POINT PRESENTATION. ONE OF THE THINGS I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON IS THAT THIS IS AN ENDEAVOR TOWARD SOMETHING WE HAVE NOT DONE WITHIN CITY OF NAPLES. WE HAVE DONE TREMENDOUS WORK IN THE PAST. THIS COUNCIL HAS DONE TREMENDOUS WORK AND CREATED A FOUNDATION FOR WHERE WE CAN LAUNCH SOME OF THE THINGS WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO. SO WE HAVE THE FUNDAMENTALS AND FOUNDATIONS ESTABLISHED BY THIS COUNCIL AND BY OUR NEW CITY MANAGER, MOST IMPORTANTLY, FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK. WE HAVE THE UTILITY ORDINANCE AND WE HAVE THE UTILITY FEES CREATED

[00:25:05]

ENTERPRISE FUND BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A FEE BASED SERVICE LIKE WATER SEWER, WHICH EXTENDS OUTSIDE OF CITY BOUNDARIES, PROVIDES REVENUES TO THE CITY, WHICH HAS OLDER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC UTILITIES RENEWAL CITY PROGRAM. SO WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING TODAY IS LET'S HAVE OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM MANAGED LIKE AN ENTERPRISE FUND, INCLUDING JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES, WHO BENEFITS PAY? CURRENTLY, ONLY CITY RESIDENTS, I CALL THEM NOW CUSTOMERS. OUR STORMWATER UTILITY CUSTOMERS SAY PLEASE PAY FEES. AND AND AND THE OTHER PIECE IS THAT, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE MADE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE STORMWATER FEES FOR US TO BE FINANCIALLY SOUND TO THE FUTURE NEXT 20 YEARS PLUS. AND THAT DECISION, TOUGH DECISION HAS BEEN MADE BY THIS COUNCIL AS RECOMMENDED BY OUR CITY MANAGER. THAT IS VERY TOUGH. INCREASING FEES FOR SERVICE. SO THOSE ARE THE TOUGH DECISIONS THIS CITY COUNCIL HAS MADE. ESTABLISHED FOUNDATION, AND WE ARE HERE TODAY TO SAY, YES, IT IS TIME FOR US TO LOOK AT. LET'S ESTABLISH JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES. DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THE CUSTOMERS ARE LIKE WATER, SEWER, IF THEY BENEFIT FROM OUR SYSTEM AND THEY DIRECT DISCHARGE TO OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM, WHERE WE TAKE THEIR STORMWATER, CONVEY IT, TREAT IT AND DISCHARGE IT FOR THEM. THEREFORE, THEY SHOULD BE TREATED AS ANY OTHER CUSTOMER. WE SERVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES AHEAD OF US, AND THIS STUDY IS GOING TO GIVE US THE NAVIGATIONAL TOOLS, HOW WE GET TO THAT NORTH STAR. LET'S HAVE ONE OF THE BEST STORMWATER UTILITY ESTABLISH, WHICH DOES NOT DEPEND ON AT VOLUME TAXES. AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE RESOLUTION JUST CAME OUT YESTERDAY AND GOOD CHANCES THAT WE WILL HAVE FURTHER CONSTRAINTS AND OR LIMITATIONS TO AT ALL TAXES. SO THIS CITY AHEAD OF THE GAME FINANCIALLY AND FUNDING DRIVES INVESTMENT AND FUNDING DRIVES RESULTS, EXECUTION UPON US. IF WE DON'T EXECUTE WHAT THIS COUNCIL WANTS AND MY BOSS CITY MANAGER WANTS, THEN YES, I'LL BE THE FIRST ONE.

WE'RE SAYING WE GOT TO DO BETTER, BUT THIS IS A WONDERFUL STARTING POINT FOR THIS COUNCIL.

AND THIS STUDY IS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS NOT ONLY FUNDAMENTAL FINANCIAL NEEDS MOVING FORWARD, BUT I THINK THAT FOUNDATION ALREADY ESTABLISHED NEXT STEP IS GOING TO BE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS. I THINK THAT HAS BEEN ONE OF THE CENTRAL POINT OF DISCUSSION FOR THIS ORDINANCE. AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY ABOUT INSPECTIONS IS THAT, FRANKLY, WE HAVE AN ENTERPRISE ASSET MANAGEMENT GIS SPACE INITIATIVE THAT IS IN PROGRESS. WHAT THAT MEANS WE WILL NOT FOCUS ON SINGLE HOMES. WE WILL NOT FOCUS ON PRIVATE PROPERTIES. WE'RE GOING TO FOCUS ON THE SYSTEM THAT WE OWN FIRST. THAT IS 90 PLUS PERCENT OF THE STORMWATER, UTILITY PIPES, PUMPS, CONVEYANCE, SYSTEM TREATMENT, WATER QUALITY AND INSPECTIONS WE HAVE TO DO HAS TO BE EFFICIENT. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO GO AND INSPECT PRIVATE HOMES AND OR ASK PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS TO PAY 4 TO $6000 TO A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER EVERY 3 TO 5 YEARS TO DO INSPECTIONS, WHERE I'D RATHER HAVE THAT FUNDING SOURCE, FRANKLY, TO DO THE INSPECTIONS AND MANAGE THE SYSTEM AS ENTERPRISE FUND. SO THE POINT I'M MAKING IS THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO INSPECTIONS, ALL THOSE INSPECTIONS WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST OR PUT THE BURDEN ON PROPERTY OWNERS, WE WILL DO IN HOUSE AS PART OF OUR ENTERPRISE ASSET MANAGEMENT AND IN THE PRIVATE SYSTEM CONVEYED TO UTILITY LIKE WATER SEWER. WE WILL TAKE THE OWNERSHIP, WE WILL MAINTAIN IT. WE WILL INSPECT IT NOW ON PRIVATE INSPECTIONS AND PRIVATE PROPERTY OBLIGATIONS FROM PREVIOUS ORDINANCE. I JUST WANT TO SHARE MY THOUGHTS WITH YOU THAT I DID SHARE WITH MY GREAT CITY MANAGER HERE. WE DO NOT ASK PROPERTY OWNERS INSPECT GFI OR THEIR ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. THAT'S LIFE AND SAFETY. IF GFI DOESN'T WORK, OUR KIDS AT RISK,

[00:30:07]

SO WE DON'T ASK THEM TO DO THEIR OWN HOUSE INSPECTIONS EVERY 3 OR 5 YEARS FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEM, AIR CONDITIONING, WINDOWS, ROOF, WASTEWATER, BACKFLOW PREVENTION, DRINKING WATER, ALL THOSE THINGS ARE AS IMPORTANT, IN MY OPINION, FRANKLY, MORE IMPORTANT THAN DOING INSPECTIONS BY THE PRIVATE OWNERS OBLIGATED TO SUBMIT REPORTS FROM A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. TO US, IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE'RE ASKING MEDICAL DOCTORS TO DO THE VACCINATION FOR US, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO REVISIT EVERYTHING ON TABLE FROM AN INSPECTION STANDPOINT, WHAT WILL MAKE SENSE IS THAT INSPECTIONS UNDER MPDS MS4 IS VERY COMPREHENSIVE. THAT'S A REGULATORY INSPECTIONS THAT WE'RE OBLIGATED TO DO AS THE CITY, AND WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WE WILL DO INSPECTIONS ON NOT ONLY PUBLIC BUT PRIVATE SYSTEMS, BUT IT HAS TO BE BALANCED IN TERMS OF BENEFIT RATIO, BENEFIT COST RATIO. WE JUST WE JUST ABOUT THE MOVING FORWARD AND EARLY FINISHING OUT. WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO FINISH. GIVEN THE GIVEN THE POSITIVE PRESSURE WE HAVE ARE FROM CITY MANAGER. WE WANT TO FINISH THOSE TWO PUMP STATIONS EARLIER AND FASTER. SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION, HOPEFULLY MIDDLE OF THIS STORM SEASON FOR THE ONE PUMP STATION AND THE SECOND PUMP STATION NORTH IS GOING TO BE NEXT STORM SEASON, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TRANSFER THEM TO OUR OPERATIONS. THIS CITY WILL HAVE ONE OF THE BEST PUMP STATIONS THAT WILL MANAGE FLOWS THAT WE COULDN'T MANAGE BEFORE. MORE SPECIFICALLY, 25 YEAR, THREE DAY STORM AND DESIGNED TO HANDLE PEAK FLOWS. 25 YEAR, ONE DAY STORM EVENTS, ALL THAT COST BECOMES AN ENTERPRISE FUND. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BECOMES ENTERPRISE FUND. SO GOING BACK TO AGENDA ITEM, IF WE HAVE CUSTOMER BASE THAT WE'RE GOING TO IDENTIFY WITH NO AMBIGUITY AND CLEARLY DEFINE THEY DO BENEFIT FROM OUR STORMWATER UTILITY EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS. YES. THEY GET TO PAY APPROPRIATE SHARE OF COSTS FOR OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM THAT SERVES THEM NO DIFFERENT THAN WATER WASTEWATER UTILITY. SO THAT'S THE CONCEPT. BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT DEPARTURE POINT I WANT TO PUT EMPHASIS ON IS THAT THIS COUNCIL SHOULD BE PROUD OF WHAT THEY HAVE DONE, AND THIS CITY SHOULD BE PROUD OF WHAT THEY HAVE ACHIEVED LAST 6 TO 10 YEARS. THAT CREATED THE FOUNDATION FINANCIALLY. INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVES. NOW WE'RE MOVING TO THE NEXT STEP, NEXT FRONTIER. LET'S PUT THIS CITY ON THE MAP. BEING THE BEST STORMWATER UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUND. FINANCIALLY, SOUND STANDS ON OUR OWN, ON OUR OWN FEET. OH, BY THE WAY, WE WILL NOT SUBSIDIZE STORMWATER OPERATIONS AS AN ENTERPRISE FUND USING OUR OWN TAXES. THAT'S THE DEPARTURE POINT FOR US. I HOPE. I GAVE OVERALL SUMMARY WHAT THIS AGENDA ITEM IS. IT'S THE BEGINNING OF A GREAT ENTERPRISE. SIR. IF YOU HAVE FINANCIALLY ANY COMMENTS? I STARTED OFF KIND OF WITH THANK YOU SIR. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AT THIS TIME. UNTIL WE GET TO STEP ONE, WE CAN'T GET TO THE OTHER STEPS. AND THIS WOULD BE STEP ONE. THAT'S ALL I WOULD ADD TO THAT.

THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS IS AN INITIATIVE THAT IS INNOVATIVE AND IT'S A SOLUTION TO OUR FUTURE IN HANDLING THE STORMWATER AND THE COST. SO THANK YOU. I KNOW THAT WE HAD AN ISSUE WITH THE PRIVATE OWNERS AND THE INSPECTIONS. AND I, AND I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH WITH YOU AND STAFF THAT PUTTING THE BURDEN ON THEM, WE TRIED TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WOULD. SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE HAS TO CALL AND COMPLAIN TO THEIR NEIGHBOR ABOUT THEIR STORMWATER STILL CONTINUING TO FLOOD, BUT IT GOES BACK TO THE OPERATIONS AND THE AND THE MAINTENANCE PIECE OF THAT. SO I'M REALLY VERY GRATEFUL FOR THIS INITIATIVE. I KNOW THERE ARE PROBABLY QUESTIONS THAT OTHERS HAVE, BUT WITH THAT, THANK YOU. YES. VICE MAYOR. OKAY. THANK

[00:35:11]

YOU. THANK YOU FOR THIS INITIATIVE. I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF IT. TO ADDRESS OUR DUAL GOALS OF FLOODING PREVENTION AND MITIGATION, BUT ALSO WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT. I THINK WE THAT THE CITY MADE GREAT STRIDES FIVE YEARS AGO WITH THE STORMWATER ORDINANCE, WHEN WE DOUBLED THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT WAS BEING RETAINED ON PROPERTY AND ALLOWING IT TO PERCOLATE INTO THE SOIL, WHICH NOT ONLY KEPT THE WATER FROM ENTERING THE STORMWATER SYSTEM, BUT ALSO ALLOWED IT TO BE FILTERED DOWN INTO THE WATER TABLE AND BE SOMEWHAT CLEANED.

SO I APPRECIATE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE ORDINANCE THAT WE ADOPTED AND IMPROVE IT, MAKE IT BETTER, REALLY ENHANCE HOW STORMWATER SYSTEMS ARE DESIGNED, IMPLEMENTED AND MAINTAINED SO THAT WE ENSURE WE'RE GETTING THE BENEFIT. I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT THE CITY HAS TO DO ITS PART WITH OUR OWN SYSTEM TO MAKE SURE IT'S OPERATING EFFECTIVELY. AGAIN, I THINK, AS YOU SAID, GREAT STRIDES HAVE BEEN MADE OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS IN IMPROVING HOW WE OPERATE AND MAINTAIN OUR OWN SYSTEM. OBVIOUSLY, WE STILL HAVE WORK TO DO, AND I'M GLAD YOU'RE HERE, BOTH OF YOU AND YOUR TEAMS, TO WORK ON THAT AND AND MAKE THINGS BETTER. AND I SUPPORT DEFINITELY ADDRESSING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GETTING A FREE RIDE ON OUR SYSTEM, ON THE BACK OF OUR TAXPAYERS AND RATEPAYERS, THE PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS WHO OBVIOUSLY THEIR WATER, WHETHER IT'S COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL, WHO'S STORMWATER IS COMING INTO OUR SYSTEM, AND THEN WE'RE HAVING TO PROCESS IT AND TREAT IT, BUT WE'RE PAYING FOR IT. SO I THINK IT'S ONLY FAIR TO ADDRESS THAT AND COME UP WITH A FAIR AND REASONABLE MECHANISM THAT THEY CAN CONTRIBUTE EQUALLY TO THE THE WHOLE PROCESS OF WATER MANAGEMENT AND WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT. CERTAINLY, I APPRECIATE THAT. I KNOW I ASKED YOU A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS YESTERDAY, AND I APPRECIATE YOU RESPONDING TO THOSE SO. WELL, I ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD FOR EVERYONE'S BENEFIT WAS, ARE WE GOING TO LOOK AT THE RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES VERSUS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES? AND I THINK THE ANSWER WAS, YES, WE'RE GOING TO RELOOK AT THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S BALANCED AND FAIR AND REASONABLE. I ALSO ASKED IF WE COULD INCLUDE INDUSTRY GROUPS LIKE WE DID IN 2021 WITH THE COLLIER BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND OTHERS. AND THE ANSWER I GOT BACK WAS, OF COURSE, WE'RE GOING TO. SO I'M GLAD BECAUSE WE'LL COME UP WITH A BETTER SOLUTION WITH THEIR IDEAS AND THEIR INPUT, BUT ALSO BUY IN. YOU KNOW, ONCE WE WHATEVER WE COME UP WITH, IF PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IT AND HAD A ROLE IN DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING THE STANDARDS, THEN IT WILL BE MUCH EASIER TO IMPLEMENT GOING FORWARD. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS, I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR WORKING US TILL MIDNIGHT, SIR. I DON'T THINK IT WAS THAT LATE. THANK YOU, I HAVE. BARTON AND THEN THIS IS COREY. THIS IS GREAT. VERY LOGICAL AND VERY INNOVATIVE, WHICH I APPRECIATE BOTH OF THOSE POINTS AS AS IT PERTAINS TO THIS. I WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS JUST CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT, MAYBE, MAYBE JUST A LITTLE MORE SUCCINCTLY AND LET YOU EITHER CONFIRM THIS OR STRAIGHTEN ME OUT. AS WE ARE FULLY AWARE, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF AREAS IN OUTSIDE OF OUR CITY LIMITS IN THE COUNTY WHERE WE'VE GOT WATERSHED FROM COMING FROM COUNTY PROPERTY THAT THAT SHEDS INTO AND IS IS TREATED BY OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM. WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU GUYS IS THAT. THE COUNTY IS GOING TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE USE OF OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM. IS THAT IS THAT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT? YES. AND I THINK ONCE WE ESTABLISH JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES THROUGH THIS STUDY AND ASSESSMENT, WE WILL IDENTIFY DIRECT DISCHARGE TO OUR SYSTEM.

THAT WILL BE THE CUSTOMER BASE THAT WE WILL SAY THEY HAVE TO, AND WE'LL FIND MEANS AND METHODS TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. THEY HAVE TO PAY AS MUCH, IF NOT LITTLE MORE WITH SURCHARGE LIKE WATER, SEWER, THEIR FAIR SHARE. NOW, SIR, YOU BROUGHT UP THE. ANOTHER NEXT FRONTIER. SO THIS IS IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING CITY LIMITS. BUT THEN THERE IS THIS IS A SUBREGIONAL. AND THEN

[00:40:02]

THERE'S A REGIONAL APPROACH. THIS WILL OPEN THE DOOR FOR US TO HAVE VERY GOOD, COMPREHENSIVE, FULL PARTNERSHIP WITH BIG CYPRESS BASIN BOARD THAT WE ALL PAY AT OUR OWN TAXES TO. AND THEY MANAGE ALL THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CANAL SYSTEM FROM COLLIER COUNTY AND ONE BEING GOLDEN GATE CANAL THAT DIRECTLY DISCHARGES TO OUR GOLDEN RIVER AND NAPLES BAY. SO WHAT THEY CAN DO AND THEY NEED TO DO WILL FOLLOW WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE AS OUR VICE MAYOR AND MAYOR INDICATED, ONCE WE GET OUR HOUSING ORDER ESTABLISHED, THIS JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES NEXT STEP IS GOING TO BE BIG CYPRESS BASIN BOARD. WE MIGHT EVEN HAVE A JOINT WORKSHOP SAYING, WHAT ARE THE THINGS YOU CAN DO TO INCREASE WATER QUALITY COMING FROM YOUR SYSTEM TO OUR CITY UTILITY? THEN WE'LL GO ONE STEP FURTHER AND WE'LL GO TO WEST PALM AND WE'LL TALK TO WEST PALM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. AND WHO KNOWS, FIRST TIME IN IN IN STATE'S HISTORY, WE MIGHT HAVE STORMWATER UTILITY GOVERNING BOARD OF CITY OF NAPLES MEETING WITH GOVERNING BOARD OF WEST PALM WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. BECAUSE WE'RE PAYING WEST PALM AS MUCH AS WE'RE PAYING BIG CYPRESS BASIN BOARD ON OUR TEXTBOOK. SO THESE ARE THE FINANCIAL FOUNDATION FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT THAT IS REGIONAL, SUBREGIONAL. AND WITHIN OUR UTILITY THAT WE WILL DETERMINE WHO ARE THE DIRECT CONTRIBUTORS TO OUR SYSTEM.

ONCE WE HAVE THAT IN ORDER, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO MOVE AS FAR AS WEST PALM, STARTING WITH COLLIER COUNTY AND THE BASIN BOARD. BUT YES, ABSOLUTELY, SIR, YOUR STATEMENT IS RIGHT ON.

OKAY. THAT'S GREAT. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THIS, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF OF POTENTIAL CHANGES IN LEGISLATION AND THE ADDITIONAL PRESSURE THAT WE ARE LIKELY TO BE FINANCIAL PRESSURE THAT WE'RE LIKELY TO RECEIVE FROM A STANDPOINT OF PROPERTY TAXES OR LESS PROPERTY TAXES BEING RECEIVED. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF EXPENSES HERE TO KEEP OUR COMMUNITY SAFE. AND THESE THIS TYPE OF INNOVATIVE IDEA AND GAME PLAN IS, IS EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED. SO JOB WELL DONE, I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, MR. MIRACLE. YEAH, I'D LIKE TO THANK DOCTOR. THIS IS LIKE THE HAPPIEST MOMENT. I MEAN, I REALLY I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS THROUGHOUT THE ELECTION, THIS CLARITY OF RESPONSIBILITY. THIS IS THE WAY TO DO IT. AND WE REALLY NEED TO GET THIS DONE. THESE CROSS BORDER WATERSHEDS ARE BECOMING MORE IMPACTFUL AS THE NEW DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS TO, ESPECIALLY ON THE EAST RAIL. I LIVE IN A WATERSHED THAT'S BEING SEVERELY IMPACTED BY WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE DAVIS CORRIDOR AND ON THE EAST RAIL CORRIDOR. SO I SEE THAT FIRSTHAND. BUT STANDING IN IN SWAN LAKE AND LOOKING AT THE SEVEN INFLOW PIPES COMING IN FROM COMMERCIAL AREAS IN THE COUNTY AND ALL THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, US HAVING THE BURDEN OF PAYING FOR A PUMPING MECHANISM AND A TREATMENT SYSTEM IN THAT LAKE. IT'S JUST NOT FAIR. IT'S JUST NOT FAIR. SO THIS WILL THIS WILL GIVE A LOT OF CLARITY.

AND LOOKING AT THE COUNTY AS A CUSTOMER, SINCE WE'RE TREATING THEIR WASTE, COMING INTO OUR AREA MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. BUT WE NEED THE EVIDENCE. WE NEED TO BE PROFESSIONALLY DONE. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS DOES. AND WE GOT THE 31 STORMWATER LAKES THAT ARE KIND OF RETENTION BASINS FOR A LOT OF STUFF. SO THERE'S A LOT TO LOOK AT HERE. SO IT'S A IT'S A PRETTY BIG STUDY. BUT I DO THINK THIS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER GIVEN WHAT'S GOING ON WITH DEVELOPMENT THAT THAT THIS IS BEING DONE. AND THEN WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT, PROBABLY OUR, OUR, OUR BIGGEST BOUNDARY CROSS BORDER BOUNDARY ISSUE IS THAT CANAL FROM GOLDEN GATE COMING INTO NAPLES BAY NOW. AND THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE, BUT THAT'S MORE THAN STORMWATER. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POLLUTION NOW. SO THOSE ARE ISSUES THAT WILL PROBABLY COME NEXT. BUT WITH WATER SAMPLING AND AND FIGURING OUT WHAT IS COMING INTO OUR INTO OUR WATER SYSTEMS, INCLUDING THE GULF THAT WHAT'S COMING IN FROM THE STATE AND ALL THAT. SO, SO THIS, THIS CAN. CHANGE OUR FUNDING COMPLETELY AND GET A LOT DONE BECAUSE AS WE EXIST NOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO MUCH OF ANYTHING. BUT, BUT OPENING THE DOOR TO THIS WILL BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH A LOT. AND I APPLAUD DOCTOR GEORGE WHAT HE'S DOING. I'M JUST I'M JUST SO THRILLED HE'S HERE WITH US. AND I I'M I'M VERY, VERY HAPPY ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING. AND I DEFINITELY RECOMMEND STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS. SO THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR MAKING SURE WE ALL KEEP THE SAME VERBIAGE. AND THEY ARE NOT LAKES. THEY ARE STORM WATER PONDS. WITH THAT COUNCIL MEMBER

[00:45:03]

I'M I'M PULLING NUMBERS FROM AIR. WE'RE PAYING TWO, FOUR, SIX TIMES MORE THAN COMBINED.

THEN THAT BECOMES OUR POINT OF NEGOTIATION, SAYING, YOU GOT TO STEP UP AND TO DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO REGIONAL AND SUBREGIONAL, BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING YOUR WATER, ENHANCING IT, DISCHARGING IT, CLEANING IT. AND THEREFORE REGIONALLY, THEY HAVE TO STEP UP. AS FAR AS GOLDEN GATE CANAL SYSTEM GOES. THAT'S BIG CYPRESS BASIN BOARD COMBINED WITH SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. I HOPE I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MA'AM. YOU CERTAINLY HAVE, AND GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU.

THIS TAKE. THIS NOT ONLY TOOK A LOT OF INTELLECT, IT TAKES A LOT OF COURAGE. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR STEPPING FORWARD ON THIS. THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ. I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT. AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, DOCTOR GEORGE, COUNCILWOMAN PENNIMAN, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT LUCK IS WHEN SKILL MEETS OPPORTUNITY. AND WE HAVE. I'VE BEEN ELECTED NOW WITH THREE AND A HALF MONTHS. SO I'M AN EXPERT ON NOTHING AND I HAVE OPINIONS ON EVERYTHING, BUT I'M

[00:50:04]

LEARNING. WHEN I GOT ELECTED, I WAS TOLD BY MY COLLEAGUES, MY GOOD FRIENDS ON THE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, A NUMBER OF THEM, THAT WE WERE GETTING ONE OF THE JEWELS OF COLLIER AND YOUR CONTINUED WORKING HERE WITHIN THE CITY, AND I TOOK AN HONOR IN THAT, JUST SITTING THERE SAYING, WELL, SO WE'VE GOT AN MVP AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU AND YOUR TEAM, I THINK, HAVE DONE STELLAR WORK HERE. I'D LIKE TO BE MINDFUL OF SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT THAT WE USE UP HERE, THOUGH, FROM THE DAIS, THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE EARLIER. WE WANT TO HOLD THE COUNTY ACCOUNTABLE. WE WANT TO HOLD. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT THE RHETORIC, YOU KNOW, ACCOUNTABILITY IS A VERY UBIQUITOUS TERM, BUT THERE'S PEOPLE THAT DO THINGS. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY NECESSARILY MEAN TO HAVE ILL DONE TO OTHERS BY IT. BUT IF THERE ARE OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH AND NEED TO WORK WITH MORE COOPERATIVELY, I'D LIKE TO SEE RHETORIC OF BLAME AND POINTING FINGERS. WE CAN DO THAT, AND I MAY BE GUILTY OF IT AT SOME POINT. PROBABLY SURE WILL, BUT I HOPE THAT SOMEONE WILL REMIND ME OF THE RHETORIC THAT I'M USING AS I HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO, TO BEAR A FEW TIMES, THAT I'M A VERY DIRECT KIND OF GUY, AND I BELIEVE THE STRAIGHTEST DISTANCE IS THE STRAIGHT LINE, THE MOST DIRECT PATH. SO I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE PLANNING YOU HAVE PUT FORTH HERE IS, IS AMAZING. AND FIGURING, FACTORING AND FIGURING THE FUNDING FOR IT IS EVEN MORE. I'M BENEFICIAL, I THINK, TO MANAGER YOUNG. SO JUST FROM THE THE BOTTOM OF WHAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE SO FAR, WE HAVE A LOT OF WATER ISSUES IN THIS COMMUNITY AND I'M GLAD YOU'RE AT THE HELM, TAKING OVER IT AND TAKING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR IT. I HAVE PHONED YOU MULTIPLE TIMES TO COME TAKE A LOOK AT DIFFERENT SITUATIONS AND YOU HAVE NEVER, THE N WORD, NEVER FAILED TO RESPOND. AND I CAN'T COMMEND YOU ENOUGH FOR THAT. AND THE PROFESSIONALISM YOU EXHIBIT AND THE ESTEEM WITH WHICH YOU'RE HELD WITH OUR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERS AS WELL. THANK YOU, DOCTOR GEORGE AND YOUR STAFF. AND SIR, I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP BECAUSE YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELL TAKEN, AND I TAKE IT AND WE TAKE IT TO THE HEART BEING AN APPLIED SCIENTIST, ENGINEER AND MANAGER, SOMETIMES I GET CONFUSED WHAT I'M WEARING. SO YOU'RE RIGHT, I WILL, I WILL, I WILL MAKE THE CORRECTION TO THE STATEMENTS I USED BASED ON YOUR COMMENTS, BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE RIGHT ON THE INTENT, WHICH IS MOST IMPORTANT. ABSOLUTELY NOT TO INDICATE IN ANY SHAPE AND FORM OUR STATE OR REGIONAL, SUBREGIONAL AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT IS NOT DOING WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.

ACCOUNTABILITY, I MENTIONED, WAS MORE FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT, WHEN WE SHOW THE DATA AND WHAT HAVE YOU. SO YOUR, YOUR YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELL TAKEN AND HEARTFELT AND, AND I THINK THAT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE INTENT IS. WORDS DO MATTER. SO MOVING FORWARD, I THINK THAT THE. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT COUNTY GOVERNMENT AND BIG CYBERSPACE BOARD AND WEST PALM CAN DO IS GOING TO BE MORE IN THE FORM OF PARTNERSHIP, SHARED VISION. WE'RE IN THIS TOGETHER.

WE'RE PUTTING OUR RESOURCES, HOW WE CAN HELP YOU. IN THE PROCESS OF PROGRESSING OUR BUSINESS. SO COMMENTS ARE WELL TAKEN AND APPRECIATED, SIR. THANK YOU. AND THEY WEREN'T JUST AT YOU. THEY WERE FOR MY COLLEAGUES ON COUNCIL AS WELL. SIR. I'M THE I'M THE WARRIOR TAKES THE BULLETS. SUN TZU THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I DO NOT HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT. THE ONE AREA I'M JUST LOOKING AT THAT THE TASK ORDER AND THE SCOPE, THE ONE AREA OF. I'M CORRECT THAT THE. WE CAN'T CHARGE THE AIRPORT FOR STORMWATER FEES. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN WAY OF ADDRESSING THESE STORMWATER FEES. YEAH, WE WE CHARGE THE AIRPORT. MISS DOUGLAS IS IN THE AUDIENCE IF SHE WANTS TO OPINE. BUT WE DO CHARGE THE AIRPORT. IT'S NOT AS.

BECAUSE THEY'RE THE WAY THEY'RE SUBDIVIDED UNITS AND THINGS. IT'S UNIQUE IN THE WAY THAT IT IS THERE. BUT WE WE CHARGE THE AIRPORT TO BE CLEAR. WE CHARGE THEM FOR STORMWATER FEES. FEES.

CORRECT. OKAY. THEY ALSO HAVE THE BURDEN OF TAKING ON A LARGE MAJORITY OF COLLIER COUNTY. I

[00:55:04]

THINK IT WOULD BEHOOVE US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH THEM AND UNDERSTANDING THE BURDENS THAT ARE PLACED ON THEM AND IN THE WATER QUALITY ISSUE AND THE QUANTITY ISSUE. AS THEY'RE LOOKING AT RESILIENCY. ALSO, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IN THE SCOPE AT ALL OR IF THAT'S THE NEXT PHASE OF HOW WE'RE LOOKING AT. I MEAN, I KNOW THE MAIN FOCUS IS ON RIGHT NOW. THE OTHER THAT NORTHERN BASIN. BUT AND I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT JUST THAT'S ONE AREA WE DON'T WANT TO FORGET. SO BECAUSE IT POLLUTES THE BAY, THERE ARE DIRECT POINT SOURCE POINT TAKEN AND IT WILL BE INCLUDED IN OUR THINKING AND ASSESSMENT PROCESS. THANK YOU, MR. ORNSTEIN. THANK YOU. I KNOW THAT YOU BRING A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE FROM SARASOTA. THEY'VE EXPERIENCED THE SIMILAR ASPECTS OF WHAT WE ARE GOING THROUGH. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR EXPERTISE. THANK YOU, DOCTOR YILMAZ, FOR, AGAIN, BEING AT THE HELM OF THIS. YES. VICE MAYOR. YEAH. I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

AND JUST A SECOND. BUT BASED ON THE DISCUSSION IT REMINDED ME WE MAY WANT TO REACH OUT TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND BIG CYPRESS BASIN BOARD, IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY, TO ASK THEM IF THEY WANT TO BE A PARTNER IN THIS PROJECT AND LEARN FROM IT, AND MAYBE HELP SPONSOR IT FINANCIALLY, I DON'T WANT TO HOLD US UP. I WANT TO KEEP PROCEEDING. I DON'T WANT TO WAIT ON A GRANT, BUT TO THE EXTENT THEY WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PHASE, IN THE NEXT PHASE IS THAT WOULD BE MOST WELCOME. OTHERWISE, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS PROJECT AND THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA. I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION BY VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ. AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENNYMAN. YES.

VICE MAYOR. BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. KROLL. YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. AND THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU, MANAGER YOUNG AND COUNCIL AND MAYOR, THAT TAKES US TO. THAT CONCLUDES 13 A. 13 B IS A TIME CERTAIN. 13 C. YES, THANK YOU MAYOR. CITY ATTORNEY IS ANNOUNCING HIS REQUEST PURSUANT TO. TWO. 86.011 SUBPARAGRAPH EIGHT FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING ADVICE CONCERNING STRATEGY RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES OR SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH LITIGATION STYLE. NAPLES PRIDE VERSUS CITY OF NAPLES ET AL. CASE NUMBER 2025 DASH CV DASH 0291. MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, FORT MYERS DIVISION ON JUNE 15TH, 2026, AT APPROXIMATELY 1230 IN THE CITY'S CONFERENCE ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL. THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS EXPECTED TO LAST APPROXIMATELY TWO HOURS BUT MAY END EARLIER. THE ENTIRE SESSION SHALL BE RECORDED BY A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER.

REPORTER SHALL RECORD THE TIMES OF COMMENCEMENT, TERMINATION OF THE SESSION. ALL DISCUSSION AND PROCEEDINGS. NAMES OF ALL PERSONS. PRESENT. NAMES OF ALL PERSONS SPEAKING. NO PORTION OF THE SESSION WILL BE OFF THE RECORD. CITY COUNCIL WILL NOT TAKE ACTION DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT MAY TAKE ACTION CONCERNING ONE OF THE TWO ITEMS I LISTED ABOVE AT A FUTURE PUBLIC MEETING OR WHEN WE RECONVENE FROM THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS WILL BE PRESENT DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. MAYOR TERESA HEITMANN, COUNCIL MEMBERS BILL KRAMER, LINDA PENNIMAN, VERN BARTON, TED BLANKENSHIP, JOHN KROLL, SCOTT SCHULTZ, CITY MANAGER GARY YOUNG, CITY ATTORNEY. MATTHEW MCCONNELL, ATTORNEY ODESSA DICKMAN, ATTORNEY NICOLE MOSS AND ATTORNEY NICHOLAS VARON, ATTORNEY PETE PATTERSON, AND A REPRESENTATIVE FROM DINES COURT REPORTING. MR. MCCONNELL, WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THAT? JUNE 15TH.

THANK YOU. OKAY. WITH THAT, MOVING ON TO ITEM 14, A, MR. MCCONNELL. THANK YOU, MAYOR, AN

[14.A) First Reading of Ordinance Amending Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste Rates using US-CPI. An Ordinance Amending Section 30-9(A), Monthly Rates, Fees and Charges; and Amending Section 32-71, Collection of Refuse Types I And II Set Forth in Appendix “A” Fees and Charges Schedule of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, to Reflect Annual Rate Adjustments Supported by the United States Consumer Price Index; and Providing for Codification; Conflicts; Severability; Correction of Scrivener’s Error; Construction; Publication; and an Effective Date.]

ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 30-9, SUBPARAGRAPH A MONTHLY RATES, FEES AND CHARGES, AND AMENDING SECTION 32-71 COLLECTION OF REFUSE TYPES ONE AND TWO SET FORTH IN APPENDIX A FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES TO REFLECT ANNUAL RATE ADJUSTMENTS SUPPORTED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY, CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, CONSTRUCTION, PUBLICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. GOOD MORNING, MADAM MAYOR. I'LL JUST TURN THIS OVER TO STEFAN AND LISA RELATED TO RATE INCREASES. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. AS YOU KNOW, ANNUALLY WE COME BEFORE YOU. IS IT ON? YES. JUST STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. SORRY. YES,

[01:00:02]

I LISA DOUGLAS, BILLING AND COLLECTION MANAGER FOR THE CITY OF NAPLES FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

EACH YEAR WE COME BEFORE YOU TO BRING OUR ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF OUR CONSUMER PRICE INDEX. PER THE CITY CODE. THE CITY CODE ALSO DOES SAY THAT THE RATE ADJUSTMENTS. THAT DOESN'T PRECLUDE CITY COUNCIL FROM MAKING OTHER MODIFICATIONS TO THE RATES. IF THEY FEEL LIKE THE CPI OR CONSUMER PRICE INDEX IS NOT EQUITABLE ENOUGH. THAT WAS PUT IN LAST YEAR. SO I KIND OF SUMMARIZED THAT IN THE AGENDA MEMO FOR YOU. I ALSO SUMMARIZED A VARIETY OF THINGS THAT INDICATED WE REALLY LOOKED HIGH AND LOW FOR ALL THE OPTIONS THAT, YOU KNOW, WERE WERE PREVIOUSLY DONE. WE DID A CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR THE MIAMI AREA, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ALL ADOPTED FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS. IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE REVIEWED A VARIETY OF OTHER CONSTRUCTION BASED THINGS THAT WERE KIND OF COMPARABLE IN, IN SOME LOWER ACTUALLY THAN THE, THAN THE SUGGESTED 3.8% THAT'S SUBMITTED TO YOU. THIS CODE ORDINANCE DOES TALK ABOUT THREE DIFFERENT AREAS. THE WATER SEWER FUND, IN ADDITION TO SOLID WASTE. AND THE LAST ONE IS STORMWATER. AS YOU RECALL, BACK IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, WE BROUGHT A STORMWATER INCREASE OF 25% FOR FOUR YEARS. SO WE'RE NOT SPEAKING ABOUT STORMWATER TODAY BECAUSE UNDER MR. YOUNG'S BRILLIANT MIND, HE BROUGHT A PLAN THAT WILL FUND THAT FOR FOR YEARS TO COME AND A VERY SOLID PLAN FOR YEARS TO COME. AND SO TODAY WE ARE ONLY GOING TO BE SPEAKING ABOUT WATER, SEWER AND SOLID WASTE. IT'S IMPORTANT IF ANY OF YOU ARE NUMBER CRUNCHERS, BECAUSE IF YOU GO IN THAT ORDINANCE AND I'M LOOKING AT VICE MAYOR AND YOU'RE TRYING TO CALCULATE IT, JUST KNOW THAT THERE'S A DISPOSAL PORTION OF THE SOLID WASTE RATES THAT ACTUALLY ARE DICTATED BY COLLIER COUNTY, AND THOSE ARE GOING TO BE 4.4% INCREASE FOR DISPOSAL FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THAT'S PASSED STRAIGHT THROUGH TO THEM. WE DON'T UPCHARGE OR ANYTHING.

IT'S JUST PASSED STRAIGHT THROUGH. IN ADDITION TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, YOU'LL SEE A 1.95% INCREASE ON DISPOSAL. SO IF YOU WERE TRYING TO MAKE THE NUMBERS MATCH AND THEY DIDN'T QUITE MATCH AT 3.8%, THAT'S THE REASON. ON THE DISPOSAL SIDE, IF YOU WERE TAKING AND TYING EACH OF THOSE NUMBERS, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, TOO, THAT DURING THE CIP DISCUSSIONS, BOTH DOCTOR YILMAZ AND MR. MUSCLE AND I BELIEVE MR. YOUNG ALSO MENTIONED THAT I'M NOT A RATE EXPERT. NONE OF US HERE ARE RATE EXPERTS. WE HAVE RATE CONSULTANTS TO DO THAT. SO IT IS VERY PRUDENT FOR US ON A FIVE YEAR BASIS TO ACTUALLY DO A RATE ASSESSMENT.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S PLANNED FOR 2027. SO WHILE WE SUBMIT THIS TO YOU FOR A 3.8%, SOME PEOPLE MAY THINK THAT'S NOT HIGH ENOUGH, BUT THE RATE CONSULTANT AND ALL OF THE REVIEW THAT WE'VE DONE, WE WOULDN'T SUBMIT THAT TO YOU WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THAT RATE. CONSULTANT REVIEWING OUR FUND BALANCE, OUR OUR CAPITAL PROJECTS IN THE PIPELINE, OUR CURRENT RATE STRUCTURE, OUR CURRENT RATE NUMBERS, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE COMING IN, HOW MUCH GROWTH IS HAPPENING? ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY A PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT THAT WILL PROVIDE US, HOPEFULLY, A FIVE YEAR PLAN THAT WE CAN COME BACK AND BRING THAT SUMMATION TO YOU AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT THEY RECOMMEND TO CONTINUE FUNDING AT A LEVEL THAT THE RESIDENTS DESERVE AND THE RESIDENTS NEED, AND WE NEED FOR OPERATIONAL COMPONENTS.

THIS RATE CUSTOMER CURRENTLY, AND I SUMMARIZE THIS IN THE MEMO, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT PUTS IT IN THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE THAT IF I WAS A RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER, I WOULD SEE ABOUT A $68 INCREASE IN BOTH MY WATER, SEWER AND STORM, I MEAN, AND SOLID WASTE AND ABOUT $150 FOR MY STORMWATER. SO YOU'RE GOING TO SEE ABOUT A $200 INCREASE ANNUALLY, GIVE OR TAKE, DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH CONSUMPTION YOU USE. WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU FOR THAT DETAILED PRESENTATION. COUNCIL QUESTIONS.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON, I MEAN, KRAMER, I WISH, I WISH I'LL GET IT RIGHT ONE DAY.

PELICAN DREAM. MISS, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR I, I FELT LIKE. THERE ARE THOSE OF MY STUDENTS WHO WOULD HAVE THE CHEMISTRY FOR DUMMIES BOOK OR WHATEVER. AND I THINK YOUR PRESENTATION, WHAT WE GOT IN OUR BACKGROUND MATERIALS WAS THAT WAS CLEAR, CONCISE, LINEAR, LOGICAL, AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND. AND IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND,

[01:05:04]

AND FORWARD THINKING AS WELL. SO IT'S PRETTY EASY IN MY VIEW, TO JUST TO MOVE THIS FORWARD.

AND AGAIN, COMMON SENSE, LINEAR LOGICAL NEEDS TO BE DONE KIND OF JUST HOW IT IS. AND, AND YOU GUYS ARE MAKING THAT EASY. SO THANKS, THANKS. THANKS FOR YOUR WORK. IS THAT A MOTION? SURE.

WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, IF THERE'S NO OTHER THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM AS PRESENTED. DO I NEED TO READ THE ORDINANCE? IF YOU COULD JUST GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL AS TO WHAT WE'RE APPROVING, THAT'D BE OKAY. FIRST READING. I MOVED TO APPROVE THE FIRST READING OF THIS ORDINANCE AMENDING WATER, SEWER AND SOLID WASTE RATES USING UNITED STATES CPI SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER AND A SECOND BY VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER PITTMAN. JUST A MOMENT. OH, YES. SCHULTZ. MR. KRAMER, MR. KRAMER WANTED TO BE SOMEBODY ELSE. I I'VE GOT YOUR ID SAYING I'M YOU. HEY, WHERE'D THAT COME FROM? OKAY, OKAY. SINCE YOU WANT TO BE COUNCIL MEMBER, SURE YOU ARE. WITH THAT, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ. AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER. KROL. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. VICE MAYOR. BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES.

MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU. AND I THOUGHT FOR SURE THAT WOULD BE A 40 MINUTE DISCUSSION.

BUT PER KRAMER'S ELOQUENT STATEMENT ABOUT THE DETAILS PRESENTED, THAT YOU MADE IT VERY EASY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WITH THAT, WE'RE MOVING TO ITEM

[14.B) An Ordinance Amending the Definition of Plan Review Fees in Section 16-51, Definitions, and Amending Sec. 16-53 – Plan Review Fee, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples for the Purpose of Providing Review Fees at Application, Resubmittal for Corrections and Revisions; Amending Section 16-52, Building Permit Fees, Section 16-53, Plan Review Fee, and Adding Paragraphs (6), (7) and (8) To Section 16-58, Miscellaneous Fees, of Chapter 16, Construction, Rehabilitation and Property Maintenance, of Appendix “A” – Fees and Charges Schedule of The Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, Florida for the Purpose of Increasing Building Permit, Plan Review, Plan Revision, and Inspection Fees; Providing for Codification; Conflicts; Severability; Correction of Scrivener’s Error; Construction; Publication; and an Effective Date.]

14 B. YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF PLAN REVIEW FEES IN SECTION 16-51 DEFINITIONS AND AMENDING SECTION 16-53 PLAN REVIEW FEE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING REVIEW FEES AT APPLICATION RESUBMITTAL AND CORRECTION OF REVISIONS. AMENDING SECTION 1652 BUILDING PERMIT FEES. SECTION 1653 PLAN REVIEW FEE AND ADDING PARAGRAPH SIX, SEVEN AND EIGHT TO SECTION 16-58. MISCELLANEOUS FEES OF CHAPTER 16 CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE OF APPENDIX A FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES, FLORIDA FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING BUILDING PERMIT PLAN, REVIEW, PLAN REVISION AND INSPECTION FEES PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY, CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, CONSTRUCTION, PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, MAYOR COUNCIL. I THOUGHT I'D BE SAYING GOOD AFTERNOON AT 14 B, SO I'M QUITE HAPPY TO SAY GOOD MORNING. SO WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY TO TALK ABOUT OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT FEES. AND SOME OF THE STUFF IS IS GOING TO BE A REPEAT FROM OUR WORKSHOP. BUT YOU KNOW, FOR SAYING HERE ON THE RECORD HERE AT OUR COUNCIL MEETING, I'M GOING TO REPEAT MYSELF. SO BEAR WITH ME. THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IS FUNDED THROUGH FEES. WE'RE SELF-FUNDED. WE'RE AN ENTERPRISE FUND. WE OUR COSTS ARE ALL RECOVERED THROUGH OUR PERMIT FEES. AND, YOU KNOW, EVERY YEAR, OUR MIX OF PERMITS, TYPES OF PERMITS, CONSTRUCTION VARIES. AND SO OUR FEES ARE REVENUE IS GOING TO VARY. OUR COSTS ARE, YOU KNOW, ARE PRETTY CONSISTENT EXCEPT FOR INCREASES THAT WE SEE YEARLY. BUT SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, OUR FEES IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD MONITOR EVERY YEAR AND WE SHOULD PROBABLY REVISIT TO KEEP, YOU KNOW, PER OUR COSTS ON A, ON A REGULAR BASIS. WE CAME BEFORE YOU LAST YEAR WITH SOME MINOR FEE ADJUSTMENTS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER. WE WE WERE ASKED TO JUST DO SOME OF THE MINOR OR SIMPLE ONES BECAUSE WE KNEW WE WOULD HAVE TO COME DO A FULL. YOU KNOW, REVISITING OF OUR OF OUR MAIN FEES. AND WE, WE NEEDED SOME TIME TO PREPARE TO PREPARE FOR THAT. SO THE PREVIOUS ADJUSTMENT THAT WE DID LAST YEAR ACCOUNTED FOR ROUGHLY 2 TO 3% OF OUR BUDGET. AND WITH OUR REVENUES, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT AT THE SAME TIME, THEY DID REVIEW ALL THEIR FEES AND ADJUST ALL THEIR FEES TO COVER, YOU KNOW, TO COVER THEIR DEPARTMENT, WHICH WAS AROUND A 50, 51% INCREASE IN. SO NOW IT'S OUR TURN TO REALLY LOOK AT OUR WHOLE FEE STRUCTURE AND COVER IT. SO THIS, THESE CALCULATIONS WERE ALL BASED UPON A 23, 24 FISCAL YEAR WHERE WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, ALL OF ALL THOSE PERMITS ARE COMPLETE AND DONE. AND WE WERE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, SEE WHAT EFFECT THIS ADJUSTMENT WOULD HAVE ON, ON THOSE PERMITS. AND BASICALLY

[01:10:02]

THIS FEE ADJUSTMENT, AGAIN, IT'S A COST RECOVERY. OUR COSTS HAVE INCREASED, AND I'VE GOT IT BROKEN DOWN IN DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, 29% IN OUR TECHNOLOGY, 31% FIRE INSPECTORS, SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE, 37% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. THAT WENT UP A LOT BECAUSE WE PUT FUNDS IN THERE TO MAKE SURE WE COULD PROPERLY STAFF, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THESE BIG PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING UP AND, AND JUST THE WORK THAT WE HAVE AT HAND, SALARIES AND WAGES UP 29%.

SO THE OVERALL INCREASE IN OUR FEES IS AROUND 29%. THIS WHAT WE'RE DOING IS, IS ADJUSTING THE BASE FEE OF OUR, OF HOW WE CALCULATE FEES, WHICH IS A PORTION OF OUR FEE. SO OUR BASE FEE IS INCREASING BY LIKE 58%. BUT OUR OVERALL ISN'T THAT HIGH BECAUSE AGAIN, SOME OF OUR FEES ARE FIXED FEES, SOME OF OUR FEES ARE HOURLY FEES. SOME OF THEM ARE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, FLAT FEES. SO THIS INCREASE IS ABOUT A, YOU KNOW, 29%, WHICH IS WHAT, A 28%, WHICH IS WHAT COVERS OUR COSTS THAT WE'VE SEEN INCREASE FROM 2023 UNTIL NOW. OUR, OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS ONE OF THE FASTEST TURNAROUND TIMES. AND, AND WE, YOU KNOW, CONSISTENTLY MEET OUR DEADLINES.

WE'RE USUALLY AHEAD OF OUR DEADLINES THAT THE STATE IMPOSES. WE, WE OFFER REALLY UNPARALLELED INSPECTION SERVICES. IF YOU CALL US TODAY FOR AN INSPECTION, WE CAN TELL YOU IF WE'RE COMING AM OR PM. AND A LOT OF TIMES IF YOU CALL US TODAY, YOU REALLY NEED SOMETHING. WE CAN WE CAN ACCOMMODATE IT. AND AN INTERESTING NOTE. SO I ATTENDED THE BUILDING OFFICIALS CONFERENCE MONDAY AND TUESDAY CAME BACK FOR THIS MEETING HERE TODAY. IT'S IT'S STILL WRAPPING UP LAST DAYS TODAY. AND, AND AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT TECHNOLOGY AND AI AND IN TODAY'S MARKET. AND WHAT CAN I DO TO PROVIDE EFFICIENCY AND, AND HELP US DO MORE WITH LESS OR THE SAME STAFFING KIND OF LEVEL. SO, YOU KNOW, THE CITY OF NAPLES IS ONE OF THE LEADERS IN THAT AREA. WE'RE THE FIRST IN THE STATE TO BE BUILDING OUT A SYSTEM THAT IS GOING TO HELP US IN THIS WHOLE PROCESS THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE'S LOOKING FOR QUICKER TURNAROUNDS, LESS REJECTIONS AND THAT SORT OF THING. SO WE ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED IN LEADING A SESSION YESTERDAY TALKING ABOUT HOW, YOU KNOW, TO DO THIS IN OUR DEPARTMENTS. AND, AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF EYES ON WHAT NAPLES IS DOING. AND NAPLES IS SEEN AS ONE OF THE ONE OF THE LEADERS IN REALLY HOW WE GO ABOUT THIS PROCESS. IF WE JUST WENT BY THE CPI FOR, YOU KNOW, SINCE OUR LAST MAIN FEE INCREASE, WE WOULD BE ABOUT A 91% INCREASE. AND WE'RE LOOKING AT, LIKE I SAID, A LOT LESS THAN THAT, OUR BASE FEE THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO ADJUST WITH THIS ORDINANCE HASN'T CHANGED SINCE 2001. SO IT'S IT'S WORKED PRETTY WELL FOR A LONG TIME. BUT, YOU KNOW, OUR CONSTRUCTION HAS KIND OF CHANGED, YOU KNOW, RECENTLY AS, AS IT WAS VERSUS TEN YEARS AGO AND COSTS HAVE GONE UP AND WE'RE VERY BUSY. SO IN ORDER TO KEEP OUR OURSELVES STAFFED AND IN A POSITION TO PROVIDE THE KIND OF SERVICE THAT OUR RESIDENTS DESIRE, YOU KNOW, WE OBVIOUSLY NEED TO COVER OUR COSTS. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS THIS WILL DO. I, I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION IN DISCUSSION WITH THE CBIA, THE, THE COLLIER BUSINESS, I'M SORRY, BUILDER INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, I, I DID TALK TO THEM ABOUT OUR FEES. AND AS I MENTIONED AT THE WORKSHOP, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO SAY THAT THEY SUPPORT RAISING FEES, BUT THEY, YOU KNOW, DON'T OPPOSE. THEY HAD SOME QUESTIONS I WENT OVER YESTERDAY AND I, IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION ON OUR BUSINESS IMPACT ESTIMATE, WHICH IS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THOSE, YOU KNOW, CHECK BOXES WHERE IT, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T APPLY IN THIS CASE, BUT WE DO IT ANYWAY. I UPLOADED THE WRONG FORM COPY. IT SAYS IN THERE THAT THE IMPACT IS 170 000. BASED UPON THESE 2 TO 3% REVENUE INCREASES. THAT WAS FROM OUR LAST FEE INCREASE, AND THAT WAS AN ERROR IN UPLOADING IT. I WILL UPLOAD THE UPDATED CORRECT ONE FOR THE SECOND READING IF YOU APPROVE THIS READING. BUT THAT SHOULD SAY THAT THIS IS ABOUT A $2 MILLION COST RECOVERY WITH THE WITH THESE FEES INSTEAD OF THAT. AND I'M SORRY I DIDN'T CATCH THAT IN THAT DOCUMENT, BUT I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT ALSO THAT THIS DOESN'T HAVE AN IMPACT ON ANYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY THAT'S NOT DOING PERMITTING, RIGHT? SO IT'S NOT GOING TO RAISE COSTS FOR BUSINESSES OR RESIDENTS. IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE NOT USING OUR SERVICES, THESE FEES ARE ONLY TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE USING THE SERVICES FOR REVIEW AND INSPECTION AND PERMITTING. AND WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR ANY QUESTIONS. COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER. THANK YOU. STEVEN, AFTER THE WORKSHOP. THIS IS WELL DONE AGAIN. AND I JUST

[01:15:03]

WANT TO REITERATE THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RELATIVE TO MARCO ISLAND, BONITA SPRINGS, FORT MYERS, OUR FEES ARE STILL LESS. OUR TOTAL NUMBER IS STILL LESS THAT.

AGAIN, FEES FOR DUMMIES BOOK THAT'S PRETTY CUT AND DRIED. AND THEN REGARDING COMMERCIAL, WE'RE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE REGARD RELATIVE TO MARCO ISLAND, COLLIER COUNTY, BUT BONITA SPRINGS AND FORT MYERS, I DON'T THINK WE I MEAN, WE ARE BY FAR THE BEST PLACE TO LIVE OUT OF ALL OF THOSE. SORRY, I'M VERY BIASED OUT OF ALL THOSE OTHER PLACES AND PROVIDE WAY BETTER SERVICES THAN ANY OF THEM OR ALL OF THEM COMBINED. AND SO I THINK THIS IS A REAL BARGAIN AND I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO ADD IS TO ECHO MR. KRAMER'S POINT IS, IS, IS THAT SOME OF THESE HAVEN'T BEEN RAISED SINCE 2018, SOME HAVEN'T BEEN RAISED SINCE 2001. AND, AND AS FAR AS THE IMPACT STATEMENT, IT'S TECHNICALLY NOT REQUIRED BY THE UNTIL THE SECOND. BUT TO BE POSTED AFTER THE FIRST. WE'VE INCLUDED IT IN THERE. SO I DIDN'T WANT YOU TO WORRY FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE.

WE GET THE WEBSITE CHANGED AND UPLOAD THE CORRECT ONE TO THE WEBSITE. YOU'LL STILL BE IN TIME FOR THE 17TH MEETING TO HAVE THE READING, SO I JUST WANTED TO LET THAT BE KNOWN, AND I DIDN'T WANT IT TO BE LOST ON THE 2001 SINCE THE LAST TIME WE UPDATED THAT. THAT IS THIS IS SIGNIFICANT, BUT IT'S SIGNIFICANT AND IT'S PRUDENT, AND IT DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE IS CONSTRAINT. IT'S NOT JUST TO PASS SOMETHING ON FOR THE SAKE OF PASSING IT ON, BUT WHEN APPROPRIATE, WE HAVE TO DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. AND THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT. SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. AND ONLY BECAUSE WE HAVE TIME. I'M GOING TO ASK JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. AND THAT IS A THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO. I'M GLAD THAT WE ARE A LEADER IN AI, BUT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT WATER. AND FROM A STATE POINT OF VIEW AND AI CENTER. SO IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE PAYING ATTENTION TO JUST BECAUSE WE ARE ALL GETTING INTRODUCED. WE LOVE AI, BUT WE'RE ALSO GETTING INTRODUCED TO THE CAUSE AND EFFECTS OF AI CENTERS. AS FAR AS THE FIRE, HOW MANY INSPECTORS DO YOU HAVE FOR WHEN IT COMES TO FIRE INSPECTORS? AND I ASKED THAT BECAUSE I ALSO WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY PRIVATE INSPECTORS WE HAVE, BECAUSE I KNOW, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, THE STATE ALLOWED FOR US TO HAVE PRIVATE INSPECTORS. SO WE HAVE FIVE WE HAVE FIVE. FIRE PLAN REVIEWER BETWEEN PLAN REVIEWERS AND INSPECTORS IN OUR BUDGET. SO THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, THE NUMBER IS FIVE. WE HAVE AT THE CURRENT TIME, NO PRIVATE INSPECTORS ASSISTING US TODAY. WE HAVE CONTRACTS WITH A PRIVATE PROVIDER FIRM, MAINLY CAP. WE HAVE A COUPLE, BUT MAINLY CAP WHO ONLY. CAP IS ONE THAT ONLY SERVICES LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES, GOVERNMENTS WITH SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES. SO, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES WE SAY PRIVATE PROVIDER, THAT COULD MEAN A SERVICE PROVIDED TO A CONTRACTOR FOR AN OWNER. IT COULD ALSO BE TO A MUNICIPALITY. AND SOME OF THOSE PROVIDERS WILL DO BOTH. AND BUT WE HAVE WE HAVE A COUPLE IN OUR LIBRARY THAT WE USE THAT ONLY WORK WITH LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES AND PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES AS NEEDED. SO WE HAVE, OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, HAD CONSIDERABLE HELP FROM OUR PRIVATE COMPANIES TO ASSIST AS NEEDED. WHETHER SOMEONE GOES ON VACATION OUT SICK, OR WE JUST HAVE A AN INCREASE IN WORKLOAD.

AND A RECENT EXAMPLE OF THAT WAS THE OLD NAPLES HOTEL, FOR EXAMPLE. THEY WERE PUSHING FOR SOME DEADLINES. AND, YOU KNOW, I WAS ABLE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, HEY, I CAN THROW MORE RESOURCES HERE IF THAT HELPS WITH THE PROJECT TO GET IT, YOU KNOW, TO MEET THE NEED. AND WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT BY HAVING THOSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AVAILABLE TO US AND UTILIZED IT. SO THERE ARE TIMES FOR BIG PROJECTS WHERE WE NEED TO BRING IN ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO, AGAIN, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A A VERY LARGE BUILDING WITH A LOT OF INSPECTION NEED THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, IT'S READY. AND, YOU KNOW, ONE INSPECTION COULD CONSUME AN INSPECTOR OR MULTIPLE INSPECTORS FOR A DAY, AND THEN EVERYONE ELSE IS STILL WAITING FOR THEIR INSPECTORS. SO WHEN WE NEED TO STAFF UP WITH ADDITIONAL INSPECTORS, THAT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO DO SO.

AND I'M SORRY THAT THOSE INSPECTORS ARE LOCALLY THERE. AND WHAT WAS WHAT WERE THEY, ANY OF THOSE IN OUR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THAT THAT ARE FOR THOSE SERVICES HAVE TO HAVE THE APPROPRIATE STATE LICENSES. SO PLAN, REVIEW OR INSPECTOR LICENSES FOR THE TYPE OF INSPECTION OR PLAN REVIEW THAT THEY'RE DOING. AND, AND THEY'RE ALL IN OUR, THEY'RE ALL

[01:20:01]

IN OUR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AREA. WE DO HAVE SOME THAT ARE RIGHT HERE IN NAPLES. AND THEN LIKE I SAID, CAP IS OUT OF THE EAST COAST. BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY THEY PROVIDE SERVICES THROUGHOUT THE STATE TO PEOPLE THEY WORK WITH. AND IS THAT OUR EXTRA SALARIES OR IS THAT IN ANOTHER LINE ITEM? THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LINE ITEM IS THE LINE ITEM THAT HAS OUR OUR SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES.

THE OTHER SALARIES IS IS A DIFFERENT. DIFFERENT THING. AND. AND LAST, AT THE WORKSHOP YOU ASKED ABOUT STAFFING. THANK YOU FOR REMEMBERING. AND I DIDN'T OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD HAVE IT, BUT I KNEW WE WERE. OUR TOTAL STAFF IS 37 I THINK YOU ASKED HOW MANY. I'M SORRY. I REMEMBER WHICH YOU ASKED FOR, BUT DID BRING THE LAST YEAR'S BUDGET BOOK WITH US. AND AND WE HAVE WE'RE NOT ADDING ANY POSITIONS IN THIS IN THIS FISCAL YEAR. SO THEY REMAIN THE SAME. BUT WE HAVE SIX PLANS, EXAMINERS AND OUR BUILDING INSPECTOR, LINE SIX BUILDING INSPECTORS. NOW, WE DID JUST. MOVE OR MOVE ONE PLANS EXAMINER TO AN INSPECTOR FOR. WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF THAT. SO THAT NUMBER IS GOING TO SHIFT FROM A SEVEN A TO A SEVEN AND A FIVE. BUT IF THAT COMPLETES. BUT BASED ON LICENSURE. SO WE HAD IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS WE WE'VE HAD BUILDING INSPECTOR ONE, TWO, THREE IN LEVELS AND WE ADDED BUILDING INSPECTOR FOUR IN THIS LAST ASK ME CONTRACT AND IN OUR JOB DESCRIPTIONS. AND THAT'S BASICALLY LEVELS ARE BASED UPON LICENSURE. SO AS AN INSPECTOR GAINS A LICENSE IN A NEW AREA AGAIN THEY'RE ABLE TO DO MORE FOR US SO THEY CAN DO MULTIPLE AREAS. AND WE HAVE SOME VERY SEASONED PROFESSIONALS THAT HAVE MULTIPLE LICENSES THAT ARE VERY KEY TO BIG PROJECTS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE NAPLES HOTEL, THE BEACH CLUB, THESE BIG PROJECTS WHERE YOU CAN HAVE ONE PERSON DOING MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING AND ANOTHER ONE DOING BUILDING AND ELECTRICAL, AND YOU'VE GOT TWO GUYS COVERING WHAT WOULD TAKE FOUR PEOPLE. AND SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ABLE TO SEE IT ALL. AND SO WHERE WE CAN UTILIZE THEM, WE DO. AND IT BENEFITS BOTH, BOTH THE, THE OWNER, THE CONTRACTOR, AS WELL AS THE CITY TO HAVE THOSE LEVELS OF LICENSURE IN THOSE ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATIONS.

THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ. YEAH, THANK YOU. STEVE, I, I APPRECIATE THE IDEAS AND THE THOUGHTS ON FRUGALNESS AND, AND BEING THE LOWEST COST PROVIDER, BUT WE ARE THE CITY OF NAPLES. AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE ASPIRING TO BE THE LOWEST COST PROVIDER FOR THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO BUSINESS HERE, THERE'S A COST OF DOING BUSINESS HERE. AND SO US APPLAUDING OURSELVES FOR BEING INEXPENSIVE RELATIVE TO OUR NEIGHBORS. WHILE I UNDERSTAND EVERYBODY WANTS TO CUT CORNERS, THERE ARE SERVICES IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT NEED TO BE PAID FOR. SO I, AS MUCH AS I'D LIKE TO SEE, SEE COSTS LOW, IT'S NOT LIKE PEOPLE ARE NOT COMING TO NAPLES BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN BUILD HERE CHEAPER. I THINK THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS HERE IS, IS IMPORTANT. AND WE COMPENSATE YOU ALL AND EVERYBODY PROPERLY IN THAT. I DON'T THINK THIS IS A RACE TO THE BOTTOM AND HOW LOW WE CAN PROVIDE SERVICES. I THINK THIS IS THERE'S A REASON WE'RE NUMBER ONE. AND THAT TO ME MATTERS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAT WE COVER OUR BILLS AND THERE'S CHANGES COMING FROM TALLAHASSEE THAT ARE GOING TO MAKE MONEY A LITTLE MORE SCARCE THAN IT HAS BEEN. SO I WOULD NOT NOT ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO CONTINUE TO GO DOWN, DOWN, DOWN, BUT TO FIND A MEDIUM WHERE WE'RE LIKE IN THE MIDDLE OR UPPER OF THE TIER FOR THE COST OF DOING BUILDING IN OUR COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT THOSE ARE THERE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE TO BASE OUR OUR FEES ON OUR COSTS. AND IT'S COST RECOVERY. WE'RE LIMITED ON WHAT WE CAN CARRY FORWARD. SO WE CAN'T MAKE MONEY, WE CAN'T CHARGE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BASE OUR FEES ON WHAT OUR COSTS ARE. AND, AND THIS IS THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE. THEY WORK OUT TO WHERE WE, WE, WE, WE FALL WITHIN MARKET. SO IT KIND OF TELLS US THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE REASONABLE WITH WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING HERE IN OUR SAME AREA. WE SHOULD SEND YOU TO WASHINGTON, DC AND CLEAN UP THE BOOKS THERE BECAUSE THOSE FOLKS COULD USE YOUR SKILL SETS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I'M GOING TO, IF YOU DON'T MIND, SAY SOMETHING. JUST BECAUSE I LIKE TO DELINEATE. AND SOMETIMES THEY GET CONVOLUTED. PRIVATE PROVIDERS ARE RIGHT.

GRANTED THAT. BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS CAN UTILIZE A PRIVATE PROVIDER, NOT UTILIZE OUR SERVICE. SO WHEN WE USE I, I, I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES. WHEN WE'RE, WHEN STEVE'S TALKING ABOUT PRIVATE PROVIDERS, MEANING

[01:25:01]

SOMEBODY OR A PUBLIC, A NON CITY EMPLOYEE WHO'S PROVIDING ADDITIONAL SERVICES, THAT'S US HIRING THEM FOR OUR PURPOSES. WHEN WE HAVE WORKFLOW NEEDS OR WORK REQUIREMENTS THAT REQUIRE US TO DRAW UPON EXPERTISE OF WHICH WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH STAFF MEMBERS, WE UTILIZE THAT IN THE CAPACITY OF BOTH. SOME REMOTE WORK, IN SOME CASES HERE AND CAP. AND IN SOME CASES, WE'VE RECLASSIFIED POSITIONS TO BRING HIGHER QUALIFIED PEOPLE IN AND REDUCE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. WHEN YOU GET TO THE PRIVATE PROVIDER, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR AS DEVELOPERS AND AND. PROPERTY OWNERS ARE HAVING CERTAIN THINGS DONE, THEY CAN HAVE IT DONE BY A PRIVATE PROVIDER TO EVALUATE. ULTIMATELY, WE COME IN AT THE END ANYWAY AND HAVE TO VALIDATE IT. AND THOSE ARE THE RESOURCES THAT ARE OURS. SO BECAUSE THAT WORD PRIVATE PROVIDER GETS USED SYNONYMOUSLY, I JUST WANTED TO DELINEATE BETWEEN WHAT STEVE WAS ANSWERING RELATED TO OUR RESOURCES VERSUS THEM HIRING THEIR OWN PRIVATE PROVIDER THAT'S NEVER HIRED BY OUR DEPARTMENT. SO AND THANK YOU, GARY, FOR THAT. I GET USED TO, YOU KNOW, YOU JUST THROWING THOSE TERMS OUT THAT WE USE ALL THE TIME. AND I WILL I'LL JUST JUST TACK ON TO THAT. WHEN A PRIVATE PROVIDER IS USED SUPPLEMENT OR USED FOR A BUILDER, YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING, IT'S FOR BUILDING CODE ONLY. SO IT DOESN'T COVER PLANNING AND ZONING AND STREETS STORMWATER, OUR OTHER DEPARTMENT. SO BUT THANKS FOR MAKING THAT DISTINCTION. YES. THANK YOU. THERE IS A DISTINCTION THERE. YES. THIS IS MY QUICK COMMENT.

FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR STEVE, FOR BRINGING UP THE FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING, YOU KNOW, UP TO WHERE PROTECTING THE CITY HERE. BUT IT'S THE CONCEPT OF THE MATCHING CONCEPT AND COUNTING, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, MATCHING YOUR COSTS WITH YOUR REVENUES. AND THAT MATCHING PRINCIPLE IS WHAT YOU DID. AND THAT'S THE CORRECT WAY TO DO IT. AND, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WE'RE NOT HERE TO OVERTAX OR OVER BURDEN PEOPLE WITH COSTS. BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD PRESENTATION AND I, I'M DEFINITELY FOR IT. THANK YOU. OKAY. WITH THAT. THANK YOU, MR. BECKMAN. I NEED A MOTION. ALL RIGHT. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ON FIRST READING THE ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE PLAN, REVIEW FEES AS DESCRIBED IN AGENDA ITEM 14 B, I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL.

A BY VICE MAYOR. BLANKENSHIP. WAS THAT A SECOND? SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCILMEMBER KRAUS. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ I VICE MAYOR. BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCILMEMBER. BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CRAMER. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN. YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES ITEM 14 B. I'M JUST GOING TO TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK. AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK WITH

[14.C) First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the City of Naples Comprehensive Plan. An Ordinance amending the City of Naples Comprehensive Plan to implement the adopted vision; readopting the Comprehensive Plan as amended; providing for Transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency and Other Required Review Agencies Specified in State Statutes; providing for Conflicts; providing for Severability; and Providing for an Effective Date. ]

OKAY. WE ARE BACK FROM OUR SHORT BREAK AND CONTINUING ON ITEM 14 C MR. MCCONNELL. YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF NAPLES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO IMPLEMENT THE ADOPTED VISION RE ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND OTHER REQUIRED REVIEW AGENCIES SPECIFIED IN STATE STATUTES, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCIL. GOOD MORNING, GOOD MORNING, GOOD MORNING. SORRY, I'M IN MY HEAD. THIS WAS GOING TO BE AT LIKE THREE THIS AFTERNOON. EXACTLY. SORRY. GOOD MORNING. ERICA MARTIN, PLANNING DIRECTOR THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE FOR YOU TODAY IS ADVERTISED AS FIRST READING OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE ABOUT 16 MONTHS INTO WHAT WAS SCHEDULED AS A 22 MONTH UPDATE PROCESS. WE'VE ENGAGED JOHNSON ENGINEERING AS OUR CONSULTANT. THEY'VE BEEN USHERING US THROUGH THIS PROCESS, FOLLOWING THE SCHEDULE THAT I BELIEVE SHOULD BE UP ON YOUR SCREEN.

THIS WAS THE ORIGINALLY APPROVED SCHEDULE. SO WE'VE WE'VE DONE THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS, THE DATA ANALYSIS PROCESS, DRAFTING. AND SO THEY HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY THE DRAFT OF THE UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS DID GO BEFORE THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD LAST MONTH IN MAY, AND THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AT THAT TIME DID EXPRESS. A COUPLE OF THE MEMBERS EXPRESSED SOME DISAPPOINTMENT WITH WHAT THEY DESCRIBED AS A LACK OF RESIDENT PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS. ONE OF THE MEMBERS VOICED A DISAPPOINTMENT WITH THE FACT THAT CITY STAFF HAD NOT PROACTIVELY AND SPECIFICALLY ENGAGED THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY OR THE VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS TO OBTAIN THEIR INPUT IN THE DRAFTING, AND ALSO IN THE FACT THAT THE CITY DID NOT WORK COOPERATIVELY WITH

[01:30:04]

COLLIER COUNTY IN THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND THE DRAFTING PROCESS OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE. WE DO HAVE SOME NEW MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THEY, YOU KNOW, WERE MORE NEW TO THIS PROCESS, WERE UNHAPPY, IF YOU WILL, WITH THE PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN THAT HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN UP TO DATE. WE DID HAVE PUBLIC SPEAKERS AT THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MEETING. WE HAD A PUBLIC SPEAKER WHO WAS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF WHAT WE'LL CALL THE HOA COALITION.

THERE IS SOME CORRESPONDENCE IN YOUR PACKET. SHE DID REFERENCE THE LETTERS THAT ARE IN YOUR PACKET. THAT IS A HOA COALITION COMPRISED OF THE AQUALINE SHORES, COQUINA SANDS, GULF SHORE ASSOCIATION OF CONDOMINIUMS, THE MOORINGS PARK SHORE, PORT ROYAL AND ROYAL ROYAL HARBOR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS. I BELIEVE THEY HAVE SINCE INCORPORATED A COUPLE OTHER HOAS, BUT THOSE WERE THE ONES THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE LETTER. AND THEN WE ALSO HAD NEIL MONTGOMERY, WHO'S AN ATTORNEY WHO WAS REPRESENTING THREE INDIVIDUAL. BUSINESS AND OR DEVELOPMENT OWNERS IN THE CITY. SO IT WAS MATTHEW CRAIG OF MHK ARCHITECTURE, ANTHONY SOLOMON OF THE RONTO GROUP AND BARBARA WALKER OF NEAPOLITAN ENTERPRISES. AND SHE ALSO DID REFERENCE A LETTER THAT IS INCLUDED IN A NUMEROUS LETTERS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET UNDER THE CORRESPONDENCE AS WELL. THEY HAD CONCERNS RELATED TO THE LANGUAGE IN THE PLAN, SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED IN THE PLAN. THEY WERE ASKING FOR MORE SPECIFICITY WITH SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT THEY THOUGHT MIGHT BE TOO VAGUE AND LEAD TO INTERPRETATION, AND THEN ALSO RAISE THE ISSUE OF THE SENATE BILL 180. SO FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND THE DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD, THE PAB VOTED 7 TO 0 TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS ORDINANCE OF FIRST READING OF THIS ORDINANCE TO CITY COUNCIL. AND THEN THEY MADE A SECOND MOTION, WHICH WAS, YOU KNOW, EXPLAINING OR CLARIFYING THAT THAT MOTION.

AND THAT WAS TO RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL DEFER THIS ITEM TO THE NOVEMBER 2026 PAB MEETING, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PLAN FROM THE PUBLIC, IN THE COMMUNITY GROUPS OR OTHER AGENCIES, INCLUDING COLLIER COUNTY, SO THAT THE PAB COULD CONSIDER THOSE THAT FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. SO WE DO HAVE BEFORE YOU WHAT'S ON YOUR SCREEN TODAY IS THE APPROVED PROJECT SCHEDULE. THAT'S WHAT WAS APPROVED IN OUR CONTRACT WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING. WE DO HAVE. WE DO HAVE A REVISED SCHEDULE THAT JOHNSON ENGINEERING PREPARED. THE SCHEDULE IS BASED ON THAT RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. SO IT DOES SHOW MOVING THAT THE HEARING DATES OUT. SO YOU WOULD HAVE ORIGINALLY HAD, YOU KNOW, YOUR PAB HEARING ON THE FIRST READING. AND THAT OR SORRY, WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE IN MAY AND THEN CITY COUNCIL HEARING OF THE FIRST READING TODAY IN JUNE.

WHAT THIS SCHEDULE SHOWS YOU IS THAT IT WOULD MOVE THOSE HEARINGS OUT. SO THE WAY, THE WAY WE. REVISE THE SCHEDULE IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS WERE WE WOULD RESCHEDULE A PAB HEARING FOR NOVEMBER. AT THAT HEARING, WE WOULD HAVE COLLECTED ALL OF THE ALL OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND ALL OF THE SUGGESTIONS OF THE REVISIONS ON THE REVISED PLAN. WE WILL COLLECT THAT AND PRESENT THAT TO THE PAB. THE PAB WOULD THEN OPINE ON THE ON THAT PUBLIC COMMENT, YOU KNOW, SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT PLAN IN RESPONSE TO THOSE COMMENTS THAT WOULD THEN GO ON TO CITY COUNCIL. SO NOT AS A FIRST READING, BUT JUST AS A DISCUSSION OF THOSE CHANGES THAT WOULD THEN GO TO CITY COUNCIL IN DECEMBER, AND THEN CITY COUNCIL WOULD, YOU KNOW, MAKE A MOTION TO DIRECT THE CONSULTANT ON WHICH CHANGES THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE TO THE PLAN THAT WOULD GIVE THE CONSULTANT TIME TO INCORPORATE THOSE CHANGES, AND THEN IT WOULD GO BACK TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR HEARING OF THE ACTUAL DRAFT IN FEBRUARY AND THEN TO CITY COUNCIL IN MARCH FOR THE ACTUAL FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE. NOW, THERE'S A SECOND COMPONENT HERE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO WORK INTO THIS AS WELL, IS THAT YOU RECEIVED AT THE APRIL I BELIEVE IT WAS THE APRIL CITY COUNCIL MEETING. YOU RECEIVED A PACKET, I BELIEVE IT WAS A HANDOUT, A PAPER HANDOUT FROM THE DICKMAN LAW FIRM ON SOME SUGGESTED POLICIES RELATED TO THE AIRPORT THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN INCORPORATED. IT HASN'T BEEN DISCUSSED BY CITY COUNCIL, NOR HAS IT BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE DRAFT OF THE COMP PLAN. SO WE WOULD PROPOSE THAT WHEN CITY COUNCIL OR WHEN THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD CONSIDERS THE PUBLIC COMMENT, THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT, THEY WOULD ALSO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS THOSE POLICIES RELATED TO THE AIRPORT. SIMILARLY, CITY COUNCIL. SO WHEN WE RESCHEDULE THOSE THOSE MEETINGS, WE WOULD INCORPORATE THAT DISCUSSION AS WELL. SO YOU'LL SEE THIS SCHEDULE REVISES PUSHES THE COMPLETION DATE OUT TO AUGUST OF 2027. AS

[01:35:03]

YOU KNOW, THE TRANSMITTAL PROCESS IS PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE. THERE'S IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT A TRADITIONAL ORDINANCE WHERE IT'S FIRST READING AND THEN IMMEDIATELY SECOND READING BY CITY COUNCIL. ONCE WE HAVE ONCE IT IS PASSED ON FIRST READING BY CITY COUNCIL, WE TRANSMIT TO THE STATE AND MANY OTHER AGENCIES. SO I THINK THERE'S A TOTAL OF NINE AGENCIES. THEY'RE LISTED HERE. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, SOUTHWEST, SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE. THAT'S THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, AND COLLIER COUNTY. SO COLLIER COUNTY IS A REVIEWING AGENCY OF THIS COMP PLAN, BOTH FIRST AND SECOND READING. SO WHEN WE PASS THIS DRAFT ON FIRST READING, WE WILL PROVIDE A COPY OF IT TO COLLIER COUNTY. THEY WILL HAVE THE ABILITY. THEY'LL HAVE 30 DAYS TO REVIEW THAT DRAFT AND PROVIDE BACK TO THE CITY ANY COMMENTS OR CONCERNS THEY HAVE WITH THAT DRAFT THAT WE COULD THEN CONSIDER FOR INCORPORATION AT SECOND READING OF THE PLAN. SO REALLY, TODAY WE DID. I DID COME BEFORE YOU ON MAY 20TH, IF YOU RECALL, TO DISCUSS THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION. AT THAT TIME, CITY COUNCIL DID OFFER A CONSENSUS TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PLAN AND SCHEDULE THIS. YOU KNOW, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TODAY TO DISCUSS THAT REVISED SCHEDULE AND SET THOSE HEARING DATES. WE WILL HAVE TO REVISE OUR CONTRACT WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING. THE WHAT WE HAD UP HERE BEFORE WAS THE AGREED UPON SCHEDULE. THIS WILL ADD A NUMBER OF PUBLIC HEARINGS. I WILL EXPRESS TO YOU THAT I BELIEVE THE PROPER PROCESS HERE IS THAT THIS ALL DOES HAPPEN IN PUBLIC HEARINGS. I, I, I DO NOT THINK WE SHOULD SCHEDULE INDIVIDUAL, YOU KNOW, MEETINGS WITH STAFF AND THE CONSULTANT OUTSIDE OF THIS ROOM. I THINK THIS SHOULD ALL BE DONE IN THE SUNSHINE. I THINK ALL INFORMATION THAT IS OFFERED TO THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE OFFERED FAIRLY AND EQUALLY TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN THIS ROOM. SO THIS IS WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS IS THE PROPOSED REVISED SCHEDULE. IT DOES ALLOW FOR FOR ADDITIONAL HEARINGS. THAT'LL BE, YOU KNOW, IN THE SUNSHINE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. AND THAT'S THAT'S THE PRESENTATION THAT I HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY. WE DO HAVE OUR CONSULTANTS HERE. IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, THEY DO HAVE A FULL PRESENTATION. YOU DO HAVE A COPY OF THE DRAFT IN YOUR PACKET. SO IT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED. IT'S AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. THE FULL DRAFT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. IT WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WEBSITE FOR.

SO THAT IS THE DRAFT THAT EVERYONE WILL HAVE THE SUMMER TO REVIEW. AND WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT IT'S AVAILABLE MULTIPLE WAYS. MISS MARTIN, I THINK THAT YOU SUMMARIZED THIS SPECIFICALLY AND PERFECTLY. THANK YOU. I'LL ASK COUNCIL IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT MOVING FORWARD. VICE MAYOR AND THEN CARL. YEAH. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR UPDATING THE SCHEDULE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT EVERYBODY'S CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS. WE ALL WANT TO GET IT RIGHT. I DO HAVE A LITTLE CONCERN THAT PEOPLE GO AWAY FOR THE SUMMER AND THINK, OH, I'VE GOT MORE TIME, AND THEY FORGET ABOUT IT AND COME BACK IN OCTOBER AND SAY, OH YEAH, I'VE GOT TO REVIEW THE COMP PLAN AND THEN SAY, CAN WE PLEASE HAVE MORE TIME? SO HOW CAN WE ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO USE THE SUMMER MONTHS TO ASK THEIR QUESTIONS, GET INFORMATION, PROVIDE THEIR FEEDBACK, PARTICULARLY LIKE THE HOA COALITION, WHICH REPRESENTS A LOT OF PEOPLE AND THEY'VE SPENT TIME ALREADY. WHAT'S THE PROCESS FOR HELPING THEM PROVIDE INPUT FASTER? SURE. SO THE CITY WEBSITE, WE HAVE THE NAPLES 2045 WEBSITE THAT WE KEEP THAT UP TO DATE. SO THE DRAFT OF THE PLAN WILL BE THERE. IT'S AVAILABLE ONLINE. SO GOOD NEWS. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE, YOU KNOW, IN PERSON. ALL OF THIS IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. I, I WORK ALL YEAR. I'LL BE HERE ALL SUMMER. YOU KNOW, STAFF DOESN'T TAKE A RECESS. SO WE'LL, WE'LL BE HERE AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. IF ANYONE WANTS TO DISCUSS THIS, I DON'T KNOW.

WITH RESPECT TO COMMUNICATIONS, IF THERE'S, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CITY CAN, I'M SURE, PUSH OUT COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATION WITH A CONSULTANT. SO I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER A COMMUNICATION QUESTION WHEN IT HAS TO BE COORDINATED WITH THEM YET BASED ON. BUT WE WOULD HAVE A COORDINATED EFFORT. BUT KEEP IN MIND, I RAISED MY LIGHT ON. ANYWAY. SO I DO WANT TO SAY THIS. WE CAN TRY ALL WE WANT. WE. AND THE OTHER PART IS THE COMMENTS WILL BE ELECTRONICALLY SUBMITTED EITHER VIA THE VIA THE WEBSITE OR IN AN EMAIL, AND WE WOULD MAKE SURE THOSE ARE PART OF THE PACKET. BUT ANY PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS WILL NOT BE. WELL, I WANT YOU TO MAKE

[01:40:02]

SURE THIS IS. THAT'S NOT HOW THIS IS GOING TO UNFOLD, AT LEAST NOT AS. AS LONG AS I'M HERE, WE WE WILL NOW HAVE HAD EIGHT PUBLIC MEETINGS BY THE TIME THIS IS DONE. IF IT'S NOT COMMUNICATED VIA THE ELECTRONIC FORM, FOLLOWING INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSIONS OR ANYBODY THAT ANYBODY WANTS TO MEET, IT SHOULD BE DONE IN A PUBLIC FORUM. AND SO SO I'M SORRY I DEVIATED A LITTLE BIT, BUT I WANTED TO GET THAT OUT BECAUSE THAT IS ESSENTIAL TO, TO THE INTEGRITY OF THIS PARTICULAR PROCESS. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT NOW COMMUNICATION INITIATIVE, WE WILL COORDINATE WITH MONIQUE AND THE CONSULTANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL REPRESENTING HOW WE WANT TO HAVE A COORDINATED EFFORT. BUT I DO NOT WANT TO GO TO THE EXTENT OF SENDING OUT ANOTHER MAILER. I DON'T THINK IT WAS FRUITFUL. I THINK WE SPENT, WHAT WAS IT, $17,000 OR SOMETHING? 18.5. I THINK IT JUST WASN'T FRUITFUL. SO WE'LL DO EVERY ELECTRONIC MEANS OF COMMUNICATION. I WILL ASK THAT, FORWARD IT TO PRESIDENTS COUNCIL ASKING THEM TO DISSEMINATE AND TO TO THEIR, YOU KNOW, CONSTITUENTS SO THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW HOW TO GET THE INFORMATION. I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DO HAVE THE OLD VERSION AND NEW VERSION ON THE WEBSITE FOR POINT OF REFERENCES, THE CURRENT VERSION. OKAY. YES.

OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE OF THAT. SO WE'LL DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS, SIR, BUT I JUST WANTED TO I DO STOP SHORT OF TRYING TO DO A MAILER IN THIS REGARD IN THAT REGARD, THAT'S ALL. SURE, SURE, I APPRECIATE THAT. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED SOMETHING LIKE ANOTHER OPEN HOUSE, LIKE IN THE AUGUST SEPTEMBER TIME FRAME THAT'S JUST OPEN TO THE PUBLIC TO COME BY AND ASK THEIR QUESTIONS? WE DID TALK ABOUT THAT. I THINK THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS NOW AND BEFORE IS THE PUBLIC. THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT MEETINGS THAT WE HAD BEFORE WERE TO GAIN THE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC THAT SHAPED THE DRAFTING. SO I THINK WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND THE COALITION WAS NOW THAT WE HAVE A DRAFT, NOW THAT WE HAVE AN ACTUAL PLAN TO LOOK AT, THEY WOULD LIKE THE EXTRA TIME TO REVIEW THE WORDING, THE LANGUAGE OF THAT ACTUAL DRAFT. AND THAT'S REALLY HARD TO DO IN A PUBLIC, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO WHAT WE WOULD REQUEST, AND I THINK THE ONLY WAY THAT THIS WOULD BE FRUITFUL AND, AND PRODUCTIVE IS NOW THAT EVERYONE HAS THE DRAFT, PROVIDE YOUR SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS AND REVISIONS. YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S GREAT TO SAY THE, THE PLAN IS VAGUE WHERE, YOU KNOW, NOW IS THE TIME WHERE YOU HAVE THE LANGUAGE, YOU HAVE THE WORDING AND, AND THIS IS WHERE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE LINE BY LINE, YOU KNOW, GO THROUGH, YOU KNOW, IF ANYONE WANTS TO SEND ME A MARKED UP DRAFT, THAT'S GREAT. ANYTHING THAT IS SENT THROUGH ME IS PUBLIC RECORD. AND I PASS EVERYTHING DIRECTLY ON TO THE CONSULTANT. BUT THAT'S I THINK WE'RE PAST JUST THE DISCUSSION PORTION IN THAT SENSE. AND NOW WHAT WE'D LIKE IS SPECIFIC FEEDBACK, SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS, AND SPECIFIC SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE PLAN, AND THAT CAN BE SUBMITTED THROUGH THE WEBSITE THAT CAN BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO ME. THAT WOULD ALL BECOME PART OF THE RECORD THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED THEN TO THE PAB AND COUNCIL IN THE FALL. OKAY. LET ME JUST SAY ONE OTHER THING ON THAT, BECAUSE IF THERE WAS TO BE AN I AGREE, IF THERE WAS TO BE A MEETING, IT WOULD BE A PUBLIC, NOT A QUASI GROUP PRIVATE. SO I AGREE WITH THAT. BUT THAT WOULD BE AT YOUR DIRECTION BECAUSE WE'D HAVE TO WE'RE ALREADY ADDING FOUR MEETINGS TO THE CONTRACT BASED ON MY ESTIMATE FOR HEARINGS.

CORRECT. PUBLIC HEARING. SO THEN WE WOULD BE ADDING ANOTHER ONE. AND I JUST SO IF IT WOULD BE THE WILL OF COUNCIL TO DO SUCH A THING, WE COULD DO IT. BUT I THINK TO ERICA'S POINT, I'M NOT SURE IT WOULD FACILITATE AS MUCH AS WE WOULD OTHERWISE GET IF THEY COMMUNICATED EVEN SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. IT'S KIND OF LIKE A JUST FOIA REQUEST. IF YOU ASK FOR A JUST FOIA AND GIVE ME EVERYTHING, TELL ME EVERYTHING HOW THEY'RE LINKED TOGETHER WITH THE OLD. IT REALLY SHOULD BE TARGETED QUESTIONS SO WE CAN ANSWER THEM. THEN THAT BECOMES A MUCH BETTER CONVERSATION. NOW, I DO WANT TO OFFER ONE OTHER THING DURING THIS TIME. AND ERICA AND I HAD THIS CONVERSATION YESTERDAY FROM MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. IF YOU WANT TO GO LINE BY LINE, I THINK THIS IS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH. SHOULD ANYONE WANT A TWO HOUR WORKSHOP LIKE WE DO ON CP SIP DURING THE SUMMER, WE WILL SCHEDULE THOSE MEETINGS AND GO THROUGH THEM SECTION BY SECTION WITH YOU. SHOULD ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL WANT THAT ONE ON ONE DIALOG? WE WILL DO THAT OVER THE SUMMER AND HAVE THE APPROPRIATE ONE OF THOSE, AND WE'LL MAKE SURE THE APPROPRIATE, YOU KNOW, STAFF MEMBERS ARE THERE TO TALK ABOUT THE SPECIFIC ELEMENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. YEAH. JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY EXPECTATIONS AND WHAT THE PUBLIC CAN HOW THEY CAN PARTICIPATE. THE TOPIC OF THE AIRPORT MAYOR, I THINK YOU RAISED AT OUR LAST MEETING THAT WE MIGHT NEED A COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON HOW THE AIRPORT IS INTEGRATED INTO THE COMP PLAN. IS THAT STILL NEEDED? IS THAT SHOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE SCHEDULED? ERICA TOUCHED ON, YES, TOUCHED ON THAT. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE DISCUSSED. I DISCUSSED THIS WITH GARY AS WELL. WHEN YOU, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU SCHEDULE THESE NEXT HEARINGS AND YOU WOULD DISCUSS THE COMMENTS

[01:45:04]

PROPOSED BY OR PROVIDED BY THE PUBLIC, WE WOULD ALSO HAVE PART OF THAT DISCUSSION, THE AIRPORT POLICIES THAT WERE PROVIDED. WE DO AGREE THAT BEFORE THE CONSULTANT INCORPORATES ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, IT NEEDS TO BE AT THE DIRECTION OF COUNCIL. SO WE NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION OF THOSE SPECIFIC POLICIES RELATED TO AIRPORT. OKAY. THAT WILL BE SCHEDULED SOMETIME AFTER THE BREAK. IT WOULD BE WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED. WAS IT WOULD YOU KNOW, WHENEVER YOU IF THIS IS THE SCHEDULE THAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE PAB, THAT'S WHAT'S ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WENT WITH THIS THIS FIRST MEETING, THIS NOVEMBER PAB MEETING WOULD BE JUST THESE THE NOVEMBER PAB IN DECEMBER CITY COUNCIL ARE JUST DISCUSSION MEETINGS. THEY'RE NOT YOU'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, MOVING FORWARD ON A FIRST READING. THOSE ARE JUST DISCUSSION. WE WOULD INCORPORATE THAT INTO THOSE MEETINGS. GOT IT. THANK YOU. SO, MAYOR VICE MAYOR'S, PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOU SURE? YES, PLEASE. WELL, JUST BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO. WHEN VICE MAYOR REFERENCES SETTING EXPECTATIONS, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT EVEN IF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OR ATTORNEYS OR COALITIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS PROVIDE STRIKETHROUGH AND UNDERLYING DOCUMENTS TO THE COMP PLAN, DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE ARE JUST GOING TO TAKE THAT AND IMPLEMENT IT IN THE DOCUMENT THAT WE PROPOSE, RIGHT? THESE THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE'RE COMPILING AS IDEAS THAT ULTIMATELY IS A POLICY DECISION AND A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PAB AND A POLICY DECISION FOR CITY COUNCIL. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. WE'RE NOT JUST GOING TO AMEND THE COMP PLAN BECAUSE YOU HAD A SUGGESTION IF YOU'RE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THOSE TWO DISCUSSION MEETINGS IS FOR. WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE THOSE AND WORK THEM INTO THE DRAFT. WE ARE JUST GOING TO COMPILE THE PUBLIC INPUT AND PROVIDE IT TO YOU SO THAT THE PAB AND COUNCIL MAY DISCUSS THAT PUBLIC INPUT, AND THEN YOU DIRECT STAFF AND THE CONSULTANT ON WHAT SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN, AND NOT. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT, MR. MCCONNELL, BECAUSE. THAT PROCESS IS VERY KEY FOR WHATEVER IS SUBMITTED IS SUBMITTED TO THE DIRECTOR, WHICH WOULD MISS MARTIN. AND THEN THOSE ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSED BEFORE THEY ARE PUT INTO THE PLAN. YES. AND IDEALLY, JUST TO ANYONE WATCHING THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MEETING, THAT AGENDA IS PUBLISHED ONE WEEK AHEAD OF THE MEETING. IDEALLY, WE WOULD HAVE ALL OF THAT INPUT PRIOR TO PUBLICATION. AND THE BEAUTY OF THAT IS IF WE HAVE THAT PRIOR TO PUBLICATION, THEN ALL OF THAT INPUT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. IT'S PUBLISHED WITH THE AGENDA, AND EVERYONE CAN SEE ALL OF THE INPUT THAT WAS PROVIDED. WE TEND TO GET MOST OF OUR COMMUNICATION THE DAY BEFORE THE MEETING. IT'S NOT AS HELPFUL. IT DOESN'T GIVE STAFF TIME TO ABSORB IT. IT DOESN'T GIVE THE CONSULTANT TIME TO ABSORB IT. IT DOESN'T GIVE COUNCIL TIME TO ABSORB ALL OF THAT INFORMATION. THE SOONER THE BETTER. SO WE ARE PROPOSING A A LENGTHY BREAK HERE TO ALLOW EVERYONE TIME TO READ THE PLAN, PREPARE YOUR COMMENTS, AND HOPEFULLY PROVIDE THEM IN A TIMELY MANNER THAT IS MEANINGFUL AND PRODUCTIVE. SO TO THAT POINT, LAST MINUTE COMMENTS ARE NOT BENEFICIAL AND IT'S NOT GOING TO CAUSE ANOTHER DELAY. IF WE'RE PUSHING THIS A FEW MONTHS, IT NEEDS TO BE WE NEED TO I'M HAPPY WE'RE TAKING THIS PAUSE BECAUSE THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT I'LL MENTION THAT I THINK NEED TO BE LOOKED AT. BUT TO THE TIMELINE, ARE WE NOT LOOKING AT A POTENTIAL TIMELINE OF MOVING THAT UP SO THAT WHEN PAB COMES BACK, THEY CAN ADDRESS THIS IMMEDIATELY? YEAH. SO THIS IS THE WHAT'S ON YOUR SCREEN TODAY. IS THE CONSULTANT PREPARED THIS REVISED SCHEDULE BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER THIS TO NOVEMBER. THE PAB DOES TAKE A RECESS IN SUMMER SIMILAR TO CITY COUNCIL. SO THE NEXT AVAILABLE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MEETING IS SEPTEMBER 10TH.

SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS SCHEDULE, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT REALLY IS JUST EVERYTHING FROM THAT, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC REVIEW PLAN, THE GREEN ARROW. I'M SORRY, I CAN'T READ IT. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE FIRST SORRY, POINTING TO IT LIKE YOU CAN SEE ME THIS. SO YOU HAVE DAVID. ARE YOU SORRY? SO THE REVISED PORTION OF THIS PLAN, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS. SO HERE'S TODAY. SO THIS IS THE REVISED PORTION. THIS HAS THIS SCHEDULE. HAS THIS PAB MEETING HAPPENING AT IN NOVEMBER. BUT FOR CONSIDERATION FOR COUNCIL JUST SO THAT ALL OF YOUR OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE. THIS WHOLE PORTION HERE COULD BE THE EARLIEST FEASIBLE WOULD BE HERE WHICH IS THE SEPTEMBER MEETING. SO IF YOU THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS, YOU KNOW, TOO LENGTHY OF A

[01:50:04]

DELAY, ARE WE GOING TO LOSE MOMENTUM? ARE WE, YOU KNOW, THE THE SOONEST FEASIBLE SCHEDULE THAT YOU COULD DO IS MOVE THIS PAB MEETING UP TO SEPTEMBER. THAT WOULD BE NOVEMBER, OCTOBER, CITY COUNCIL. THEN YOU WOULD GIVE THE CONSULTANT THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER TO COMPILE ALL THOSE COMMENTS, AND THEN YOU WOULD COME BACK DECEMBER AND JANUARY. WELL, OKAY. JUST FOR COUNCIL TO DISCUSS. I MEAN, TO ME THAT'S A BETTER PLAN. IF PEOPLE CAME FORWARD WITH CONCERNS, THEY SHOULD ALREADY KNOW WHAT THOSE CONCERNS ARE. I THINK WE'VE ELIMINATED THE FACT THAT WE'VE ALREADY GIVEN OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS MORE OPPORTUNITY THAN ANY OTHER TIME IN PAST HISTORY. SO PUBLIC INPUT REALLY SHOULD IF IT'S FROM THE COALITION, THEY SHOULD.

IF THEY HAVE CONCERNS, THEY SHOULD KNOW WHAT THOSE CONCERNS ARE AND BE PREPARED TO PRESENT THOSE AT THE SEPTEMBER MEETING, SOMETHING WE NEED TO GET A CONSENSUS ON FROM COUNCIL ON ON THIS TIMELINE, COMING BACK TO COUNCIL IN OCTOBER. TWO VICE MAYORS. QUESTION NOT DOING ANOTHER PUBLIC MEETING, BUT DOING IT. WILL THIS COME TO US AS A WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS AFTER IT GOES TO PAB? RIGHT. WELL, IT WOULDN'T BE A WORKSHOP. IT WOULD BE A REGULAR MEETING DATE, BUT IT WOULD BE A DISCUSSION ITEM. SO THIS BOTH THIS PAB DISCUSSION, WHETHER IT BE SEPTEMBER OR NOVEMBER, THIS FIRST PAB DISCUSSION AND THIS FIRST COUNCIL DISCUSSION WOULD JUST BE COUNCIL CONSIDERING THE INPUT THAT WAS GATHERED OVER THE SUMMER, AND IT WOULD BE A DISCUSSION ON WHAT CHANGES YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE FROM THAT INPUT. SO AT A REGULAR MEETING, THOSE ITEMS WOULD BECOME SOMETHING WE WOULD VOTE ON AND TO YOU WOULD DIRECT. YEAH, IT'D BE A DIRECTION TO STAFF AND THE CONSULTANT ON WHAT CHANGES YOU'D LIKE TO SEE TO THE DRAFT.

OKAY. AND THAT WOULD BE AFTER THE PAB GAVE THEIR INPUT AND THE COALITION'S GIVE THEIR INPUT OR THAT COALITION TO CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH. MAYOR, CAN I SPEAK ON THE TIMING? I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU SOMETHING, BUT GO AHEAD. YES. SINCE YOU HAD SOMETHING. OKAY. JUST BECAUSE FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, AND I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOT WAIT, LIKE WASTE TIME AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS IT. BUT THIS, FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, ACTUALLY MAKES ME FEEL PRETTY CONFIDENT OR COMFORTABLE. AND THE REASON BEING IS BECAUSE OCTOBER OF 2026 IS WHEN SB 250 EXPIRES, RIGHT? WHICH IS A SENATE BILL THAT SOME OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT THE CITY HAS BEEN DEALING WITH FOR, FOR QUITE SOME TIME. AND THEN THE FACT THAT SECOND READING IS AFTER JULY 1ST, ALTHOUGH I'M RELUCTANT TO PUT MY TRUST IN THE STATE, I DO FEEL LIKE THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ON A FIXED BILL FOR SB 180. NOTHING PASSED THIS SESSION, BUT THAT WOULD ACTUALLY PUT US PAST THE NEXT SESSION. AND IF THERE IS A FIX, THEN SOME OF THESE LETTERS THAT WE'RE RECEIVING FROM ATTORNEYS WOULD HOLD NO WEIGHT, AND THE STATE REVIEW WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WITHOUT THEM IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF SB 180. SO JUST FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT FOR THE RECORD. OBVIOUSLY, WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO DRAFT THESE IN A WAY THAT WE FEEL LIKE ARE BENEFICIAL FOR THE CITY AND MAKE WHATEVER ARGUMENTS WE HAVE TO. BUT I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR ME TO SAY THAT. AND THEN I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, LEGALLY, THIS IS A DOCUMENT THAT IS A FRAMEWORK FOR LONG TERM PROTECTIONS AND MECHANISMS FOR THE FUTURE OF THIS CITY. SO HOW 250 AND 180 REALLY PERTAIN TO THIS IS BEYOND MY UNDERSTANDING. COULDN'T AGREE MORE. BUT THE FACT IS THE STATE IS TAKING A POSITION IN THEIR REVIEW. AND WHILE I DON'T AGREE WITH IT, THEY ARE STILL TAKING IT, WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE TO DEFEND IT OR GO TO COURT FOR SOMETHING THAT IF THEY DO FIX IT, COULD BE SOMETHING. IT COULD BE AN ISSUE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH AT ALL. OKAY. IF I MAY. OKAY. ON THAT TOPIC.

YES. ON THAT TOPIC, JUST KIND OF TO ADD TO THIS. REGARDING THE SCHEDULE, I UNDERSTAND WANTING TO MOVE IT UP AND ALL THAT AS WELL, BUT HAVING JUST TRAVELED LIKE I WAS OUT WEST AND I LOVED MY FAMILY VERY MUCH, I SOMETIMES I HAVE TO INSIST THAT WE HAVE MARGIN IN OUR SCHEDULE BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ON THE WAY TO THE AIRPORT. IF WE MOVE IT TO SEPTEMBER, WE HAVE NO MARGIN. THE THERE'S A STORM. HERE'S WHAT ELSE WE HAVE. ALL.

WE HAVE BUDGET STUFF LIKE WE HAVE A LOT THAT GOES ON, RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW HOW FULL THE AGENDAS ARE. I'M SURE THEY'RE ALREADY FULL. I LIKE THE IDEA OF THIS ONE BECAUSE IT GIVES US MARGIN IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS A STORM, OTHER THINGS WE HAVE TO ATTEND TO THAT'LL ALL

[01:55:01]

BE DONE BY NOVEMBER. BUT IF WE FOLLOW THIS, AND I THINK THE BONUS OR MAYBE THE IMPETUS WOULD BE WHAT MATTHEW JUST SAID, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT, IT'S JUST A REALITY OF THE WORLD WE LIVE IN AND A WHOLE LOT OF PROBLEMS. WELL, WE KNOW THIS. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS GOING TO GO AWAY BY THAT TIME. WE KNOW THAT THE 250 IS DONE. SO IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAT THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. YEAH, BUT BUT BUT AGAIN, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO GIVE LIKE THERE'S ZERO. EVERYTHING HAS TO GO JUST RIGHT. BUT WE CAN'T FORWARD. BUT WE CAN BECAUSE ALL MR. YOUNG AND I AND HAVE TO DO IS PUSH IT FORWARD IN THE AGENDA FOR ANYTHING THAT WE FORESEE IS NOT PREPARED AND READY TO GO. WELL, OF COURSE WE CAN. WE CAN ALWAYS SHOVE THIS STUFF. THIS IS THE GOAL. WELL, I THINK THE GOAL IS TO HAVE THE BEST PLAN POSSIBLE WITH THE LEAST AMOUNT OF FRICTION, WHICH IS ONLY. AND THAT BEING SAID, THAT'S WHY WE'RE EVEN MOVING IT AT ALL ANYWAY. YEAH, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND TO YOUR POINT, WHY NOVEMBER, WHAT'S THE MAGIC NUMBER IN NOVEMBER? I THINK THE TWO THINGS WERE JUST STATED. ONE IS THAT SB 250 SUNSETS.

IT'S DONE. SO THAT'S HALF THE BATTLE IS GONE. AND IN TERMS OF ON THE LEGAL SIDE, ACTUALLY THREE REASONS. TWO. 180 HOPEFULLY WILL BE CURED BY THEN. AND THREE, IT GIVES US MARGIN IN THE EVENT THAT WE HAVE. WE DIDN'T HAVE A STORM LAST YEAR. WE DIDN'T. I MEAN, THIS GIVES US TO MOVE IT FORWARD, GIVES US NO MARGIN. BUT IN THAT REGARD EITHER. SO I, I DON'T YEAH, I THINK THIS IS I WANT TO DEBATE WITH YOU THE FACT THAT THE SOONER THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY SAID THEY HAVE COMMENTS OF CONCERN, THAT THEY GET IT TO THE PAB SO THAT THE PAB CAN DISCUSS IT AND THE PAB MAY NEED TWO MEETINGS TO DISCUSS IT. I DON'T KNOW THAT. SO WAITING TO NOVEMBER. WE'VE GOT TWO MEETINGS SCHEDULED HERE ALREADY FOR PAB. THAT'S TWO OF OUR NOVEMBER START. WELL THIS THE PAB SUGGESTED THIS TIMELINE. WELL I DON'T WITH NO LOGICAL PRESENTATION. WHY NOVEMBER. OKAY. AGAIN. SO SB 150 IS OR IS IT. SORRY. OKAY. I'M SORRY. I'M I UNDERSTAND OKAY. WHAT YOU SAID. WELL, TO ADD SOMETHING TO THIS DISCUSSION AND FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, IF WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE EXPIRATION OF THE TOLLING PERIOD OR WHATEVER IN OCTOBER, I MEAN, THE WHAT THE MAYOR IS, WHAT I'M HEARING IS THESE ARE DISCUSSION MEETINGS IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, POTENTIALLY, BUT THE VOTES WOULDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL LATER. RIGHT? RIGHT. WHICH WOULD BE AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE OCTOBER DEADLINE. SO ISN'T THE KEY DATE TO BE WORRIED ABOUT WHEN WE ACTUALLY VOTE ON THE CHANGES. SO THE VOTE WOULD HAPPEN AFTER THE EXPIRATION, BUT THE DISCUSSIONS CAN HAPPEN BEFORE. SO. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, I'M NOT I WASN'T WORRIED WITH THE INITIAL TIMELINE BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IF PEOPLE WANT TO FIGHT SOMETHING, THEN WE'RE GOING TO FIGHT BECAUSE I THINK THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT. AND I WANT TO MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE DO ANYTHING BECAUSE WE'RE AFRAID OF SOMETHING HAPPENING. BUT TO YOUR POINT, YEAH, I THINK WHY NOT ADD A DISCUSSION ITEM ON THE COMP PLAN IN AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER TO THE PLANNING BOARD SO THAT WE CAN START ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT AT ALL, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ACTUAL WORKSHOP ITSELF AND MAYBE A JOINT WORKSHOP AND THEN TRANSMITTAL WILL OCCUR THIS WAY. BUT YEAH, I MEAN, I, I BELIEVE THE PLANNING BOARD HAS A, AN ITEM ON THEIR AGENDA THAT CARRIES OVER EVERY MEETING THAT DISCUSSED THE COMP PLAN.

ANYWAYS, CORRECT. MADAM MAYOR, THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS. ONE IS FROM A FIRST, I'M GOING TO SAY THAT THE SLIDE IS PRESENTED BASED ON WHAT THE PAB REQUESTED. I WANT TO BE CLEAR, AND NOBODY IN THIS ROOM CAN ANSWER WHY THEY WANTED TO MOVE IT, MOVE IT TO NOVEMBER. AT LEAST NONE OF MY STAFF CAN. AS TO WHY THEY WANTED TO MOVE IT TO NOVEMBER, WHAT I DON'T, AND IF IT'S PREDICATED ON WHO'S HERE, TIMING OF WHO'S HERE, WHEN THINGS ARE GOING TO BE ANSWERED.

WE'VE CROSSED THAT BRIDGE BEFORE. WE SAID, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THE SCHEDULE. THEN WE MADE A SLIGHT CHANGE TO THE SCHEDULE. NOW WE'RE GOING TO MAKE ANOTHER. IF THIS IS GOING TO TURN AROUND AND COME, WE'RE GOING TO START IT IN AUGUST AND THEN IN IN NOVEMBER, WE'RE GOING TO BE BACK TO SAYING, WELL, WE SAID WE DIDN'T WANT TO START THIS TILL NOVEMBER. WE STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN ENOUGH INPUT. WE'RE GOING TO PUSH KICK THAT CAN AGAIN. SO I RESPECTFULLY, IF PAB WANTS IT IN NOVEMBER AND COUNCIL DOESN'T WANT IT IN NOVEMBER OR WANTS AN ANSWER AS TO NOVEMBER, I RECOMMEND YOU ASK PAB BECAUSE ANYTHING ELSE IS A. WOULD BE OUR HYPOTHESIS AS TO THE OVERALL INTENT OF THE PAB, AND I WOULD PREFER ERIC OR I NOT JOIN THAT FRAY. IN THE END, WE WILL COMPLY WITH EITHER ONE OF THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S EFFICIENT, BUT WE NEED THIS TIMELINE TO STICK AND THAT IT NEEDS TO BE AGREED UPON. YOU HAVE THE WHEREWITHAL TO SAY PAB, WOULD YOU CONSIDER AUGUST AT THE JUNE MEETING AND HAVE THEM

[02:00:05]

IN COMMUNICATIONS HAVE A DISCUSSION? BUT TODAY, I DON'T THINK WE'RE IN POSITION TO ANSWER WHY THEY WERE STUCK ON NOVEMBER, AND I WOULD DEFER THAT TO HAVE THAT DIALOG FOR THEM TO COMMUNICATE IT AS OPPOSED TO US TODAY. GREAT IDEA. AND YOU CAN ASK THEM. SO I THE NEXT MEETING I HAVE WITH THE PAB IS ON JUNE. IT'S A WEEK FROM TODAY. YES, THEY DO TAKE THEY DO NOT MEET JULY OR AUGUST. SO I HAVE NEXT WEEK. AND THEN THEIR NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING IS THE SEPTEMBER 10TH MEETING. IS THERE AN ACCOUNT PLAN ITEM? THERE'S ALWAYS. YEAH, WE HAVE A STANDING ITEM TO DISCUSS JUST THE STATUS WHERE WE ARE IN THE SCHEDULE SO THAT THAT'LL BE ON.

I WOULD ALSO THINK THAT THOSE WHO HAD A CONCERN ABOUT. OR QUESTIONS ON THIS, THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE SOME OF THOSE ITEMS TO BE GIVEN TO YOU INSTEAD OF WAITING UNTIL NOVEMBER. I MEAN, THAT JUST TO BE FAIR, I DON'T. THIS DRAFT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED SINCE THE FIRST WEEK OF MAY.

YES, THIS DRAFT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE BECAUSE IT WAS PUBLISHED FOR THE MAY PAB MEETING. SO THIS DRAFT OF THIS COMP PLAN HAS BEEN PUBLISHED AND AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC SINCE THE FIRST WEEK OF MAY. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY INPUT ON THE SPECIFIC WORDING OF THIS PLAN. OKAY. IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY, MY ONLY STATEMENT WOULD BE IS THAT THE PAB MEETING IS TO TO SAY, HERE'S WHAT A SCHEDULE WOULD LOOK LIKE IF YOU STARTED IN SEPTEMBER. HERE'S WHAT IT WOULD LOOK AT. HERE WAS YOUR RECOMMENDATION. YOU'RE WELCOME TO DECIDE TODAY, MAYOR. I'M JUST OFFERING THAT AS A DISCUSSION POINT, SINCE THEY'RE NOT HERE TO EXPRESS IT DIRECTLY TO YOU. IF WE DON'T MAKE THE TIMELINE TODAY, WE DEFINITELY NEED TO MAKE IT AT OUR NEXT MEETING. AFTER THE INPUT FROM THE PAB. ON REASONS FOR THAT EXTENSION TO NOVEMBER. LOGICALLY, IF I COULD. AGAIN, MAYOR, WATCHING THAT PAB MEETING, I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHY IT WAS NOVEMBER EITHER. LIKE IT JUST WAS KIND OF THROWN OUT THERE AND THEN IT GOT MOMENTUM. AND THEN THAT'S JUST HOW IT WAS. I IN MY VIEW, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY, SINCE I WAS AT THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, AND THIS GOES TO THE VICE MAYOR'S COMMENTS, THERE'S AS THERE'S MORE MOMENTUM, IN MY VIEW, REGARDING THE COMP PLAN IN IN THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL MEETING, BECAUSE LIKE A LOT OF THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE ALSO COALITION MEMBERS. AND THERE'S KIND OF AN ODD DYNAMIC, I THINK, TO ME. BUT THEY FELT LIKE IT LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE LOCKED AND LOADED AND READY.

AND WE'RE GOING TO GET AFTER THIS. AND WE HAVE GOT OUR FOLKS BEHIND US. AND THERE'S JUST LOTS OF ENERGY THAT WAY. NOW, ONCE THEY GET TO BIG SKY OR WHEREVER THEY'RE GOING, WE'LL SEE HOW THAT GOES. BUT HOPEFULLY IT I MEAN, TO AND TO THE OUR CITY MANAGER'S POINT, YOU CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH. AND TUESDAY THERE WAS A WHOLE BUNCH OF ENERGY IN THE ROOM REGARDING THIS. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT IS TODAY, BUT THAT'S HOW IT WAS LAST TUESDAY. SO I SAY ALL THAT TO SAY LIKE I'M NOT I DON'T REALLY HAVE A DOG IN THE FIGHT OF WHAT THE TIMELINE IS PROVIDED, THE CITY MANAGER IS COMFORTABLE WITH WHATEVER IS PRESENTED. I'M JUST GIVING A RATIONALE FOR WHY THAT THIS WOULD WORK. AND I ALSO I'M ALWAYS I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT MARGIN THAT WE DON'T WE JUST SHOVE SO MUCH ON THE PLATE AND THEN IT WOULD BE GREAT IF THERE'S NO OTHER ISSUES THAT COME UP, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF MONTHS IN BETWEEN. AND, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THE FIGHT, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND I THE REASON I CAME UP WITH THAT, I WAS TRYING TO RATIONALIZE WHY THAT MIGHT BE THERE. MAGICAL MONTH. THAT'S WHAT I CAME UP WITH. THAT'S ALL. GOT IT. THANK YOU. SO WE'LL. IF NO ONE IS OPPOSED TO MISS MARTIN GOING BACK, FINDING OUT ABOUT THE TIMELINE AND ANY OTHER. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, IS THE DIRECTION THAT I ADD. BECAUSE I HAVE TO PUBLISH THIS AGENDA TODAY, WHICH I HAVEN'T YET. SO FOR THE PAB, I WILL PROVIDE TO THEM THE SCHEDULE SHOWING THE NOVEMBER START AND THEN ALSO ONE SHOWING SEPTEMBER AND ASK THEM TO DISCUSS THE TWO, CHOOSE WHICH ONE AND THEN OFFER AN EXPLANATION FOR THEIR CHOICE. YEAH. BUT I REALLY WOULD RATHER KNOW WHERE COUNCIL IS ON THIS BECAUSE WE DIRECT PAB, THEY ARE OUR PLANNING BOARD. SO I DON'T WANT THEM DICTATING. I WANT TO BE WORKING WITH THEM. I AGREE, AND MADAM MAYOR, I JUST WANTED BECAUSE I PROFFERED THIS WHAT I WAS PROFFERING AND FOR THAT REASON WAS, IS IF COUNCIL CAN'T COME TO A CONSENSUS OR IF THERE'S QUESTIONS AS TO WHAT THEIR MOTIVES, OR WE WOULD JUST DIRECT THOSE QUESTIONS TO THEM RATHER THAN STAFF ANSWERING FOR THEM IS ALL I WAS TRYING. SO IF WE CAN STILL GET A CONSENSUS TODAY, THAT'S ALWAYS BETTER. I JUST DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S LEADING, AND I WANTED TO OFFER THAT AS A SOLUTION, RATHER THAN US GUESSING WHAT THEY WANTED AND WHY. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ. I IS IT ON THIS PARTICULAR BECAUSE I HAVE YOU ALREADY TO SPEAK. IS IT ABOUT

[02:05:03]

THIS? THIS IS ABOUT THE PLAN. ABOUT THE TIMELINE. YES. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO GO BACK AND REVISIT HISTORY IS WAS OVER A YEAR AGO WHEN I CALLED COUNCILMAN KRAMER FROM HELSINKI, FINLAND, SIMPLY WANTING TO HAVE MORE TIME FOR INPUT. AND YOU WERE AT THAT POINT, INTRANSIGENT? NO, WE SAW YOUR STUFF. WE HAVE NO REASON TO HEAR YOU GUYS. SO WE'RE SEVEN.

OH, HE SAID, IF YOU WANT TO. YOU TOLD ME, GO APPLY FOR A JOB ON THE PLANNING BOARD. AND I DIDN'T DO THAT, HE SAID, OR RUN FOR OFFICE. WELL, I DID THAT AND I'M HERE. SO I RAISED THIS .15 MONTHS. HOW MANY MONTHS AGO? AND YOU WERE ADAMANT, NO, NO MORE TIME. NO MORE TIME. WE'VE MADE OUR DECISION. YOU DON'T MATTER. WE'RE DONE. WELL, I DIDN'T SAY YOU DON'T MATTER. NO, BUT BUT THE ISSUE IS THAT THIS HAS BEEN DELIBERATED, AND I WAS TRYING TO INFORM YOU BACK THEN.

THIS HADN'T BEEN FULLY VETTED AT THAT TIME. AND SO THAT WE'RE HERE AGAIN, IT'S IT'S GREAT THE INPUTS THERE. THE PAB IS NOW GOING TO HAVE THEIR THEIR FINAL SAY, BUT THAT WAS A PAB AGO.

AND I'VE BEEN ON HERE FOR A FEW MONTHS. SO I JUST LOVE TO SEE YOUR METAMORPHOSIS ON THIS.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WITH THE ONLY THING ON A TIMELINE. YEAH. QUICK COMMENT. YEAH. I'M NOT FOR KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD ON IT. I'M PERSONALLY INCURRING MORE EXPENSES ON THIS.

I THINK I AGREE MORE WITH GARY'S KIND OF DIRECTION. AND I'M AS NEBULOUS AS THEY THINK THERE. THERE'S SOME ISSUES IN THE PLAN. I STILL AM CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE UNHAPPY.

THEY HAVE AN EXAMPLE IN. DOES PA HAVE AN EXAMPLE IN THE PLAN THAT'S SO NEBULOUS THAT THAT TOOK OTHER THAN THE AIRPORT WE TALKED ABOUT, IS THERE SOMETHING, ERICA, THAT THEY HAVE A THEY HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THEY'RE REFERRING TO, OTHER THAN BECAUSE I FIND THEIR COMMENTS BACK NEBULOUS. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THEY SAY IT'S IT'S IT'S UNCLEAR. WELL, SHOW US AN EXAMPLE. THAT'S WHERE'S THE EXAMPLE THEY'RE REFERRING TO, YOU KNOW, A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES. YEAH. HOWEVER, THE MAJORITY OF THOSE POLICIES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED ARE IN THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO THEY'RE NOT PROPOSED CHANGES. IT'S ALSO CONFUSING. AND I THINK THE OVERALL I DON'T WANT TO PARAPHRASE FOR OTHER PEOPLE, BUT I THINK GENERALLY THE FEEDBACK WAS THAT THEY WANTED MORE SPECIFICITY. IN WHAT AREAS THOUGH, AND WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IN PARTICULAR? WHAT, WHERE DO THEY THINK IT'S THE WEAKEST? EXACTLY. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR. I, I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE. AND THIS IS A GUIDING DOCUMENT. THIS IS NOT A INSTRUCTION MANUAL. YOU KNOW, THIS IS A GUIDING DOCUMENT. SO YEAH, YOU COULD, WE COULD PONTIFICATE ABOUT THIS FOR, FOR TEN YEARS TALKING ABOUT THIS. THERE ARE CONCEPTS IN THE PLAN, LIKE THE GREEN JEWEL AND STUFF, WHICH FOR THE RECORD, IS NOT A NEW CONCEPT. THAT CONCEPT OF THE GREEN JEWEL HAS BEEN IN THIS COMP PLAN FOR DECADES. I THINK FROM PUBLIC FEEDBACK, THE CONSULTANTS DID A REALLY GOOD JOB OF TRYING ACTUALLY TO DEFINE THOSE TERMS OR, YOU KNOW, BETTER DEFINE THOSE TERMS. ALSO, MOST OF THE DEFINITIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED ARE FROM THE STATE STATUTE. SO IF THEY'RE CONCISE ENOUGH FOR THE STATE, I LIKE THE GREEN JEWEL. I THINK MAYBE PART OF THE ISSUE HERE IS I'M SORRY, MADAM MAYOR, JUST DIRECT REFERENCE TO THIS QUESTION, AND THAT IS THAT WE HAVE A DRAFT, ACTUALLY, THAT'S BEEN THAT'S RECENTLY BEEN PROVIDED. AND I THINK THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHERE WE WERE THREE MONTHS AGO AND WHERE WE ARE TODAY. AND THAT IS THAT PEOPLE HAVE A DRAFT THAT THEY'VE ACTUALLY BEEN ABLE TO LOOK AT, BUT HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS TIME TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE COMMENTS OR CHANGES OR SUGGESTIONS. SO I THINK THAT'S THE BIG DIFFERENCE OF WHERE WE ARE TODAY VERSUS WHERE WE WERE. AND THAT'S AND I AGREE, AND I THINK THAT'S BECAUSE THIS ISN'T THE STATE MANDATED, YOU KNOW, UPDATE PROCESS. THIS IS AN ELECTIVE PROCESS. WE ARE CURRENT WITH THE STATE WITH RESPECT TO OUR COMP PLAN. SO BECAUSE THIS IS ELECTIVE, THE REQUEST WAS NOW THAT WE HAVE AN ACTUAL DRAFT. AND SO ALL I'M HOPING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, TO ACCOMMODATE THIS REQUESTED DELAY, IT'S FRUITFUL THAT, YOU KNOW, WE REVIEW THE DRAFT AND IT'S NOT JUST WE WE NO LONGER TALK IN BROAD CONCEPTUAL TERMS. WE NOW ARE LOOKING AT LANGUAGE AND WE'RE PROPOSING SPECIFIC STRIKETHROUGHS AND UNDERLINES OF THE LANGUAGE. AND THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL. AND THAT WOULD BE PRODUCTIVE AT THIS POINT AHEAD OF TIME SO THAT IT CAN BE PUBLISHED. OKAY. SO WE'LL GO BACK TO YOUR QUESTION. THANK YOU FOR LEADING US DOWN THAT WITH THE TIMELINE, IF THERE'S NOT A CONCERN WITH WHAT MR. YOUNG AND MISS MARTIN HAVE

[02:10:01]

OUTLINED, WE'LL PROCEED WITH THAT. AND IT CAN COME. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT IS. OKAY. WELL, MR. YOUNG SAID HE WANTS DIRECTION FROM US CLEARLY TO ASK THE PAB ABOUT THE TIMELINE, SO MAYBE I CAN MAKE A SUGGESTION. THANK YOU SIR, IS IF WE CAN GET A CONSENSUS THAT WE PREFER A SEPTEMBER OCTOBER TIMELINE INSTEAD OF NOVEMBER DECEMBER FOR THESE DISCUSSION MEETINGS AND ASK STAFF TO GO BACK TO PAB WITH THAT AS OUR PREFERENCE, AND FOR THEM TO TELL US WHY THAT WOULD NOT WORK, IF THAT'S WHAT THEY BELIEVE, AND TO JUSTIFY AN ALTERNATIVE.

OTHERWISE, IF SEE IF THEY CAN ACCEPT AND WORK WITH A SEPTEMBER OCTOBER TIMEFRAME HERE. SO MAYBE IF WE COULD SEE IF THAT WORKS FOR A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL. THANKS. MR. COUNCIL MEMBER CARL SCHULTZ. I WAS AT THAT MEETING WHEN ALL THIS STUFF WENT DOWN, AND THE ISSUES AS I WAS ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THEM AND MISS MARTIN CAN CORRECT ME. IT WAS THE GENTLEMAN. I CAN'T THINK OF HIS LAST NAME. LUKE DEVELOPER, A BUILDER GUY THAT WAS SAYING, WELL, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY INPUT IN THIS THING. AND THEN I BELIEVE IT WAS MR. BLOEMKER, ANOTHER NEW MEMBER FROM FROM PORT ROYAL WHO WAS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T TALKED TO THIS THIS NEW GROUP OF THE PRESIDENT, THE ASSOCIATIONS. SO I THINK THERE ARE ISSUES, AS I UNDERSTOOD THEM THEN, IS WE NEED TO GO SOLICIT THE BUILDING COMMUNITY'S IDEAS ON THIS, AND WE NEED TO GET THIS OTHER PRESIDENT'S GROUP IN THERE. THAT'S WHY WE WANT THE TIME TO DO IT. THAT'S WHAT I GLEANED FROM SITTING THERE WATCHING THEM DELIBERATE HERE. THOSE WERE THE SPECIFIC ITEMS AS A FORMER PAB MEMBER. THIS IS WHAT I GOT OUT OF WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR. HEY, I'M A NEW BOY. I GOTTA FIND OUT WHAT THIS AND THAT IS, AND THAT'S FAIR. BUT THE THE SPECIFIC ISSUE OF DIRECTING IT TO THE DEVELOPER COMMUNITY AND THE BUILDER TYPES.

AND THEN THIS, THIS NEW PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL, WHATEVER THE COALITION, YEAH. THOSE WERE THE TWO SALIENT ISSUES THAT I PICKED UP SITTING THERE WATCHING THEIR MEETING. SO IF THAT HELPS PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE, THAT WOULD PROBABLY. I THINK THAT THAT SUMMED IT UP FROM MY VANTAGE POINT. THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE DIRECTION ELOQUENTLY BY VICE MAYOR. YEAH. COUNCIL CONSENSUS THAT YOU PREFER THE SEPTEMBER SCHEDULE. TAKE THIS TO THE PAB ON JUNE 10TH. PROVIDE TO THEM THE SEPTEMBER SCHEDULE AND THE NOVEMBER SCHEDULE. CONVEY THAT IT IS YOUR PREFERENCE TO GO WITH THE SEPTEMBER SCHEDULE AND ASK THEM TO PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION OF THEIR PREFERENCE. AND THEN I'LL COME BACK TO YOU ON JUNE 7TH. ANYONE OPPOSED TO THAT, CARL? OKAY. CLAIRE SCHULTZ. PERFECT. THANK YOU. ARE YOU COMPLETE FOR NOW. THANK YOU. I NOW HAVE CORAL. ON THE. ARE WE STILL ON THIS? NO. IN GENERAL. OH, COMMUNICATIONS. NO, IN GENERAL ABOUT THE COMP PLAN. DO YOU HAVE ANY YOU RAISED YOUR HAND EARLIER. OH YEAH. YEAH.

WELL I JUST SOME OF THAT I, I FEEL WE SHOULD TRY TO STAY YOU KNOW, WE REVISED WE KICKED IT A LITTLE FURTHER OUT TO GET SOME MORE INFORMATION. I THINK WE SHOULD STAY. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD KEEP REVISING EXTENSIONS TO THIS THING. AS FAR AS THE PLAN GOES. I THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK I THINK WE HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS THING. AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE MUCH MORE IMPROVEMENT BY DELAYING IT. I JUST DON'T FEEL THAT WAY. MATTER OF FACT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE ATTEND OUT OF SEASON THAN DURING SEASON, YOU KNOW, SO I, I JUST DON'T SEE THAT LOGIC BEING THERE. I THINK THE REVISIONS WE HAVE ARE ARE SENSIBLE. I I'M, I'M, I'M FOR KIND OF PUTTING CLOSURE TO THIS THING. OKAY. I HAVE KRAMER. YEAH. AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THE KEY POINT HERE AND TO MY COLLEAGUES DISCUSSION OF OUR CONVERSATION, WHICH I SEE A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY, BUT I'M GLAD YOU'RE HERE, IS THAT NOW WE HAVE A DRAFT. ALL THE PREVIOUS STUFF HAD TO GET TO THIS POINT SO THAT WE CAN GO LINE BY LINE. AND SO THE PROCESS HAS MOVED FORWARD THE WAY IT WAS SUPPOSED TO, AND I DON'T WANT TO KICK IT DOWN THE ROAD EITHER. I MEAN, ANYBODY WHO'S EVER WRITTEN ANYTHING, YOU CAN REVISE AND EDIT AND NEVER GET IT PUBLISHED. AND I DO NOT WANT TO GET IN THAT LOOP. BUT I THINK IT'S CRITICAL TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE, THE, A LOT OF REALLY HARD WORK AND GOOD WORK WAS DONE. NOW WE'RE TO THE POINT WITH A DRAFT TO ACTUALLY FINE TUNE AND, AND BE REALLY SPECIFIC. AND I ENCOURAGE THE COALITION, THE PRESIDENT'S

[02:15:04]

COUNCIL, WHO, WHOEVER, WHOMEVER TO. AND ONE OF THE THINGS I DO APPRECIATE, WE GOT THE LETTER FROM LIKE RONDO MH K AND I FORGET WHO ELSE THEY DID HAVE. IT WAS VERY SPECIFIC. AND THAT'S WHAT WE REALLY NEED. JUST GIVE US SPECIFICITY. AND IT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE GOING TO DO WHAT YOU WANT, BUT IT MEANS WE CAN ADDRESS THE ISSUES. SO I SO THANKS FOR COUNCILMAN CRAWFORD. SO I AGREE 100% WITH HIS COMMENTS. SCHULTZ, YOU'RE ON THE LIST. DID YOU HAVE FURTHER COMMENTS? I THINK I HAVE ADDRESSED THOSE OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS AS IT RELATES TO NO OFFENSE THAT THE. CONSULTANTS. IS THERE A POINT WHERE YOU CAN DO THE INTAKE AND WE DON'T HAVE TO BRING THEM IN FOR MEETINGS AND SIT AND OBSERVE, OR THAT WE CAN GIVE THEM THEIR INFORMATION FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO UPDATE THE PLAN ONCE IT'S VOTED ON. I JUST I MEAN, I REALIZE THAT THEY'RE AN IMPORTANT PIECE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO WASTE THEIR TIME SITTING HERE WHILE WE DEBATE CERTAIN ISSUES AND GO ROUND AND ROUND. THAT PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE A LOT THEY ARE THE EXPERTS IN A LOT OF THESE. LIKE IF WE GET INTO A DISCUSSION ABOUT RESILIENCY COMMENTS, I WOULD NEVER TRY TO TAKE. GOT IT. TAKE THAT CONVERSATION. THAT'S I MEAN, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE EXPERTS. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE THE EXPERT ON PLANNING. SO I'M TO THAT CITY TO THAT IF I'M CORRECT. AND MAYOR, BUT I THINK THE BIG DISTINCTION HERE TODAY IS YOU COULD HAVE JUST ASKED QUESTIONS AND ADOPTED THIS ON FIRST READING AND NOT DONE ANYTHING. SO TO NOT HAVE THEM HERE TODAY. AND THEN WHEN WE GO TO THE NEXT MEETINGS, IT'LL BE THE FIRST PUBLIC MEETINGS WHERE YOU'RE ABSORBING AND RECOMMENDING ANY PUBLIC CHANGES TO THE DOCUMENT AS IT WAS WRITTEN AFTER THE DATA GATHERING STAGE. SO THEY'RE THEY'RE CRITICAL TO THOSE COMPONENTS. YEAH. AND I KNOW IT LOOKS LIKE THEY JUST WERE HERE SITTING, BUT IT'S BASED ON THE FLOW OF THE CONVERSATION TODAY. THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THEM TO PREVENT PRESENT AT THE MOMENT. BUT THAT TIME, EVERY OTHER PUBLIC MEETING OR HAD WE BEEN DOING WHAT WHAT? THIS WAS PROBABLY A WORKING SESSION AND FIRST READING THAT IT WAS PARAMOUNT FOR THEM TO HAVE BEEN HERE. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION. SO THANK YOU.

I DO THINK IT'S HARD TO HAVE A FIRST READING AND A WORKING SESSION. IT JUST IT'S THAT'S WHY THIS SCHEDULE SEPARATES THOSE. YEAH. IT'S JUST FOR MOVING FORWARD. IT'S JUST. SO I AM GLAD YOU'RE HERE. I JUST DON'T I AM IN EXTENDING THIS. I DO WANT TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS AND AWARE OF THEIR TIME AND IMPORTANCE WITH THAT. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT I, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT THE ACCORDING TO THE STATE STATUTES, THAT THE CHANGES THAT WE ARE MAKING ARE MEANINGFUL AND PREDICTABLE STANDARDS. WHICH IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO THAT LAST TIME WHEN I WAS ASKING THE QUESTIONS THAT WE'RE NOT BROAD AND HAVE INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES, THAT THEY'RE CLEAR AND CONSISTENT. AGAIN, WE DON'T WANT ANY AMBIGUITY IN IN APPROVALS BECAUSE THIS IS THE OVERARCHING WE WHEN WE GET TO OUR CODES AND THINGS, YOU KNOW, WE CAN BREAK IT DOWN. I DO, I DO BELIEVE THAT WITH THE AIRPORT. WE NEED APPROVAL THRESHOLDS AND THE CITY VERSUS THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND CONTROL BECAUSE TO OBVIOUSLY, WE WENT DOWN THE ROAD AND HAD AN ISSUE WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING ON A PARTICULAR SITE PLAN PROJECT. AND HOW IT TRIGGERS A SITE PLAN. AND THEN THE CLEAR LIMITS ON THE RUNWAY INTENSITY AND EXPANSION. AND I THINK THAT MR. DICKMAN PROBABLY ADDRESSED THAT. AND WE'LL GO OVER IT IN IN HIS RECOMMENDATIONS. THE OTHER ISSUE WAS REBUILDING RESILIENCY AFTER THE STORM, AND THAT WE'RE NOT MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE NOT LIMITING THE ABILITY TO BUILD BACK AFTER A STORM IN ANY OF THE PROPOSED POLICIES. I DON'T JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT WHEN YOU'RE REVIEWING IT. AND AGAIN, WHETHER IT'S TOO VAGUE TO

[02:20:04]

ENFORCE WHEN WE'RE IN IN THAT CORE AND IT MAY NOT BE, I JUST THAT'S SOMETHING IF YOU COULD JUST REVIEW. AND THAT IT DOESN'T VIOLATE BUILDING RIGHTS IN OUR AND IN THE CHANGES. I THINK THAT AS FAR AS AN OVERALL ARCHING SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT. AND OF COURSE, WHEN I GO ONE ON ONE WITH MISS MARTIN, WHICH I AM SO THANKFUL THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO. THAT. WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO THAT. AND AS FAR AS THE AIRPORT, YOU KNOW. THE LANGUAGE IN THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND THE AIRPORT, THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN DOES REQUIRE SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL, WHICH ALREADY EXISTS IN THE WHICH WE HAVE AN OPINION ON LEGALLY AND ALSO FROM INTERPRETATIONS OR WHATEVER THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS THAT FINAL SAY ON SITE PLAN. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN THAT'S IF WE MAKE CHANGES, THAT THOSE CHANGES ARE VERY CLEAR ON HOW THE BROAD PLANNING AND ZONING DOCUMENT TO THAT SITE PLAN IS A PROJECT SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL. AND THAT'S NOTHING. ADDING IT'S NOTHING CHANGING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR. SO WE NEVER FIND OURSELVES IN, IN ANY TYPE OF CONFLICT WITH THE AIRPORT, BECAUSE AGAIN, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH THE AIRPORT AND THAT WE'RE NOT CREATING PROBLEMS. AND I'LL JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, AS IT CONSISTS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OUR CODES AND OUR LEASE RIGHTS AND THE ZONING AUTHORITY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS AND THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT'S WHERE I'M LOOKING TOWARDS THE DIRECTION THAT OUR. MR. DICKMAN AND THAT MR. MCCONNELL HAVE GIVEN US. OKAY. WITH THAT, NO FURTHER. MR. YOUNG, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE DIRECTION? WELL, MY ONLY QUESTION IS, DO YOU THIS IS A FIRST READING, SO. OH, YES. THANK YOU. WHAT IS IT THAT THE ACTION. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK MR. MCCONNELL. I WOULD JUST SAY TAKE NO ACTION.

BUT I THINK THE MOTION NEEDS TO BE TO EXTEND THE TIMELINE BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU'VE JUST MADE. SO WHAT I HEARD IS YOU'RE YOU'RE EXTENDING THE TIMELINE. WE WILL RE-ADVERTISE FIRST READING BECAUSE THERE'S NO POINT OF CONTINUING IT TO A DATE CERTAIN UNTIL WE HEAR BACK FROM PLANNING BOARD. SO THE MOTION WOULD BE TO EXTEND THE TIMELINE OF THE COMP PLAN REWRITE, WITH THE FIRST MEETING BEING IN SEPTEMBER. AND THEN DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ADD THIS DISCUSSION ON THE JUNE 15TH OR JUNE 17TH MEETING TO GET FOLLOW UP FROM PAB. BUT I WOULDN'T TAKE ACTION ON THE FIRST READING AND THE NEXT. WHEN WE DO HAVE A FIRST READING, WILL IT BE A FIRST READING? YES, YES, BUT IT WILL BE RE-ADVERTISED PURSUANT TO STATUTE. AND AT THAT POINT YOU WOULD HAVE ALREADY GONE TO THE PLANNING BOARD, HAD YOUR LPA RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN THAT'S WHY THERE'S NO ACTION ON THE FIRST READING. CORRECT. BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TRANSMITTING THIS TO THE STATE. I DO NOT HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. CORRECT. OKAY. WITH THAT. DO I HAVE A MOTION? ALL RIGHT. I'LL ATTEMPT. I MOVE THAT WE EXTEND THE TIMELINE FOR RECEIVING AND INCORPORATING POTENTIAL COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND COUNCIL MEMBERS AND PA MEMBERS WITH THE. REQUEST THAT THOSE COMMENTS BE PROVIDED AT LEAST ONE WEEK BEFORE THE PEBS SEPTEMBER MEETING. FIRST WOULD BE IDEAL. SO BY SEPTEMBER 1ST, THANK YOU FOR THE SEPTEMBER MEETING WITH THE GOAL OF. FOR COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THE UPDATED PLAN IN OCTOBER AND TAKING NO ACTION ON THE FIRST READING TODAY.

SUPPORTED BY VICE MAYOR SUPPORT. WE HAVE A SECOND. SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON. ANY DISCUSSION? MADAM CLERK? DISCUSSION? NO. I WAS SECONDING IT. OH, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T

[02:25:06]

HEAR YOU. YEAH, YOU'RE FACING THAT WAY TODAY. YEAH, YOU'RE FACING THAT WAY TODAY. SO I DO HAVE TWO EARS. SO I HAVE A MOTION BY VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ. MADAM CLERK, WOULD YOU PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER? BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER PENNYMAN. YES. VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KROLL. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ. A. MAYOR HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU. COUNCIL PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU, MISS MARTIN. MADAM MAYOR. YES. MR. YOUNG, I WOULD. IF WE DO CHANGE THE 15TH TO THE TO AN ACTUAL SPECIAL MEETING AS OPPOSED TO A WORKSHOP, I WOULD HOPE THAT I CAN GET THIS ONE. WE'LL HAVE A GENERIC AGENDA ITEM AND THEN HAVE THE DISCUSSION ON THAT. BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY LAND USE ITEMS, I THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO TAKE CARE OF THIS ITEM ON THE 15TH. SO I JUST LETTING YOU KNOW THAT. AND THEN I WOULD WITHHOLD HAVING CHRISTINA SEND OUT ANY ONE ON ONE INVITES UNTIL WE KNOW WHETHER WE'RE STARTING IN SEPTEMBER OR NOVEMBER. SOME OF YOU MAY WANT TO, YOU KNOW, DELAY HAVING THE ONE ON ONES FOR A PERIOD DURING THE BREAK IF WE'RE NOT RECONVENING ON THIS ITEM UNTIL NOVEMBER. SO I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF FORESHADOW WHAT THE SCHEDULE WOULD LOOK LIKE. SO THANK YOU. AND THAT THAT MEETING ON THE 15TH WILL REALLY BE JUST TO APPROVE THE TIME LIMIT, JUST TO AGREE WHETHER WE AGREE WE'RE MOVING IT INTO SEPTEMBER TIMETABLE OR MOVING IT BACK OUT TO NOVEMBER. THAT'LL BE ALL, MA'AM. THANK

[14.D) First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Procedure for Review of the Design Review Board. An Ordinance Relating to the Design Review Board of the City of Naples, Amending Chapter 2 Administration, Article V Boards, Commissions and Committees, Division 4 Design Review Board, Sections 2-474 Organization; Quorum; Rules Of Procedure, 2-475 Applicability of Design Review; Prohibitions; 2-476 Procedure for Review Criteria; Review, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples for the Purpose of Updating the Procedure for Review of the Design Review Board of the City of Naples; Providing for Codification, Conflicts, Severability, Correction of Scrivener’s Error, Construction, Publication and an Effective Date (Supplement 1/Updated Item).]

YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND WITH THAT, WE'RE MOVING TO ITEM 14 D. MR. MCCONNELL. YES. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF NAPLES AMENDING CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE FIVE BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES, DIVISION FOR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SECTIONS 2-474. ORGANIZATION QUORUM. RULES OF PROCEDURE 2-475. APPLICABILITY OF DESIGN REVIEW PROHIBITIONS 2-476. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW CRITERIA. REVIEW OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF UPDATING THE PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF NAPLES. PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY, CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, CONSTRUCTION, PUBLICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ALL RIGHT, I'LL DIVE RIGHT IN. GOOD MORNING. ERIC MARTIN, PLANNING DIRECTOR. THIS WHAT WE HAVE FOR YOU TODAY IS AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. SO IF YOU RECALL, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF ORDINANCES THAT YOU REVIEWED PREVIOUSLY. I BELIEVE AT THE END OF LAST YEAR, ONE, WE CALLED THE BOARDS AND COMMITTEES ORDINANCE AT THAT TIME, THAT ORDINANCE INCLUDED REVISIONS TO MOST OF YOUR BOARDS AND COMMITTEES, AND THE COUNCIL HAD ASKED THAT WE EXTRACT THE DRB PROCESS FROM THAT AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMITTEES AT THAT TIME. SO WE'VE EXTRACTED THE DRB PROCESS. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE FOR YOU NOW IS JUST A PROPOSED REVISION TO THE DESIGN REVIEW SECTION OF YOUR CODE, WHICH IS IN CHAPTER TWO, WHICH IS THE ADMINISTRATION ARTICLES AND BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES. THIS IS DIVISION FOUR, WHICH IS YOUR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. SO WE'RE MAKING A COUPLE OF CHANGES TO THIS. WE DISCUSSED AT THE MULTIPLE MEETINGS. BUT MOST RECENTLY IN APRIL, I DISCUSSED WITH CITY COUNCIL A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE TABLE PREVIOUSLY. AND SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE, AND THIS WAS PRESENTED AT YOUR APRIL 13TH MEETING, WE HAVE, SORRY, EXHIBIT A, WHICH IS THE EXISTING PROCESS THAT WE HAVE. SO FOR A AND THIS IS FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT. SO NOT A SMALL REVISION, BUT A, A BRAND NEW, YOU KNOW, VACANT LOT OR REDEVELOPMENT PROCESS. SO YOU WOULD START WITH PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW AND THEN YOU HAVE THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, WHICH IS THEY ALL BEGIN ADMINISTRATIVE. THIS IS WHERE THE PROJECT IS SUBMITTED TO ALL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS OR SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. WE DISTRIBUTE TO ALL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, AND IT'S REVIEWED BY ALL THE DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES FOR CONSISTENCY WITH ALL THEIR CODES, POLICIES, PROCEDURES. SO THAT'S SITE PLAN ONLY. CURRENTLY, ONLY THE PROJECTS THAT ARE WITHIN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT GO ON TO CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THEIR SITE PLAN ALL OTHER PROJECTS. IT'S JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. AND THEN FOLLOWING THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, IF ENTITLEMENTS ARE REQUIRED. SO IF THEY NEED A CONDITIONAL USE OR A VARIANCE OR A PARKING ALLOCATION, OR IT IS IN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WHICH REQUIRES CITY COUNCIL AFTER SITE PLAN, THAT PROJECT, IF IT REQUIRES ENTITLEMENTS, WOULD GO TO THE PAB CRAB IF IT'S A PARKING ALLOCATION, AND THEN ON TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF THOSE ENTITLEMENTS, AND THEN TO FINAL DESIGN REVIEW HEARING AND THEN BUILDING PERMIT. THAT'S THE THE TRACK.

[02:30:03]

IF NO ENTITLEMENTS ARE REQUIRED, IT WOULD GO FROM PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW, THE SITE PLAN PROCESS AND THEN TO FINAL DESIGN REVIEW AND ON TO THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS. SO WE PROPOSED BASED ON DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST, I'M GOING TO SAY OVER A YEAR, TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS. THIS IS EXHIBIT B, WHICH IS REALLY REDUCING DESIGN REVIEW TO ONE HEARING AND PUTTING THAT HEARING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS. SO YOU'LL SEE UNDER EXHIBIT B, YOU HAVE A DRB REVIEW, NO LONGER PRELIMINARY OR FINAL. IT'S JUST CALLED A DRB REVIEW. THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST STEP. YOU HAVE THE THIS SAYS GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. IT'S JUST A RENAMING OF THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. BUT YOU'D HAVE YOUR SITE PLAN PROCESS, GENERALLY ADMINISTRATIVE, SOMETIMES REQUIRING CITY COUNCIL. IF IT'S A. IN A PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

ENTITLEMENTS IF NECESSARY, AND THEN FROM CITY COUNCIL STRAIGHT TO BUILDING PERMIT. SO YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THAT FINAL DRB STEP. THAT WAS RIGHT ABOUT HERE. IF IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ENTITLEMENTS, YOU'D GO DRB REVIEW. SITE PLAN ESSENTIALLY, AND THEN TO BUILDING PERMIT OPTION C, EXHIBIT C, WHICH WAS PRESENTED, MOVED THE DRB REVIEW TO THE END OF THE PROCESS. SO YOU STARTED WITH THE SITE PLAN. THEN IF ENTITLEMENTS ARE REQUIRED, IT WENT TO PAB AND COUNCIL OR PAB CRAB AND THEN COUNCIL AND ON TO THE FINAL SAY WOULD BE DRB REVIEW. IF NO ENTITLEMENTS WERE REQUIRED IT WENT SITE PLAN, THEN DRB AND ON TO BUILDING PERMIT. SO IN THE DISCUSSION ON APRIL 13TH, CITY COUNCIL REACHED CONSENSUS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT WE WERE CALLING EXHIBIT B. SO THIS IS ONE DESIGN REVIEW HEARING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS. I WILL SAY PART OF THIS DISCUSSION WAS AN AGREEMENT THAT WE WOULD RENAME THE SITE PLAN PROCESS TO GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN STILL ON THE TABLE. THAT IS, THAT NEEDS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED IN TWO SEPARATE ORDINANCES. IT'S TWO VERY SEPARATE SECTIONS OF THE CODE. SO ALL I'M PROPOSING TODAY IN THE ORDINANCE THAT'S ATTACHED TO YOUR PACKET IS THE CHANGES TO THE PROCESS HERE. SO IT'S ELIMINATING THE SECOND DESIGN REVIEW HEARING AND PUTTING ONE DESIGN REVIEW HEARING. AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS, WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU WITH A SEPARATE ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE THE NAME OF SITE PLAN TO GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO THAT'S IT. THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE I HAVE FOR YOU, THE ORDINANCE THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET SHOWS YOU CHANGES TO SECTIONS 2-474, WHICH IS ORGANIZATION QUORUM RULES OF PROCEDURE. THIS ACTUALLY DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING IN THE PROCESS. BUT THIS WAS A KIND OF A CLEANUP THAT WE IDENTIFIED. THE CITY ATTORNEY AND I IDENTIFIED WHEN WE BROUGHT FORTH THE FIRST BOARDS AND COMMITTEES. AND THIS IS JUST ELIMINATING A SENTENCE THAT SAYS THE CITY COUNCIL MAY, AT ITS DISCRETION, APPROPRIATE FUNDS TO THE BOARD FOR EXPENSES NECESSARY IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS WORK. I AM I'M THE LIAISON TO THAT BOARD. YOU CONTROL THE GENERAL FUND, YOU CONTROL MY DEPARTMENT. YOU ALREADY DO THAT. THE NEXT IS SECTION 2-475, WHICH IS APPLICABILITY OF DESIGN, REVIEW AND PROHIBITIONS. THE CHANGE WE MADE HERE IS ONE SMALL CHANGE IN B, WHICH SAYS BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES LOCATED IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. AND I, I CURRENTLY, IT SAYS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THIS DIVISION. I ADDED.

AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IN MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS. WE DON'T HAVE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, BUT WE DO VERY SELECTIVELY. BUT AND NOT VERY OFTEN SOMEONE WILL BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN A MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICT. YOU'RE ALLOWED TO. BUT THIS WOULD ELIMINATE THAT REQUIREMENT THAT THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOME GO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS. THEY WOULD JUST BE TREATED LIKE ANY OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOME. AND THEN LAST SECTION SAY THAT AGAIN, THAT IT WOULD GO ANY. SO CURRENTLY THE CODE EXEMPTS. SO IT SAYS BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES LOCATED IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THIS DIVISION. SO IF YOU BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN AN R-1 DISTRICT, YOU'RE NOT. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A DESIGN REVIEW BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, BUT YOUR CODE DOES ALLOW YOU TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN A R-3, A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT. SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE IS THAT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN AN R-3 WOULD NOT REQUIRE DESIGN REVIEW. IT WOULD JUST BE TREATED THE SAME AS A SINGLE FAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT. WHAT I FOUND, WHAT I FOUND WAS IT WAS APPLIED THAT WAY FOR A LONG TIME I. SINCE BECOMING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, HAVE REQUIRED. AS THE CODE SAYS, ALL BUILDINGS IN A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT GO TO DRB AND THE HOMEOWNERS HAVE FOUND THAT CUMBERSOME AND. WE DON'T HAVE SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES TO APPLY TO THAT CONSTRUCTION. SO THAT'S. I'M JUST OFFERING

[02:35:05]

THAT. THAT WAS JUST A SUGGESTION FROM STAFF TOTALLY UP TO THE BOARD'S DISCRETION.

AND THEN NEXT IS PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW AND CRITERIA. SO THIS IS WHERE WE LAY OUT THE PROCESS.

SO THE REVISIONS MADE IN THIS SECTION YOU CAN SEE ELIMINATE THE PRELIMINARY REVIEW. AND WE ARE JUST RENAMING IT TO DESIGN REVIEW. SO INSTEAD OF SEPARATING OUT PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW AND FINAL DESIGN REVIEW YOU HAVE ONE DESIGN REVIEW. BUT WHAT WE DID WAS WE INCORPORATED THE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FROM FINAL. SO IT'S A A MORE COMPREHENSIVE DESIGN REVIEW. SO AT THE ONE HEARING THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF THE DRB, WE WILL LOOK AT LIGHTING, WE WILL LOOK AT LANDSCAPING, WE WILL LOOK AT EXTERIOR MATERIALS. WE WILL LOOK AT THE STREET ELEVATION, THE MASSING MODEL. ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE REQUIRED AT THAT ONE. AND THEN AS WITH ANY HEARING BEFORE THE DRB, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPROVE, DENY OR CONTINUE. YOU KNOW IF THE DRB, THEY ONLY HAVE ONE HEARING. BUT IF THE DRB LOOKS AT A PROJECT AND THEY SAY, NO, I NEED YOU TO REDO REWORK THIS SIDE, OR THEY CAN CONTINUE IT AND THAT PERSON CAN COME BACK AND MAKE THOSE CHANGES. AND THEN THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT HAVING THIS AT DAVID'S DRIVE, HAVING THIS REVIEW AT THE VERY BEGINNING, A PROJECT THAT IS REVIEWED BY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. NOW I'LL JUST CREATE A HYPOTHETICAL FOR YOU. SO LET'S SAY A PROJECT GOES THROUGH DESIGN REVIEW AND IT IS A RESTAURANT THAT IS ASKING FOR A DRIVE THROUGH. THAT DRIVE THROUGH REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FROM CITY COUNCIL. SO THEY GET DRB APPROVAL. THEY COME THROUGH. LET'S SAY CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT GRANT THE CONDITIONAL USE, AND THEY HAVE TO REVISE THEIR DESIGN TO REMOVE THAT MAJOR ELEMENT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO DRB. NOW IF IT WAS A TINY LITTLE CHANGE. YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY YOU GUYS WERE LOOKING AT PLANS AND YOU SAID, I DON'T REALLY LIKE THE WINDOW. I'D LIKE YOU TO MOVE THAT WINDOW. I WOULDN'T REQUIRE THAT TO GO BACK TO DRB. BUT A MAJOR CHANGE, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDING THAT IF IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, OR IN SITE PLAN, YOU KNOW, IF IT GOES THROUGH SITE PLAN AND STAFF SAYS WE HAVE A WATER MAIN THAT RUNS RIGHT THERE, YOU HAVE TO MOVE THE WHOLE BUILDING. THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO DRB. THAT'S A MAJOR CHANGE. SO.

THAT'S. YEAH, I HAVE QUESTIONS. KRAMER. OKAY, SO HERE'S MY QUESTION. IF YOU REMEMBER MY VERY FIRST MEETING WE ON COUNCIL WAS MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO, WE HAD A PETITIONER COME FORTH THAT HAD LIKE, WELL, MORE THAN $1 MILLION AND THE ALMOST TWO YEARS OF WORK ON A PROJECT.

AND IT GOT BEFORE COUNCIL AND WE SAID NO. AND SO MY CONTENTION WAS WE NEED TO CHANGE THE PROCESS SO THAT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, GET TO COUNCIL SOONER. LET US SAY NO IF IT'S GOING TO BE KNOWN, WHATEVER PARTICULAR FOR WHATEVER PARTICULAR REASON, I DON'T SEE THAT ANY OF THESE FIXES THAT SCENARIO AND. CORRECT. PLEASE TELL ME ONE OF THEM DOES CONDITIONAL USE IT WOULDN'T IT WOULDN'T IT WOULDN'T. BUT. DOES IT SOUND A LITTLE HEARTLESS? AND I DON'T MEAN IT THAT WAY. THERE ARE PERMITTED THERE IS A LIST OF PERMITTED USES IN EVERY ZONING DISTRICT. IF YOU WANT A SURE BET THAT YOU CAN BUILD WHAT YOU WANT TO BUILD. BUILD SOMETHING THAT'S PERMITTED IN YOUR DISTRICT. IF YOU'RE SEEKING A CONDITIONAL, USE APPROVAL. THAT'S A RISK A DEVELOPER TAKES. OKAY WITH YOU ON THAT. I LIKE THAT ANSWER A LOT. OKAY. A LOT OF PEOPLE WON'T. YEAH, I KNOW, BUT IT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING FOR AT LEAST A COUPLE OF YEARS. AND IF WE NEED TO CHANGE SOMETHING BECAUSE IT'S OUTDATED, THEN WE LOOK AT IT. BUT YEAH, AND THERE TO BE, TO BE FAIR TO, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THESE PROJECTS HAVE THEIR INDIVIDUAL QUIRKS AND ISSUES. AND I THINK SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THEY WERE IN THE SITE, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE IN THE SITE PLAN PROCESS FOR A LONG TIME. THERE WERE A LOT OF QUIRKS THAT NEEDED TO BE WORKED OUT PRIOR TO COMING TO CITY COUNCIL, SO THAT WE'RE NOT A PRODUCT OF THE PROCESS. I'LL ALSO ADD TO THAT. WE AS COUNCIL ARE AVAILABLE FOR DISCUSSIONS TO THE TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR. IF THEY YEAH, THEY THEY CAN IF THEY GOT A PROJECT AND THEY'RE NOT SURE HOW WE'RE GOING TO FEEL ABOUT IT. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE REST OF YOU, BUT THEY CAN COME ASK ME MY OPINION ON IT AND I IT'S MY OPINION. IT HAPPENS TO COINCIDE WITH OTHER DISCUSSIONS THEY HAVE WITH COUNCIL AND THEY REALIZE, GEE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THIS, GETTING THIS THROUGH. THEN MAYBE THEY NEED TO RETHINK THE PROJECT. YES, YES. SO, YOU KNOW THE CODE BETTER. BUT IN THIS. IN THE DIVISIONS THAT YOU'RE CHANGING, YOU DON'T MENTION. IT STOPS AT 474. WHAT HAPPENED TO 400 767.

[02:40:03]

WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES. OKAY. THESE ARE THE ONLY SECTIONS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING CHANGES TO. OKAY. SO IN FOUR SEVEN, FOUR. OH NO, IT'S NOT FOUR, SEVEN FOUR. IT'S FOUR.

YOU ALREADY ANSWERED B ON FOUR, SEVEN FOUR ON 476. WHAT DOES CERTAIN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS MAY BE WAIVED. IS THAT THE TO SCALE. WHAT ARE THOSE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU'RE SAYING CAN BE WAIVED. SO WE HAVE A LOT OF DESIGN REVIEW. WHILE THEY ARE GOING TO REVIEW ALL YOUR BRAND NEW DEVELOPMENTS. SOMETIMES THEIR REVIEW IS THE ADDITION OF AN AWNING TO THE FRONT OF A BUILDING. I DON'T NEED A LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR AN AWNING ADDITION. IT'S THAT KIND OF DISCRETION THAT THE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ARE REFLECTIVE OF WHAT THE SPECIFIC REQUEST IS. OKAY. IT WASN'T THE CITY MANAGER. IT'S AN OLD CODE SECTION. OKAY. AND THEN FOR MANDATORY PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE VERSUS DESIGN. ACTUALLY IT GOES TO THE FINAL REVIEW. WHERE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FINAL REVIEW PUT INTO THIS REVIEW. SO WE WE ELIMINATED THAT. WHAT WE DID WAS JUST CHANGE. SO UNDER 2-476. NOW IT'S UNDER B. WE JUST SAID DESIGN REVIEW. SO IT'S NOT PRELIMINARY FINAL IT'S JUST DESIGN REVIEW. AND SO IT'S JUST THE PROCEDURE SECTION. SO IT SAYS DESIGN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BOARD IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF PROJECTS THAT OTHERWISE REQUIRE REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY CITY STAFF, WHICH WOULD BE SITE PLAN PLANNING, ADVISORY BOARD, CITY COUNCIL OR BOTH. AND THAT WOULD BE ANY OF THE ENTITLEMENTS. SO THAT'S JUST DIRECTING THAT. THIS IS THE FIRST STEP, BUT YOU'RE ELIMINATING AND FINAL REVIEW PROCEDURE ONE. BECAUSE THAT'S SAYING THAT THAT FINAL REVIEW THAT'S DIRECTING THAT IT GOES AT THE END. AND SO WE'RE JUST MOVING THE WHOLE REVIEW TO THE VERY BEGINNING. BUT THE REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS LIGHTING AND ALL OF THAT IS IN. SO THAT GOES TO. SUBMITTAL. SO TWO SUBMITTALS. OKAY. SO YEAH C TWO.

WELL IT'S NOT C ANYMORE BUT IT'S B TWO. NOW IS THE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. AND SO WE ADOPTED ALL OF THE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE REQUIRED FOR FINAL WHICH ARE MUCH MORE DETAILED THAN PRELIMINARY. THAT'S WHAT WILL BE REQUIRED. OKAY. UPFRONT. AND NOW YOU'VE CHANGED IT SO THAT THEY MUST HAVE A SCALED MODEL. IT'S NOT A SCALED MASSING MODEL MAYBE OR IF OR IT'S A REQUIREMENT. GOOD. AND THE THREE DIMENSIONAL THREE DIMENSIONAL STREET ELEVATION, WHICH REQUIRES YOU TO SHOW A STREET VIEW DEAD ON SHOWING THE NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE SO YOU CAN GET THAT SCALE PERFECT. SO THAT WILL BE A REQUIREMENT. YEAH. WHAT ABOUT DIVISION FOUR? IT'S NOT WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING IN CHAPTER 58 ZONING BECAUSE THAT'S IN THE WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. YEP. JUST JUST THE PROCEDURE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW. WELL, I WHAT MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING THIS PARTICULAR DRB IN ALL SECTIONS OF THE CODE. SO IT'S IN DIVISION FOUR AND IT'S IN CHAPTER 58 UNDER ZONING.

THAT SECTION WAS MOVED. SHE'S REFERRING TO THE DESIGN. SHE'S REFERRING TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WERE MOVED INTO CHAPTER TWO. SO IN CHAPTER OKAY, SO THERE WERE IN IN CHAPTER 50, THERE WERE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS. AND PREVIOUSLY IT WAS, SORRY, DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS. AND SO WE CHANGED THAT. I BELIEVE IN 23 OR 4 AND MOVED THE DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS ARE NOW 2-479 IN THIS SECTION OF YOUR CODE, WHICH IS THE DRB HANDBOOK, WHICH IS CORRECT. NO, IT'S THE DESIGN REVIEW STANDARD. SO WE MOVED EVERYTHING, ALL DESIGN REGULATIONS. WE MOVED INTO CHAPTER TWO JUST FOR CONSISTENCY. AND SO THOSE ARE THE STANDARDS UNDER WHICH THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AND STAFF REVIEW THESE PROJECTS. SO YOU'LL SEE IN THE CODE 2-479 ARE ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS.

SO THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE LIKE THE OVERALL PLAN FOR THE PROJECT, YOU HAVE THE WHOLE CODE IN FRONT OF YOU. I DON'T SORRY. YEAH. SO WE, WE MOVED EVERYTHING PREVIOUSLY FROM CHAPTER 50 INTO CHAPTER 2 IN 20, IN 2024 FOR CONSISTENCY. SO IT'S ALL IN THE SAME PLACE. AND

[02:45:08]

THERE'S NOTHING IN APPENDIX D, APPENDIX D. THOSE ARE NOT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REGULATIONS.

THOSE ARE THOSE ARE REFERENCES TO STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. THERE'S. YEAH, THOSE ARE NOT THE DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS. OKAY. SO REGISTRATION FOR PLACING OR MAINTAINING COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES. ALL RIGHT. AND SO THE HANDBOOK IS THERE'S A RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT COMPLIANCE WITH THE SET OF STANDARDS AND A RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT. THE DESIGN REVIEW HANDBOOK THAT IS ADDRESSED, THAT IS IN THE 2-479. WE DO ADDRESS CONSISTENCY WITH THE DESIGN REVIEW HANDBOOK. OKAY. AND IS IT BY REFERENCE OR IS IT BY. THE WAY IT IS WORDED. SORRY, I'M HAVING AN ISSUE HERE BECAUSE, I MEAN WE HAVEN'T APPROVED THAT. THE WAY THAT DRB HANDBOOK. RIGHT. WE HAVE WE'VE APPROVED THE TEXT OF THE HANDBOOK. AND SO THAT IS THAT'S THE CURRENT TEXT OF THAT HANDBOOK. SO IT SAYS WHAT WE SAY HERE IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE EFFECTIVE GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS ORDINANCE. AND SO WE DO REFER TO ONE OF THE ADOPTED STANDARDS AS THE DESIGN REVIEW HANDBOOK. SO WE REVIEW THAT STAFF REVIEWS THAT, AND SO DOES THE DRB. WHEN LOOKING AT ALL THESE PROJECTS. OKAY. AND WE DO HAVE THOSE ILLUSTRATIONS COMING FOR APPROVAL. YEP. AND THAT'LL COME BACK TO YOU. SO YOU'LL SEE THE ILLUSTRATION, THE PROPOSED ILLUSTRATIONS WITH THE TEXT, AND THEN THEY'LL BE COMBINED INTO A ACTUAL CONSISTENT HANDBOOK. YOU'LL WE'LL SEE A DRAFT FIRST OF. YES, YOU'LL SEE A DRAFT. OH YEAH. OF COURSE. AND WHEN WILL THAT DRAFT COME FORWARD. THAT'LL PROBABLY BE TOWARDS THE END OF THE YEAR. OKAY. BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY HARD. I MEAN, WE'VE APPROVED SOME STANDARD CHANGES, BUT WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THAT VISUALLY LOOKS LIKE. SO THE ILLUSTRATIONS ARE JUST MEANT TO BE WHERE IT'S NOT PHOTOGRAPHS.

WHAT WE'VE ASKED FOR IS JUST, YOU KNOW, AN ARCHITECT, AN ARCHITECT TO PROVIDE DRAWINGS, YOU KNOW, ILLUSTRATING SOME OF THE CONCEPTS IN THAT DESIGN REVIEW HANDBOOK. AND SO THOSE WILL JUST BE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF ACCESSORY TO THE, THE TEXT OF THE HANDBOOK JUST FOR ILLUSTRATION. EXACTLY. AND FOR THOSE OF US WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND THE TEXT OF THE ARCHITECT, THEN THOSE ILLUSTRATIONS AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE SCAPE, THE LANDSCAPING OF THE BUILDINGS ARCHITECTURALLY WILL LOOK LIKE IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR US. I MEAN, FOR ME, OKAY, NO OTHER QUESTIONS. BLANKENSHIP. YEAH. THERE'S THE THE PROPOSED CHANGES SAY SOMEWHERE THAT, YOU KNOW, IF A PROJECT HAS TO GO THROUGH CITY COUNCIL REVIEW FOR CONDITIONAL USE, OUTDOOR DINING, VARIANCE, WHATEVER THAT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, WE CAN SEND IT BACK TO DRB FOR REVIEW OF UPDATES THAT WERE REQUIRED. IT DOESN'T SAY THAT SPECIFICALLY. NO. SHOULD IT IT IT MAY BE BETTER TO BE EXPLICIT IN THE CODE SO THAT NOBODY'S SURPRISED THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE SAY YOU CAN DO THIS OR YOU CAN'T DO THAT, OR YOU GOT TO CHANGE IT IN THIS WAY THAT WE WOULD WANT THE DRB TO LOOK AT THE UPDATE. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S GOOD BECAUSE NOT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS OR REALLY LOOKS INTO THE CODE EXCEPT FOR STAFF, AND COUNCIL MEMBER MIGHT NOT KNOW THAT THEY CAN SEND IT BACK TO THE DRB. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANKS. QUESTION REAL QUICK. YOU WANTED THE OPTION, RIGHT? RIGHT. OKAY. AS AN OPTION. BECAUSE IF WE JUST APPROVE IT STRAIGHT UP AS IT IS, IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE BACK.

CORRECT. OR IF IT'S A MINOR CHANGE, MAYBE IT DOESN'T NEED TO, BUT IF IT'S A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE, WE WOULD WANT THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS TO LOOK AT IT, NOT US. SO ERICA, IF WE COULD JUST USE MAY INSTEAD OF SHALL. OKAY. YEP. THANK YOU. BUT TO VICE MAYOR'S COMMENT

[02:50:01]

JUST SO THAT WE. ERICA KNOWS THAT PLANNING DEPARTMENT KNOWS THAT. BUT THERE'S A COUNCIL THAT'S LOOKING AT THE CODE. COMPREHEND THAT I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, RIGHT? YEAH. I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO DRAFT SOME LANGUAGE. THANK YOU TO THAT EFFECT. OKAY. WE'RE ALL IN THE SAME. IT'S OKAY FOR THAT TO COME AT SECOND READING, RIGHT? WE CAN STILL APPROVE FIRST READING AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE TITLE, WHICH WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT. OKAY, WE'LL PUT IT IN THAT SECTION. WITH THAT. DO I HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT? NO SLIPS, NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. DO I HAVE A MOTION? VICE MAYOR, DO YOU HAVE A CHANGE THAT YOU WANTED TO ADD IN THERE? I THINK THAT WAS THE ONLY CHANGE WAS THE ONLY CHANGE. OKAY. MY DAY TO MAKE MOTIONS. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR CHANGING THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, AS SPECIFIED IN ITEM 14 D ON FIRST READING, WITH ONE CHANGE TO BE ADDED AT SECOND READING, MAKING IT CLEAR THAT CITY COUNCIL MAY REQUIRE SENDING A PROJECT BACK TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WHEN THEY APPROVE A PROJECT. SECOND. NICELY DONE MOTION BY VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP, A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ, I COUNCIL MEMBER PENNYMAN. YES. VICE MAYOR. BLANKENSHIP. YES.

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

MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS MARTIN. THANK YOU. THAT TAKES US TO ITEM 14 E,

[14.E) An Ordinance Amending Section 36-1, Definitions, and adding New Sections 36-5, General Provisions for Micromobility Devices, 36-6, Micromobility License Agreements, 36-7, Micromobility Tour Companies, and 36-8, City Council Review of Micromobility License Agreements and Micromobility Tour Companies of Article I, in General, of Chapter 36, Traffic and Vehicles, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples for the Purpose of Providing Definitions; General Provisions for Micromobility Devices; Micromobility Franchise Agreements; Micromobility Tour Companies; Providing for Codification; Conflicts; Severability; Correction of Scrivener’s Error; Construction; Publication; and an Effective Date.]

MR. MCCONNELL. YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 36-1 DEFINITIONS AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS. 36-5 GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR MICROMOBILITY DEVICES. 36-6 MICROMOBILITY LICENSE AGREEMENTS. 36-7 MICROMOBILITY TOUR COMPANIES, AND 36-8 CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF MICROMOBILITY LICENSE AGREEMENTS AND MICROMOBILITY TOUR COMPANIES OF ARTICLE ONE IN GENERAL OF CHAPTER 36 TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING DEFINITIONS. GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR MICROMOBILITY DEVICES, MICROMOBILITY FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS, MICROMOBILITY TOURS, COMPANIES PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY, CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, CONSTRUCTION PUBLICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM. SO THIS CONVERSATION HAS HAPPENED QUITE A FEW TIMES IN COUNCIL. LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT MICROMOBILITY DEVICES, IT WAS AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY MANAGER TO ESSENTIALLY SPLIT THE ORDINANCE THAT DEALT WITH ELECTRIC BICYCLES AND MICROMOBILITY DEVICES AND SIMPLY MOVE FORWARD WITH ELECTRIC BICYCLES AND THEN MICROMOBILITY DEVICES SEPARATELY. SO, AS YOU'LL RECALL, THAT ORDINANCE RELATED TO ELECTRIC BICYCLES HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED EARLIER THIS YEAR. SO THAT IS NOW CODE. SO THEN OUR OFFICE WAS REQUESTED BY COUNCIL TO DRAFT REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO BOTH THINGS MICROMOBILITY DEVICES THEMSELVES, WHICH THERE'S A DEFINITION ON WHICH ARE THE ELECTRIC SCOOTERS, THE ONE WHEEL SCOOTERS, THINGS THAT ARE BECOMING MORE RELEVANT IN TODAY'S DAY AND AGE AS FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION, ALONG WITH CREATING A REVIEW PROCESS THAT WOULD COME TO CITY COUNCIL WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT AND A LICENSE AGREEMENT, AND THEN SPECIFICALLY SOME REGULATIONS RELATED TO SOME OF THE TOUR COMPANIES THAT UTILIZE THESE MICRO MOBILITY DEVICES AS BUSINESS OPERATIONS ON THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY. SO IT MAY BE BENEFICIAL TO GO PAGE BY PAGE JUST TO GO THROUGH, BECAUSE AS YOU CAN TELL WITH ANY ORDINANCE, ANYTHING THAT'S STRUCK THROUGH IS BEING DELETED. ANYTHING THAT'S UNDERLINED IS BEING ADDED. AND THIS WHOLE ORDINANCE IS UNDERLINED BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS NEW. SO IF WE WANT TO START WITH DEFINITIONS, I KNOW YOU ALL, BOTH OR ALL HAVE PROBABLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS. I DID WANT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT THERE WAS KIND OF A QUICK TIMELINE HERE ON GETTING THIS DONE. SO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC DIVISION DID REVIEW IT, PROVIDE SOME COMMENTS. I KNOW ALLISON, DOCTOR GEORGE AND HIS TEAM DID THEIR BEST TO KIND OF ACCOMMODATE THE QUICK TURNAROUND ON GETTING THIS FOR FIRST READING. AND THEY PROVIDED COMMENTS AS WELL, WHICH HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED. YOU KNOW, WE DID OUR BEST SINCE THERE WAS ALREADY AN ELECTRIC BICYCLE ORDINANCE DRAFTED THAT'S NOT YET ON MUNICODE TO KIND OF ENSURE THAT THERE WAS CONSISTENCY AMONGST THEM ALL. I DO HAVE SOME SUGGESTION EDITS THAT I WANT TO MAKE AS I WORK THROUGH THIS VERY MINOR GRAMMATICAL IN NATURE. BUT YEAH, I'M OPEN TO HOWEVER COUNCIL

[02:55:02]

WANTS TO HANDLE THIS. MAYOR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. STAFF REPORT WOULD BE GREAT. YES, MA'AM.

GEORGE YILMAZ FOR THE CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC WORKS, OUR FOCUS FOR THE FIRST HEARING HERE IS ALL ABOUT SECTION 366 MICROMOBILITY LICENSE AGREEMENTS AND SECTION 36.

SEVEN MICROMOBILITY TOUR COMPANIES, AND SECTION 368 REVIEW PROCESS OF THE LICENSES, AGREEMENTS AND TOUR COMPANIES, AND HOW MUCH AND AT WHAT LEVEL IT NEEDS TO BE ESCALATED IN TERMS OF REVIEW PROCESS. APPROVING TOUR COMPANIES AT STAFF AND OR CITY MANAGER AND OR COUNCIL LEVEL IS TO BE ADDRESSED UNDER SECTION 368. AND AS OUR CITY ATTORNEY INDICATED, HE'S ANOTHER GENTLEMAN THAT MAKES US WORK TILL MIDNIGHT. AND SO WE GOT EVERYTHING WE COULD TO GET FEEDBACK TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY. AND AND I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO GO THROUGH THOSE SECTION 36, SIX THROUGH EIGHT BEING THE FOCUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING. THANK YOU. IF YOU WANT TO START WITH 36. SEE, SO SO WHY DON'T WE YOU WANT TO JUST GO PAGE BY PAGE. I'LL START ON PAGE THREE BECAUSE ALTHOUGH PAGE TWO AT THE BOTTOM IS WHERE THE TITLE. BUT PAGE THREE IS REALLY WHERE THE DEFINITIONS ARE ADDED. YES.

SOME OF THESE DEFINITIONS CAME FROM STATUTE. SOME OF THEM WERE CREATED, SOME OF THEM WERE PULLED FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT I LIKE THE PHRASING. FOR EXAMPLE, PARK PARK TRAILS. UPON REVIEW AND DISCUSSION WITH STAFF, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF BIKE LANES, SO WE WANTED TO ENSURE THAT WE, YOU KNOW, HAD PARK TRAILS, PARKS, ETCETERA. I THINK ONE THING TO TO KEEP IN MIND IS MICRO-MOBILITY PROVIDER. THE LAST SENTENCE ALSO INCLUDES TOUR OPERATORS THAT UTILIZE MICROMOBILITY DEVICES. I WANTED TO MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR SO THAT THESE TOUR COMPANIES CAN SAY, OH, I DON'T MEET THE DEFINITION OF MICRO-MOBILITY PROVIDER, THEREFORE, I DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS THEY DO. IF THIS IS MOVED FORWARD AND PROPOSED.

OBVIOUSLY, WHEN DRAFTING THINGS LIKE THIS, YOU WANT TO BE COGNIZANT OF, OF ELECTRIC DEVICES THAT WERE, THAT ARE USED BY OR FOR ADA PURPOSES, RIGHT? IF SOMEONE NEEDS TO USE THAT ON THE SIDEWALK, THEN OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE ALLOWED TO. SO WE DID WANT TO MAKE SURE AS WE WORK THROUGH THIS, THAT THERE'S SOME EXEMPTIONS FOR ADA REQUIRED, LIKE PERSONAL ASSISTANCE VEHICLES OR DEVICES. SO UNLESS THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ON THE DEFINITIONS THEMSELVES, WE CAN JUST MOVE ON TO PAGE FOUR. I GUESS I DO, I JUST WANT MORE SPECIFICALLY THE MICRO MOBILITY DEVICES CAN BE FOUND UNDER SECTION B. THE SPECIFIC DEVICES FOR MICROMOBILITY.

BECAUSE THERE'S TRICYCLES THERE'S IS THAT FIT IN ONE OF THESE UNDER B? THERE'S WHEN YOU SAY B JUST SO I FOLLOW YOU. YEAH. SECTION THREE UNDER 365. OKAY. SECTION SO SO WE'RE OKAY TO MOVE TO PAGE FOUR. YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SORRY. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU SAID 365 B IN ADDITION TO CITY MICROMOBILITY DEVICES ARE SUBJECT TO ANY AND ALL STATE LAWS THAT WERE YOU REFERRING TO? WELL, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT ARE THE MICRO WHAT DEFINES ARE ALL OF THE DEVICES UNDER MICRO MOBILITY DEVICES LISTED? IT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT I SAW THAT SAID MOTORIZED SCOOTERS. ELECTRIC BIKES. IS THAT THE ONLY THING BECAUSE THERE'S TRICYCLES AND THERE'S A NEW. CORRECT. SO ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLE, ELECTRIC BICYCLES IS ALREADY DEFINED PURSUANT TO THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU PASSED EARLIER THIS YEAR. RIGHT. SO THAT'S ALREADY IN OUR CODE. BUT IF YOU GO SCROLL BACK TO PAGE THREE, THERE'S A DEFINITION FOR MICROMOBILITY DEVICE, WHICH IS PULLED DIRECTLY FROM THE STATUTE. AND IT MEANS ANY MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION DEVICE WHICH CANNOT TRAVEL AT A SPEED GREATER THAN 28MPH. SO THAT, THAT THAT'S I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT'S BROAD FOR A REASON. OKAY. SO IF TRICYCLE, ONE LEGGED SCOOTER, ONE WHEEL, THESE, I MEAN, IF IT CAN'T TRAVEL GREATER THAN 28MPH, THEN IT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF

[03:00:04]

MICROMOBILITY DEVICE. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO AND IT SAYS THIS TERM INCLUDES MOTORIZED SCOOTERS, ELECTRIC BICYCLES AND ELECTRIC PERSONAL MOBILITY DEVICES AS DEFINED DEVICES REQUIRED BY HANDICAPPED PEOPLE ARE EXEMPT. THANK YOU. COUNSEL, DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE FIRST PORTION OF DEFINITIONS? UP TO 365. OKAY. DID YOU WANT TO GO LINE BY LINE? THE. WELL, NO, BUT I CAN DO I CAN DO CONCEPTUALLY, BUT YES, THANK YOU MAYOR. SO THE FIRST PART, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, LIKE THE ELECTRIC BICYCLE ORDINANCE ESSENTIALLY HAD A PROHIBITION IN BUSINESS DISTRICTS AND THE FIFTH AVENUE OVERLAY OR WHEREVER SIGNS ARE POSTED. I BELIEVE THAT THAT MY MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECT HERE. WE JUST PROHIBITED THEM ON ANY SIDEWALK, PARK PATH OR BEACH. AND IDENTIFIED THAT IF A SIGN IS POSTED, YOU CAN'T DO THAT AS WELL. SO WE WERE TRYING TO BE IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS. I JUST FELT LIKE INSTEAD OF LIMITING IT TO BUSINESS DISTRICT, I JUST THINK IT'S A BLANKET PROHIBITION ON YOUR SIDEWALKS IS WHAT COUNCIL WAS TRYING TO GET AT. AND THEN AS WE WORK THROUGH THIS, THIS IS REALLY JUST THE REGULATION OF THESE DEVICES ON YOUR SIDEWALK THEMSELVES. THIS IS NOT A PROVIDER. THIS IS NOT A TOUR COMPANY. THIS IS JUST SIMILAR TO YOUR PROHIBITION ON ELECTRIC BICYCLES, GETTING THEM OFF THE SIDEWALKS AND MAKING SURE THEY'RE OPERATED IN A VERY SAFE MANNER, ALONG WITH BEING BEING REQUIRED TO SHOW IDENTIFICATION IF ASKED, HAVING TO WEAR A HELMET, SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT THE STATUTE ALLOWS YOU TO REGULATE. YEAH, I'M SORRY, I DID HAVE A QUESTION ON THE BACK ON 365 FOR MISS PICKETT ON THE MOBILITY DEVICES CAN OPERATE ON STREETS, DESIGNATED BIKE LANES, ANY DESIGNATED BIKE LANE BECAUSE SOME OF OUR BIKE LANES ARE NOT THE ACTUAL LEGAL WIDTH OF A BIKE LANE. AND I'LL SAY LIKE ON SECOND, WHICH IS OUR ONLY TRUCK ROUTE. WELL, IT WOULD OPERATE TECHNICALLY LIKE A BIKE. A BIKE HAS THE ALLOWANCE. IF WE HAVE SHARROWS ON THE ROAD, THEY ARE CONSIDERED LIKE A MICROMOBILITY WOULD BE LIKE A BIKE IN THE CASE WHERE THEY'RE ON THE ROAD AND RIDING IN THE TRAVEL WAY.

SO A BIKE TYPICALLY WOULD BE IF THEY'RE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO SHARE THE, THE, THE ROAD. SO WE BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD BE FALLING UNDER THAT REALM OF IF THERE'S NO BIKE LANE, THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RIDE ON THE ROAD. RIGHT. AND THIS ORDINANCE DOESN'T PROHIBIT ANY OF OUR ROADS THAT WOULD BE UNSAFE. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. THE ONLY THING THAT I WAS GOING TO CALL, WHICH I DON'T THINK I CAUGHT BEFORE IN MY MISTAKE, BUT AS FAR AS THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT, WE DO HAVE UNDER SECTION 365 A TWO, IT DOES STATE THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED ON ROADS WITH A SPEED LIMIT OF 25MPH OR LESS. WE DO HAVE SOME OF OUR COLLECTOR STREETS OR FLESHMAN THAT WOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED THEIR THEIR THEIR POSTED AS 30MPH, I BELIEVE GULF SHORE BOULEVARD. THERE'S SEVERAL STREETS WITHIN THE CITY, SO IF WE DIDN'T MODIFY THAT TO NOTATE 30MPH OR LESS, THAT WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO ONLY OUR RESIDENTIAL ROADS THAT ARE POSTED AT 25MPH. ARE MOST OF THE CITY ROADS IN THE CITY 25? YES. SO THEY CAN GO ON ANY STREET, NOT ANY STREET, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE SEVERAL STREETS THAT ARE ARE EXEMPT THAT THAT ARE NOTED FOR 30MPH. LIKE I SAID, ORCHID, THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S SEVERAL THAT I COULD PROBABLY NAME OFF FLESHMAN, I BELIEVE GARCIA BOULEVARD THAT ARE OUR PARK SHORE THAT ARE OUR COLLECTOR STREETS THAT ARE MARKED AS 30MPH. SO THIS ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW PROTECTS THEM FROM GOING ON THAT STREET. YES. IT STATES THAT THEY WOULD ONLY BE PERMITTED ON 25MPH OR LESS ROADWAYS, WHICH IS CONCERNING, THAT IF WE DON'T HAVE STREETS THAT ARE ELIMINATED AND WE KNOW THEIR SAFETY ISSUES, WHICH I HOPE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT COULD IDENTIFY AS SAFETY STREETS WITH CONGESTION OF TRUCKS AND BIKES AND TOURISTS. AND THEY DON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS THAT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW THEM ON THOSE STREETS. THAT'S A BIG CONCERN FOR ME. SO I HOPE YOU WANT TO KEEP GOING. NO, I DON'T WANT ANYTHING TO STOP. OKAY, SO ON THAT COMMENT ALONE, THOUGH, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAYBE GET BECAUSE ALLISON'S MADE A CLARIFICATION POINT ON SOME OF THE STREETS BEING 30 SHOULD SHOULD THAT MILES PER HOUR BE CHANGED TO 30 OR IS COUNCIL OKAY WITH. I DON'T WANT THEM ON ANY MORE STREETS THAN WE HAVE TO I.

THAT'S WELL, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY 30 MILES AN HOUR AND YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT CAN

[03:05:04]

ONLY GO 27 MILES AN HOUR. SOUNDS DANGEROUS. IT I HEAR YOU, BUT WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE COMMUTING TO WORK? YOU KNOW, WHO ARE COMING IN ON FLEISHMAN PARK SHORE DRIVE, AND THEY'RE TAKING THOSE DEVICES. I MEAN, THEY HAVE TO GO. THAT'S PRACTICALLY THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN GET TO THE JOB SITES WHERE THEY'RE WORKING. RIGHT? RIGHT. I WOULD ALSO SAY, YOU KNOW, GOLF CARTS, WHICH WE HAVE GOLF CART MAN, 28 MILES AN HOUR, AND WE CAN GO ON ALL THOSE COLLECTOR STREETS.

AND IT WOULD BE VERY SIMILAR TO BE THE SAME, IN EFFECT, THE SAME RULE IF WE MOVE TO 30. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. OKAY. OKAY. MAYBE I'M AGAIN, MR. MCCONNELL. BLENDING RECREATIONAL VERSUS TOURS. MAYBE THAT'S MY THERE'S NO WE'RE NOT DISTINGUISHING, OKAY. WE'RE NOT DISTINGUISHING MICROMOBILITY DEVICE, WHETHER IT'S FOR BUSINESS OPERATIONS OR FOR PLEASURE. AND IS, IS A MICROMOBILITY DEVICE. IF IT'S MEETS THE DEFINITION. YES. WHEN WE GET TO THE NEXT THREE, SIX, SIX AND THREE, WE'LL START GETTING INTO THE TOURS. SHOULD HAVE WAITED. YES. BARTON, HOW DOES ESSENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, AS MATTHEW JUST STATED A SECOND AGO, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY THIS IS REMOVING THESE DEVICES FROM THE SIDEWALK AS SIDEWALKS ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT THEY'RE PRIMARILY FOR PEDESTRIANS. MY QUESTION IS, HOW DOES THIS APPLY? THE REMOVAL OF THEM FROM THE SIDEWALKS? HOW DOES IT APPLY WHERE THERE IS NOT ANOTHER OPTION FOR TRAVEL OTHER THAN THE SIDEWALK? OR WHAT I WAS THINKING WAS, IS THE GREENWAY, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN'T GET OFF THE GREENWAY AND USE THE STREET BECAUSE THERE IS NO STREET. SO ARE THEY SIMPLY NOT ALLOWED TO BE ON THE GREENWAY, OR DO THEY NEED TO WALK THEIR DEVICES WHEN THEY'RE ON THE GREENWAY? HOW DOES HOW DOES IT APPLY WHEN THEY CAN'T BE REMOVED FROM THE. THE PATHWAY? BECAUSE THERE IS NO WHERE FOR THEM TO GO. IN REAL LIFE, I DON'T KNOW, I JUST I MEAN, I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION BASED ON HOW IT'S DRAFTED, OKAY, WHICH IS DON'T GO ON THE SIDEWALK. YEAH. THEY COULD WALK THEIR DEVICE TO A DIFFERENT. OF COURSE. YEAH. THIS IS THIS IS THE WRITING AND OPERATION OF, OF A MICROMOBILITY DEVICE. TAKE A DIFFERENT ROUTE OR. YEAH.

WALK. OKAY. WRITE IT DOWN. THE REASON I WANTED TO, TO ADDRESS IT IS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN ASKED OF ME, AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE FOR THE PUBLIC. WE ARE WE ARE SAYING, HEY, THESE DEVICES ARE NOT MEANT FOR THE SIDEWALK. THEY'RE TO BE OPERATED ON SIDEWALK. AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO SOMEWHERE WHERE THERE IS NOT ANOTHER AREA FOR YOU TO REMOVE YOURSELF FROM THE SIDEWALK, THEN YOU NEED TO WALK IT ON THAT, ON THAT PARTICULAR PATHWAY. SO BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO PAGE FIVE, IS THERE A CONSENSUS TO RAISE 25 TO 30? I'M JUST MAKING NOTES AS WE GO. YES, YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO PAGE FIVE. LIKE I SAID, THE REMAINING PORTION OF PAGE FOUR IS JUST ABIDING BY STATE LAWS, GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO ASK FOR NOW, NOT A DRIVER'S LICENSE. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION? PAGE FIVE. RIDERSHIP OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON. AND AND THEN WE WE GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER WITH THE MAXIMUM SPEED OF THESE MICROMOBILITY DEVICES. I DON'T THE REASON I PUT 15 IS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW OF A MICROMOBILITY DEVICE THAT'S NOT AN ELECTRIC BICYCLE THAT GOES GREATER THAN 15MPH. AGAIN. AND THESE ARE REGULATIONS THAT WE, WE DID SOME RESEARCH ON. AND THEN I, I MADE SURE THE ELECTRIC BIKE BICYCLES WAS LIMITED TO THE MAXIMUM SPEED BASED ON WHAT YOU ALL APPROVED, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS CLASS TWO TWO, CLASS TWO, SAY IT AGAIN. YOU SAY YOU DON'T KNOW OF ANY MICRO MOBILITY DEVICES THAT CAN GO GREATER THAN 15 MILES AN HOUR. CORRECT. BUT NOT NOW THAT I READ THIS. WE MAY WANT TO JUST DELETE THAT SECTION, SINCE THE DEFINITION ITSELF ALREADY SAYS NO GREATER THAN 28. YES, I THINK SOME OF THOSE MOTORIZED SCOOTERS GO FASTER. I DO OKAY, 25 OR 6. YEAH. SO IF IF IT IF IT'S OKAY WITH COUNCIL, WE'LL JUST STRIKE E BECAUSE THE DEFINITION ITSELF ALREADY SAYS NO GREATER THAN 28.

YES, MA'AM. WHICH ONE IS THAT? SUBPARAGRAPH E ON THE TOP OF PAGE FIVE. JUST KIND OF REDUNDANT, CONSIDERING THE DEFINITION ALREADY HAS A SPEED LIMIT IN IT. I DON'T KNOW, I THINK THE MORE SPECIFIC WE CAN BE, THE BETTER. I MEAN, IT WAS A FURTHER REGULATION ESSENTIALLY STATING THAT, BUT. I THINK WE SHOULD JUST LEAVE IT. WHAT WOULD YOU BE A PERSON? WELL, I THINK THE ELECTRIC SCOOTERS THAT PEOPLE ARE RIDING IN TO WORK FROM EAST NAPLES OR

[03:10:07]

GOLDEN GATE GO FASTER THAN THAT. AND WE'RE SAYING THEY CAN GO ON THE STREET TO THEN SAY, YOU CAN GO ON THE STREET IN CERTAIN SECTIONS, BUT YOU CAN'T GO GREATER THAN 15 IS GOING TO CREATE A TRAFFIC PROBLEM. YEAH, I TEND TO AGREE. OH, I, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'LL CREATE A TRAP.

LIKE IF YOU DRIVE AND THEY'RE GOING ALONG AT 15 MILES AN HOUR AND THEY'VE GOT A STRING OF CARS BEHIND THEM TRYING TO PASS, THAT COULD BE A SAFETY ISSUE. RIGHT? OR ALLISON MAY, SHE PROBABLY KNOWS BETTER HOW THESE WORK. I, I, I DON'T HAVE A ELECTRIC SCOOTER. I'M SORRY, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE SIMILAR IF WE'RE SAYING LIKE 15MPH, IT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO A TYPICAL.

I MEAN, THERE'S SOME OF THESE BIKE RIDERS THAT THAT CAN GO PLUS 20MPH, BUT THERE ARE SOME OF THE, THE RIDERS THAT ARE IN THE 15MPH RANGE. SO I FEEL LIKE AS LONG AS THEY'RE IN THAT BIKE LANE, BUT I DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION EITHER WAY. SO. I AGREE. OUR GOAL HERE IS TO GET THEM OFF THE SIDEWALK. AND IF THEY HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF GOING OVER 15 MILES AN HOUR IN A BIKE LANE, THEN THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT. I THINK IT'S FINE TO TO STRIKE THAT AND USE THE 28 MILE AN HOUR. AND THOSE THAT CAN'T DO 28, THEY DON'T. THEY DO 15 OR WHATEVER THEY WHATEVER IT IS THAT THEY DO. BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD RESTRICT THE ONES THAT ARE CAPABLE OF DOING. 25 TO FORCE THEM TO GO. 15 IN THE BIKE LANE, I THINK, I THINK I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, I THINK THAT WOULD CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS THAN AND CREATE SOLUTIONS HERE. SO I AGREE WITH WITH. YEAH. WELL, IT SAYS ITS MAXIMUM SPEED OF 15 MILES AN HOUR ON, ON E AND WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS TAKING, TAKING THAT OUT OF THE EQUATION, EXCEPT ELECTRIC BICYCLES. AND YOU'RE SAYING SCOOTERS, CORRECT. YES. THEY'RE JUST AS FAST. OKAY. CORRECT. AND. ALL RIGHT. YEAH.

OKAY. I'M READY TO MOVE ON TO 36 OR 36 SIX. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT D AND F. YES. THAT'S SO OBVIOUS. ARE WE NOT ASSESSING ANY PENALTIES ANYWHERE ALONG THE WAY HERE? IF YOU'VE GOT TWO, TWO PEOPLE ON A MICROMOBILITY DEVICE, WE'RE NOT ASSESSING ANY KIND OF PENALTY. CAN'T GIVE A CITATION OR PENALTY IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT IN HERE. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. I CAN I CAN WORK WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR TO DETERMINE WHAT LANGUAGE THEY WOULD NEED IN HERE TO TO ISSUE A CITATION. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. NO PROBLEM. THANKS AGAIN. I WOULDN'T BE CHANGING THE TITLE, SO I COULD JUST ADD THAT. YEAH, D AND F ARE THE WELL, AS WE WORK THROUGH IT, IT COULD BE FOR ANY. BUT YES, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE MICROMOBILITY DEVICES ON THE SIDEWALK. CITATION, LANGUAGE VIOLATION, PENALTY, THINGS LIKE THAT. OKAY, SO THE NEXT SECTION OF 366, WHICH IS MICROMOBILITY LICENSE AGREEMENTS, WHICH IS. IS THAT THE ADDRESSING THE TOURS. YES OR NO? OKAY. BECAUSE I OKAY, IT'S ADDRESSING THE TOUR COMPANIES IN THAT THEY ARE DEFINED AS A MICROMOBILITY PROVIDER, SO THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION. HOWEVER, THE NEXT SECTION I DID SPECIFICALLY WRITE REGULATIONS ON TOUR COMPANIES, TOUR OPERATORS, THINGS THAT THEY NEED TO KEEP IN MIND. AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A REVIEW PROCESS AT THE VERY END THAT YOU. SO I'M CONFUSED. AT ONE POINT WE SAID WE DIDN'T WANT TOURS ON OUR STREETS, BUT NOW WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW TOURS ON OUR STREET. AND IF WE DON'T HAVE IT, THEY CAN DO IT, WHICH IS WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING FOR IS PROVIDING TOURS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE SOMETHING THAT ADDRESSED IT, BUT WE SAID WE WANTED NOT TO HAVE TOURS ON THE STREETS. SO BASICALLY NOW WE'RE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW TOURS ON THE STREET, AND IT'S LISTED IN THE LICENSE AGREEMENT, AND IT WOULD BE LISTED UNDER TOUR COMPANY. SO MY RECOLLECTION OF WHY IT'S DRAFTED THIS WAY IS COUNCIL AT ONE POINT SAID NO. I CAME BACK AND SAID, MY LEGAL OPINION IS DON'T DO THAT. AND THEN I GOT CONSENSUS TO ACTUALLY PREPARE REGULATIONS, WHICH IS WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY. CORRECT. OKAY.

I HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS PAGE FIVE AGAIN. YEAH, I'M AT 366 D THE CITY MANAGER RESERVES THE

[03:15:09]

RIGHT TO CANCEL ANY LICENSE. NOT CITY MANAGER AND CHIEF OF POLICE OR A POLICE OFFICER. CAN YOU GO UNDER THE MANAGER? CORRECT. YEAH. YOU'RE OKAY WITH JUST EVERYBODY'S OKAY WITH JUST THE CITY MANAGER? WELL, I MEAN, I'LL LET MR. YOUNG SPEAK FOR HIMSELF, BUT I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE THE CHIEF OF POLICE. I THINK IT SHOULD BE THE CITY MANAGER, IF ANYONE. OKAY. I MEAN, HE'S YOUR HE'S THE HEAD OF THE ADMINISTRATION. OKAY. SO SO I'LL HAVE A COMMENT ON A COUPLE SECTIONS THAT I THINK, BUT THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR IS REALLY CONSISTENT, IS REALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE VALET AGREEMENTS AND THAT THE CITY MANAGER LANGUAGE HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE A FOR AN ANNUAL REVIEW AND TO REVOKE UPON, FOR FOR GOOD REASON OR WHATEVER, BASICALLY.

SO I THINK I'M FINE WITH THAT PARTICULAR PORTION OF IT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS. CAN YOU JUST GO OVER ITEM B WITH THIS RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT? CORRECT OR. YES. SORRY.

WHAT ABOUT IT? IT'S GOING TO BE A SIMILAR TO THE VALET PROCESS YOU HAVE NOW, RIGHT. SOMEONE APPLIES FOR A RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT. THERE'S ALSO A RIGHT OF WAY LICENSE AGREEMENT. IT GETS IT GETS. I'M SORRY, I SHOULD ASK STAFF BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT IT'S GOING TO GO TO THE APPLICATION, CORRECT? YES. AND THIS IS YEAH. SIMILAR TO TO WHAT WE HAD RELAYED FOR ANY OF THESE OTHER PROVIDERS. LIKE WE'VE HAD, YOU'RE PROBABLY AWARE OF WHEN WE HAD THE SLATER OPERATIONS, THESE, ANY OF THESE FRANCHISE OR LICENSING AGREEMENTS THAT WE HAVE, THESE TYPICALLY RUN THROUGH OUR DEPARTMENT. I THINK THAT THE BEST WAY TO MANAGE THEM IS THROUGH A RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT, AND THEN THROUGH THE PROCESS OF A LICENSING AGREEMENT. SO WE CAN CONTROL THOSE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE WE HAVE THE REQUIREMENTS IN IN THOSE ARE TO BE PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR YOUR AUTHORIZATION. HAVE WE DESIGNATED AREAS OF RIGHT OF WAY THAT ARE APPROPRIATE OR NOT APPROPRIATE, OR ARE WE GOING TO DO IT BY A CASE BY CASE BASIS? BECAUSE IT COMES TO COUNCIL? YES, IT COMES TO COUNCIL, AND I WOULD ASSUME YES, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE WHAT THEY PRESENT AND WHAT WE WOULD LOOK AT AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT NOT THE PLAN IS SAFE, EFFICIENT, AND YOU'RE IN SUPPORT OF THOSE THOSE AGREEMENTS AND OPERATIONS PLANS. TYPICALLY, THEY PROVIDED OVERALL OPERATIONS PLAN. THEY PUT TOGETHER WHAT THEIR THEIR HOURS OF OPERATION, HOW MANY OR HOW THEY PLAN TO OPERATE. FOR THESE CASES, I WOULD ASSUME IT WOULD BE HOW MANY RIDERS THEY WOULD BE TAKING ON, SAY, LIKE A TOUR AND EVALUATING THOSE. IN THE CASE OF WHERE WE THINK IT'S, YEAH, EFFICIENT. YEAH. I'M, I'M NOT OKAY WITH NOT HAVING SOME GUIDELINES OF JUST SAYING, OKAY, I WANT TO DO 30 PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING NOW, OR 25 THAT WE DON'T HAVE GUIDELINES ALREADY ESTABLISHED FOR THEM. WELL, WE DO HAVE MORE MORE GUIDELINES IN THE NEXT WHEN WE MOVE FORWARD, AT LEAST THERE'S SOME THAT ARE ARE AND WE CAN I BELIEVE FURTHER THAT THAT'S IN HERE. AS FAR AS THE NUMBER OF RIDERS PER DAY, THE THE RIDERS PER DEVICE TYPE, THE DURATION OF THE THE RIDES. A LOT OF THAT CRITERIA IS, IS ESTABLISHED IN HERE. SO I THINK WE WILL HAVE THOSE CONTROLS. SO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION THAT'S PRESENTED BACK TO YOU AT THE TIME. SO YOU CAN MAKE THAT INFORMED DECISION. SO I WANT TO LINK THE TWO SECTIONS IN ONE POINT BECAUSE WHEN I AND I APOLOGIZE THAT I HAVEN'T SAID THIS TO ANYONE PRIOR, BUT THE NEXT SECTION LIMITS IN TERMS OF THE QUANTITY TO EIGHT. AND IT ALSO SAYS THAT THE CITY MAY LIMIT THE THE LOCATIONS. AND THEN YOU GO BACK TO THE ONE THAT WE'RE ON AND THEN BRING IT UP NOW IS BECAUSE WHEN WE GET TO THAT SECTION AND IT SAYS OPERATION PLAN OF BUSINESS. SO THE QUESTION IS, IS IT TWO DIFFERENT PLACES THAT WE CAN LIMIT IT LIKE WE DO WITH TRUCK ROUTES SAYING THESE ONES ARE PROHIBITED AND IF CERTAIN ROADS ARE PROHIBITED, WOULD WE DEFINE THEM IN 367 AND THEN THE OPERATIONAL PLAN, OR IS IT ALWAYS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, UNLIKE WHERE WE HAVE CERTAIN TRUCK ROUTES AND DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT THEY ARE, IT'S A IT'S OPEN THE ENTIRE CITY TO A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

OR THERE'S SOME STREETS THAT WE SAY ARE OFF LIMITS, WHICH WAS VIS A VIS BEFORE BROADENING IT SAID YOU COULDN'T BE IN FIFTH OR CERTAIN BUSINESS DISTRICTS. I GUESS I'M JUST ASKING BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW HOW THOSE TWO RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER. AND IF THERE WAS EVER AN OVERLAP OR EXCLUSION THAT THEY COULDN'T PUT IN THEIR OPERATIONAL PLAN. SO THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION THAT IF WE DID, IT SAYS WE CAN ADOPT, BUT SHOULD WE ADOPT SO THAT WE KNOW THE FIRST ONE

[03:20:04]

THAT'S COMING THROUGH? THESE ARE OFF LIMITS STREETS. THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT I WANTED TO GET A LITTLE CLARITY ON FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. BUT I LINK THEM NOW BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT THE LICENSE AGREEMENT, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT TO BE A TOUR COMPANY. SO THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IT IN AT THIS PART OF IT. THANK YOU. I THINK LEGITIMATE. KRAMER. YEAH, WELL, I THOUGHT IN 367, WHEN WE GET INTO THE SPECIFICS WHERE IT SAYS NO MORE THAN EIGHT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE. AND THEN. I GUESS IT WOULD BE. 36. SEVEN. WHERE IS IT? THERE'S THREE. WELL, IT SAYS IN HERE THAT WE CAN WE CAN. THE CITY MAY ESTABLISH NO RIDE ZONES. THIS IS I SPEED RESTRICTED AREA STAGING RESTRICTION PROHIBITED AREAS IS DEEMED NECESSARY. I THOUGHT THAT WAS SPECIFIC AND YET GENERAL ENOUGH THAT AS THINGS CHANGE IN THE CITY, WE DON'T KNOW IN FIVE YEARS WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE. THE ROADS.

AND SO YOU COULD CLOSE SOME AND MAYBE OPEN OTHERS. MAYBE THERE'S ONE WAY STREETS ALL OF A SUDDEN. I DON'T KNOW ANY OF THAT, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS REALLY WELL DONE AND THAT IT GAVE US FLEXIBILITY. SO THE SPECIFICITY OF HOW MANY PEOPLE WAS AWESOME. I THOUGHT THE FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF WHICH ROADS WE I THOUGHT THAT WAS GOOD. SO THAT WAS THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT THAT THEN IS OPEN TO. THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARS THE ROADS THAT ARE NOT AVAILABLE. AND THEN WE POST IT ON THE WEBSITE BUT DOESN'T REQUIRE COUNCIL. THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE. I WAS THINKING THAT AT SOME POINT, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FOR THIS, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE PARAMETERS HAVE TO BE SET BASED ON WHATEVER OUR STAFF, WHATEVER STUDIES WE HAVE DONE AND WHATEVER THE POLICE AND OUR STAFF SAYS, HEY, THESE ARE THE ONES THAT SHOULD BE OFF LIMITS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT NEEDS TO COME BACK TO US, MAYBE AT SOME POINT, BUT I KNOW THAT IT HAS TO BE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH THAT IT'S GOING TO CHANGE IN THE FUTURE.

SO. WELL, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS INTENT. IS IT TO BE IS IT TO BE STAFF COMING BACK TO BE ADOPTED, OR IS IT BEING BROUGHT BACK WITHIN THE LICENSE AGREEMENT ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS? SO I'M JUST BASING IT ON THE FIRST ANSWER THAT THESE WERE IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE THAT IT WOULD CHANGE AND IT THAT IT'S FLEXIBLE. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF IF THERE'S AREAS THERE'S NOT TO BE CONSIDERATION. IS THAT CODIFIED OR IS THAT ADMINISTRATIVE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO. I'M I'M NOT REALLY TRYING TO BE DIFFICULT. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW I'M GOING TO ADMINISTER IT. I THOUGHT THE NEXT STEP WAS THAT WE WOULD HAVE A GAME PLAN FROM STAFF SAYING, LOOK, THESE ARE THE, YOU KNOW, OUR DATA SHOWS THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE MOBILITY DEVICES HERE. AND THEN THAT COULD THAT WOULD COME BEFORE COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? DOES THAT NEED TO HAPPEN BEFORE WE READ THIS OR ADOPT IT? NO, I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF WE NEED MORE MEAT IN THE LICENSE OPERATION PLAN THAT TIES TO THE BACK END EXCLUSION, OR IF THEY IT DOESN'T MATTER. I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THOSE TWO DELINEATED PARAGRAPHS BECAUSE IN THEORY, IF YOU NEVER PASSED AN OPERATIONAL PLAN, IF IT SHOWED A ROUTE THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF THAT, YOU WOULD NEVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT. AND THAT'S WHY I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. SO SAY THAT SENTENCE AGAIN, THE OPERATIONAL PLAN, THE OPERATIONAL PLAN. AND THEN OVER HERE THERE'S IN THIS SECTION, EXCLUSIONARY. YOU CAN DETERMINE THE PREDETERMINED ROUTES WHAT HAVE YOU. WELL OPERATIONAL PLAN JUST ISN'T OURS. IT SHOULD BE.

I THINK THERE'S A WHOLE LITANY OF THINGS IN THERE. SO THAT'S WHY I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE TWO CONNECTED. SO SO WE'LL GO BACK TO AND WE CAN TAKE A CONSENSUS IF WE DON'T FEEL LIKE THERE'S STILL STAND. BUT AT ONE POINT IT WAS NO, NOT ON GULF SHORE BOULEVARD. THAT WAS A CONCERN. I MEAN, SO THAT WOULD BE A STREET. THAT GULF SHORE BOULEVARD WOULD NOT HAVE TOURS ON THEM. AND, AND KEEP IN MIND, I'M NOT TRYING TO DEBATE THAT THAT NOW. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THE IF IT IS A TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR WHAT WAS THE DESIGN OF THIS TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR RATIFICATION OF, OF RESTRICTED STREETS OR DESIGNATED AREAS? OR WAS IT TO DEFINE THAT IN THE LICENSE? THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. SO SO THE DESIGN IS A TOUR COMPANY WANTS TO USE THE RIGHT OF WAY TO OPERATE TOURS WITH MICROMOBILITY DEVICES. THEY SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW, COMES TO CITY COUNCIL WITH AN OPERATION PLAN. AT THIS POINT. AT THIS POINT, I DIDN'T WANT CITY COUNCIL JUST I WANTED TO GIVE YOU GUYS GUIDANCE ON WHAT YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING AT WHEN REVIEWING THESE SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS AND WHAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO. SO THIS APPLICATION COMES FORWARD. AND GUESS WHAT? NOW YOU CAN, BASED ON THEIR OPERATION PLAN, DECIDE TO ESTABLISH NO RIDE ZONES OR DETERMINE YOU'RE NOT GOING ON THIS ROAD. AND WHATEVER'S ULTIMATELY APPROVED IS WHAT THEIR PERMIT IS ISSUED FOR, WHICH IS WHAT THEY HAVE TO ABIDE BY. IF THEY DON'T ABIDE BY THE PERMIT, THEN THE CITY MANAGER CAN REVOKE IT, CITY COUNCIL CAN REVOKE IT, AND THEY WON'T GET ANOTHER ONE. ADDITIONALLY, THOSE PERMITS ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE, BUT AND

[03:25:03]

YOU'RE ALSO GETTING INTO 3682 BECAUSE I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ALL HAD A GUIDING STRUCTURE ON WHAT YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING AT WHEN REVIEWING THESE SPECIFIC REQUESTS AND NOT JUST AGREED. I AGREE, BUT IF THERE AREN'T ESTABLISHED ROADS, LIKE WE SAID, NOT ON FIFTH AVENUE, IF THAT'S STILL, YOU KNOW, NOT ON THIRD STREET, YOU KNOW, NOT ON SECOND, WHERE WE KNOW THAT IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE. THERE'S NOT A SIDEWALK, THERE'S CONSISTENT SIDEWALK. IT'S A TRUCK ROUTE. THERE'S I MEAN, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RIDE IN THE ROAD, GULF SHORE BOULEVARD. YOU KNOW, COULD WE HAVE A CONSENSUS NOT JUST WITH STAFF. MAYBE THEY COME BACK WITH CERTAIN ROADS OR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS ISSUES WITH CERTAIN SAFETY ROADS, BUT PERIMETERS NOW SO THAT WE'RE NOT SAYING, OKAY, YOU JUST COME UP WITH WHATEVER YOU WANT AND THEN WE'LL TURN YOU DOWN OR NOT. AND THEN I JUST WANT TO BE VERY SPECIFIC. LINE C SAYS AREAS APPROVED BY THE CITY. MY IT'S VERY SIMPLE QUESTION. IF C SAYING WE ARE GOING TO HAVE PRE-APPROVED AREAS OR IS C SAYING THAT AS THOSE AREAS APPROVED WITHIN THE LICENSE AGREEMENT? BECAUSE IF IT IS, THEN YOU CHANGE C TO SAY THE APPROVED AREAS WITHIN THE LICENSE AGREEMENT, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ONE OR THE I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S SAYING, I GOT IT. WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO? HE'S 367 C TOUR OPERATION SHALL ONLY OPERATE WITHIN AREAS APPROVED BY THE CITY. AND IF IT'S REFERRING TO THE OPERATIONAL PLAN AND THOSE STREETS DELINEATED, THEN IF WE SAY THAT THERE, THEN I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT IT. YEAH, THAT'S ALL THAT WAS THE INTENT. SORRY. THAT COMPLETELY. YES. TOUR OPERATORS SHALL ONLY OPERATE WITHIN AREAS APPROVED BY THE CITY, WHICH YOU WILL DO WHEN THEY APPLY FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT AND COME FORWARD FOR CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. SO IT IS TIED TO THE OPERATIONAL PLAN.

OKAY. WITH THAT SAID, I, I THINK THE ISSUE HERE IS, IS YES, I THINK IT'S I THINK IT FRANKLY, IT CAN BE BOTH AND IT PROBABLY SHOULD BE BOTH. AND THAT IS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE IN THIS IN THIS ORDINANCE SPECIFIC STREETS THAT WE ALREADY KNOW CANNOT BE INCLUDED. AND THEREFORE, THERE WON'T BE ANY CONFUSION WHEN THEY APPLY FOR A PERMIT AS TO WHETHER THEY CAN OR CANNOT INCLUDE THESE PARTICULAR STREETS. AND WE'LL RATTLE OFF A FIFTH AVENUE, THIRD STREET, GULF SHORE SECOND. ALL RIGHT, SO WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN STREETS THAT ARE JUST THAT'S IT, PERIOD. THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO BE PERMITTED. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO USE THEM. WE CAN HAVE THOSE LISTED IN THERE. WITH THAT SAID, WHEN THEY COME IN FRONT OF US FOR A PERMIT, IF WE WANT SOME FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE SOMETHING HAS CHANGED IN THE DYNAMIC OF OUR CITY AND A DIFFERENT STREET THAT ISN'T NAMED IN THIS ORDINANCE SHOULD BE INCLUDED.

WE AS A COUNCIL OR WHOEVER THAT COUNCIL MIGHT BE, CAN SAY AT THAT POINT IN TIME, OH, BY THE WAY, ALSO A CONDITION FOR THIS APPROVAL IS GOING TO YOU CAN'T USE THIS STREET EITHER. SO WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, WE HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE A CHANGE IN THE PERMIT REQUEST.

BUT THIS ORDINANCE SHOULD, RIGHT OFF THE BAT, ELIMINATE THOSE STREETS THAT WE ALREADY KNOW THAT SHOULD BE ELIMINATED. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, CAN I HAVE A CONSENSUS TO I THINK BARTON SAID THIRD, FIFTH, SECOND AND GULF SHORE. YES, THOSE WERE RIGHT OFF TOP OF MY HEAD. OBVIOUSLY THOSE ARE OBVIOUS ONES. AND IF YOU THINK OF SOMETHING ELSE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. SO BEFORE WE GET A CONSENSUS, I JUST BIG PICTURE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'RE ONLY FOCUSED ON THE OPERATION OF TOUR COMPANIES. BUT REMEMBER, YOU'VE ALLOWED ELECTRIC BICYCLES ON THESE ROADS. THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW MICROMOBILITY DEVICES ON THESE ROADS. SO WHAT ARE YOU SHUTTING THEM OFF FOR? THERE'S A FRANKLY, I TOUR, BUT EVERY TOUR IS GOING TO HAVE TO COME BEFORE YOU ANYWAYS, AND YOU ARE GOING TO LIMIT WHERE THEY GO ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. THIS IS POLICY. SO I MEAN, I, I THINK THAT THE SPECIFICS THAT BARTON HAS SUGGESTED IS GOOD AND I, BUT AND THE, THE ISSUE IS THAT THEY ARE THEY ARE THIS, THIS, THIS ISSUE IS CONVOLUTED FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS OR TWO, PEOPLE RIDING A MICRO MOBILITY DEVICE DOWN GULF SHORE BOULEVARD PROBABLY IS FINE. A TOUR, DRIVING DOWN GOING DOWN GULF SHORE BOULEVARD WITH WITH EIGHT PEOPLE AND A GUIDE IS NOT FINE.

SO THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT WE'VE CONVOLUTED THE MICRO MOBILITY AND WE INCLUDE TOURS WITH THE INDIVIDUAL RIDERS. AND HONESTLY, THE INDIVIDUAL RIDERS PROBABLY CAN USE THESE STREETS, WHEREAS A TOUR SHOULD NOT. SO I DON'T THAT MAYBE THAT MAKES THIS THIS ORDINANCE, MAYBE THIS ORDINANCE NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. BECAUSE OF THAT, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE LIMITING THOSE STREETS TO INDIVIDUAL RIDERS, BUT WE SHOULD BE ELIMINATING THOSE STREETS FROM THE TOUR COMPANIES. OKAY. BUT I GUESS JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, IS THERE SIGNS ON THERE OR IS IT JUST CODE LANGUAGE THAT YOU GUYS ARE GETTING A CONSENSUS ON? BECAUSE IF YOU PUT A SIGN ON THERE SAYS NO MICROMOBILITY DEVICES, THEN AGAIN, YOU'RE GOING TO LIMIT WHAT SIGN? I THINK I'M JUST ASKING, CAN I YEAH, SIGN BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING SIGNAGE NOW, RIGHT? YOU JUST SAID, WELL, I SAID IF THE CONSENSUS IS TO PROHIBIT THESE TOUR COMPANIES ON THESE STREETS,

[03:30:07]

WHERE IS THAT INFORMATION GOING TO BE AVAILABLE? IS IT ONLY GOING TO BE IN THE CODE OR IS IT GOING TO BE ON? I WAS JUST CURIOUS. I'LL JUST THAT'S A POLICY DECISION. IF WE'RE PUTTING MORE SIGNS UP, THAT'S A THAT'S A WHOLE BIG ISSUE FOR ME. NO, I LET ME ANSWER THAT QUESTION. THE ANSWER. IN MY OPINION, IT SHOULD BE IN THE CODE. YES. AND WHEN THEY GO TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT, THEY NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY READ OUR CODE AND THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE AND ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO. AND AS FAR AS AS APPLYING FOR A PERMIT FROM A MICROMOBILITY COMPANY, A TOUR TOUR COMPANY, WE SHOULD BE ELIMINATING CERTAIN STREETS FROM THEIR USE. OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MAJOR TRAFFIC ISSUES, MORE TRAFFIC ISSUES. BUT AGAIN, WE I DON'T THINK THOSE RESTRICTIONS, THOUGH, SHOULD NECESSARILY APPLY TO THE INDIVIDUAL OR THE COUPLE THAT WANT TO RIDE THEIR THEIR MICROMOBILITY DEVICE DOWN GULF SHORE BOULEVARD. WELL, FIRST, COULD I JUST ADD, SO AFTER 36, SEVEN UNDER C, MAYBE AFTER THAT SECTION, ADDING WHAT I'M HEARING IS MAYBE ADDING A SENTENCE THAT SAYS PROHIBITED STREETS INCLUDE GULF SHORE BOULEVARD, FIFTH AVENUE, SOUTH THIRD STREET, AND SECOND STREET. AND, AND THAT'S PART OF THAT'S ALREADY BUILT IN. SO WHEN THEY COME BACK BEFORE YOU. THOSE STREETS ARE ALREADY PROHIBITED FROM THE THE TOUR COMPANIES. YES. THAT LANGUAGE SHOULD ONLY BE THE TOUR SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE. RIGHT, RIGHT. AND THAT WAS 36367. THAT'S CORRECT. AND THAT WILL ALSO BE REITERATED WHEN THEY WHEN THEY HAVE THEIR LICENSE AGREEMENTS ALREADY IN THE LANGUAGE ON HERE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PONDER WHETHER OR NOT. AND IT'S CLEAR AS FAR AS WHICH STREETS WE'RE LOOKING AT AND WANT TO THAT ARE PROHIBITED. SO SO I THINK HAVING A SEPARATE SECTION, IF THERE'S DEFINITIVE ONES. BUT I THINK THAT AND I ASKED MATTHEW AND HE. I THINK YOU AGREE, MATTHEW, BUT WHERE WE HAVE THAT SENTENCE ON, SEE, IF WE JUST SAID APPROVED BY THE CITY, CONSISTENT WITH THE LICENSE AGREEMENT BECAUSE IT'S IN THE ROUTING PLAN. SO IF THE COUNCIL DELINEATED IN A SEPARATE SENTENCE, THESE ONES WILL NEVER BE CONSIDERED. AT LEAST WHEN SOMEBODY COMES BACK AND THEY INCLUDE THOSE, YOU'RE BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT YOU'RE NOT. WE TOLD YOU BEFORE YOU ALL CAME IN THAT WE WEREN'T DOING THOSE STREETS. SO YOU GOT TO FIGURE OUT WITHOUT HAVING NO. SO. SO IT CAN BE IF IT'S TWO DIFFERENT SENTENCES, ONE SAYS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVAL, THEN YOU'RE ONLY TAKING MAYBE THE TOP FIVE THAT YOU WOULD EXCLUDE. AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS SUBJECT TO THE ROUTING AND THE BUSINESS PLAN. I'M ONLY SAYING THAT BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT TWO THINGS IN THE SAME SENTENCE MAKES IT MORE COMPLICATED. AND ALL I WAS TRYING TO DO WAS SAY, APPROVED THE CITY. DOES THAT MEAN WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT, WHICH GIVES ME MY ABILITY TO ENFORCE. THAT'S WHAT I WAS ALLUDING TO. SO IF WE CAN AMEND THAT TO SAY CONSISTENT WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT, THAT SENTENCE C BECOMES CLEAR AND THE OTHER WOULD BE, IF YOU ALL DEEM SOMETHING OFF LIMITS, THAT WOULD JUST BE AS AS SHE SUGGESTED THAT THAT WOULD BE THE WAY THAT, IF I MAY, YES, I KNOW WE NEED CONSENSUS FOR THIS, BUT I'M, I'M, YOU KNOW, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES CONCERN ME. AND I'M WONDERING IF WE COULD, I THINK WITH THE DATA IS PROBABLY AVAILABLE. AND I MEAN, ALLISON'S SUPER SMART AND DOCTOR G AND OUR POLICE SMART ENOUGH IS IT. I DON'T WANT TO BE TOO CUMBERSOME FOR Y'ALL, BUT I'M WONDERING IF WE COULD GET IF Y'ALL COULD PUT YOUR HEADS TOGETHER, PULL UP THE DATA AND SAY, HEY, THOSE ARE THOSE ARE GOOD CHOICES NOT TO HAVE THESE TOURS, BUT THERE'S A COUPLE OTHER STREETS THAT ARE THIS IS AND ESPECIALLY NOT HAVING THOSE FOUR THAT WE JUST SAID OR WHATEVER IT WAS, IS GOING TO CREATE REAL PROBLEMS ON THIS PARTICULAR STREET THAT NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED AS WELL. JUST A CURSORY LOOK TO MAKE SURE THAT WE NEED, YOU KNOW, THAT LIST MAY NEED TO BE EXPANDED BY 2 OR 3 STREETS. I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST CONFIRMING. I THINK THAT CONFIRMING BY STAFF. YES, I WOULD AGREE.

THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY, I HAVE YES, I STILL HAVE A QUESTION. COUNCIL SHOULD WE NUMBER LIMIT THE NUMBER OF MOBILITY COMPANIES IN THE CITY? YES. ON A NUMBER OF THE NUMBER OF LICENSES AT ANY GIVEN TIME. I KNOW THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED THAT. RIGHT. MATTHEW? DIDN'T WE SAY THAT? YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THERE WERE FOUR CURRENTLY. I THINK WE HAD WE CAPPED IT AT FIVE IN OUR LAST DISCUSSION, OUR WORKSHOP. AND AND WE THOUGHT, I THOUGHT THAT THAT'S WHAT WE HAD, WE HAD COME TO THAT CONSENSUS THAT WE WERE GOING TO CAP IT AT FIVE. I, I DIDN'T PUT A NUMBER. I THINK FLEXIBILITY IS IMPORTANT. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT 366 C SAYS CITY COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF LICENSE AGREEMENTS ISSUED TO MAINTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT? OKAY. THE PROBLEM IS IF YOU IF YOU SAY FIVE AND YOU HAVE FOUR AND SOMEONE COMES IN, WHAT'S YOUR I MEAN, YEAH, YOU CAN LOOK AT THE CRITERIA, BUT YOU'VE KIND OF ALREADY SAID, I'M GOING TO ALLOW FIVE NO MATTER WHAT. I MEAN, IF YOU LIMIT IT TO WHAT IF YOU HAVE GENERAL LANGUAGE AND ONLY TWO PEOPLE APPLY, THEN YOU ONLY HAVE TWO. IT JUST GIVES MORE FLEXIBILITY TO COUNCIL BECAUSE ALL OF THESE ARE GOING TO COME ON A VERY. I JUST DON'T WANT IT TO LOOK ARBITRARY. I BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE'S CRITERIA THAT YOU ALL ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT. I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE FURTHEST THINGS FROM ARBITRARY. AND I DRAFTED IT

[03:35:02]

THAT WAY. OKAY. AND I'M SORRY, MR. YOUNG, TO ALSO ADDRESS THAT, THAT IT IS IN I THE CITY MAY ESTABLISH THOSE NO RIDE ZONES. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WERE SAYING WITH C. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE AND WANTED IT TO REFER TO WHAT WAS FINALLY BEING APPROVED IS THAT WAS ALL I WAS.

YEAH. AND, AND I, I THINK IT'S VERY CONFUSING BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T APPROVED AREAS YET. SO THAT SHOULD BE YEAH, I GOT WHAT I NEED. I'M SAYING WE HAVEN'T APPROVED AREAS AND THAT WOULD BE WITHIN A BUSINESS PLAN OR THAT SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED THERE. SO IDEALLY IF THIS IF THIS GETS APPROVED OR CONTINUED, WHATEVER IT IS, LET'S JUST HYPOTHETICALLY SAY THIS GETS APPROVED THE MOMENT IT'S EFFECTIVE. THERE ARE NO TOUR COMPANIES OPERATING IN THE CITY AT ALL ON THE RIGHT OF WAY, UNLESS THEY COME FORWARD FOR THE PERMIT PROCESS PERIOD. SO YOU SHOULDN'T SEE ANY TOUR COMPANIES ANYWHERE IF THIS IS APPROVED, UNLESS THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THE APPROVAL PROCESS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO PERMIT TO OPERATE AND YOU HAVEN'T DESIGNATED THE AREAS THEY CAN OPERATE IN. SO THAT THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE INTENT OF HOW IT WAS DRAFTED. IF I CAN ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY A QUESTION. YES, PLEASE. SO, MATTHEW, ON BACK TO THE NUMBER OF COMPANIES. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE FOUR. IS THAT THE CASE THAT WE SAID? EIGHT, EIGHT, EIGHT? YEAH. SO? SO THERE ARE EIGHT. I'M SORRY. THERE ARE EIGHT ACTIVE IN FIVE WITH BTR POLICE OFFICER. SO IF WE KNOW YOU'RE GOOD, IF WE DON'T SET A MAXIMUM NUMBER, THEN HOW DO WE WHAT'S OUR CRITERION FOR DISALLOWING SOMEONE. HOW DO WE. WHAT'S WHAT'S THE RATIONALE THAT GIVES US LEGAL COVER? WELL, THERE'S A FEW THINGS. I MEAN, ONE, RIGHT OFF THE BAT, THEY DON'T MEET THE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS I'VE LAID OUT IN THE. NO, NO, I MEAN, ASSUMING THEY MEET ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS, IS IT JUST WHOEVER LIKE, YEAH, IF WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC MAXIMUM, THEN WHEN AT WHAT POINT DO WE SHUT IT OFF? LIKE HOW DO WE JUST SAY, NOPE, WE'RE NOT DOING ANYMORE? WELL, THE LANGUAGE RIGHT NOW IS FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. SO I MEAN, THAT NUMBER COULD BE THREE FOR YOU. YOU GUYS COULD GET TO THREE AND SAY THE WAY THAT EVERYONE'S OPERATION PLAN IS OPERATING RIGHT NOW, IN THE DAYS OF THE WEEK THAT YOU'RE DOING, WE DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY IN OUR ROADS TO ALLOW ANY MORE FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. THAT'S IT'S IT'S NOT THOUGH. IT'S REALLY NOT THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY HAS GUIDANCE AT ALL WHEN THIS COMES FORWARD TO YOU. SO THERE'S NO CRITERIA. I GET THAT MY FEAR IS THAT LIKE SO I THINK THAT THERE'S EIGHT OPERATING AND FIVE ARE DOING IT THROUGH SOME. THEY HAVE A BUSINESS LICENSE OR WHATEVER. AND THREE, I DON'T I THINK EIGHT ARE TOO MANY, LET'S SAY. SO AFTER I VOTE NO ON EVERYBODY AFTER FIVE, BECAUSE THAT'S MY OPINION IS THAT. AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, IS THAT HOW THAT WOULD WORK? THEN I WOULDN'T CARE ABOUT THEIR PLAN. AND ONCE I I'M LIKE, NO, IT'S TOO MANY. I DON'T LIKE MORE THAN FIVE. SO NO TO EVERYBODY, TO ME, BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THAT PUBLIC SAFETY IS, IS CORRECT.

YEAH. AND I DON'T IF YOU GUYS WANT A NUMBER, WE COULD PUT A NUMBER. BUT MY QUESTION IS HOW DO YOU KNOW FIVE IS THE NUMBER AND IT'S NOT THREE. HE KNOWS THAT 20TH MAY NOT. OR HOW DO YOU KNOW FIVE. THE NUMBER IS NOT SEVEN. LIKE YOU HAVEN'T APPROVED ANY OF THESE BECAUSE THERE'S NEVER BEEN A REQUIREMENT TO DO SO. YOU HAVEN'T SEEN OPERATION PLANS.

YOU HAVEN'T SEEN WHERE THEY GO. YOU HAVEN'T SEEN HOW MANY PEOPLE THEY OPERATE WITH. SO I MEAN, YOU COULD PUT A FIVE NUMBER THERE, BUT WHAT IF THAT'S TOO MANY? WHAT IF YOU APPROVED TWO OF THESE AND YOU REALIZE WE DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY ON OUR STREETS TO ACCOMMODATE ANOTHER ONE? THEN WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE CODE AND MAKE IT THREE, YOU KNOW, SO, SO SO WHEN WE GET IN THE EVENT THAT WE GET SIX AT ONCE, IS IT GOING TO BE FIRST IN, FIRST OUT ON THE TIMELINE AND THEN LET THEM OPERATE FOR A LITTLE WHILE BEFORE WE CAN CONSIDER ANOTHER? I THINK IF YOU GET SIX, THEN WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE TAKING EACH ONE AND YOU'RE REVIEWING IT BASED ON, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE TOUR COMPANIES BASED ON 367 AND 368, AND YOU'RE MAKING A DETERMINATION BASED ON THAT SPECIFIC REQUEST BEFORE YOU, WHICH IS NOT PREDETERMINED ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS MAKES SENSE FOR THE CITY AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD OBTAIN A RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT, SIMILAR TO ALL THE OPERATIONS THAT COME BEFORE YOU.

NOT EVERYONE MAKES SENSE. OKAY. AND THERE'S PROBABLY LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT THAT SAYS

[03:40:01]

RESERVES THE RIGHT TO LIMIT ANY AND ALL IT DOES. IT ALSO SAYS THAT THESE ARE THESE ARE YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO THIS. RIGHT. I MADE SURE THAT'S CLEAR BECAUSE OF THINGS WE DEALT WITH IN THE PAST, RIGHT? NO PERSON. THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL CONSTITUTE A PRIVILEGE AND NOT A RIGHT. AND NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE THE CITY TO TO APPROVE EVERY APPLICATION SUBMITTED. AND WILL WE HAVE A WILL IT BE A YEARLY REVIEW OR HOW LONG WILL PERMITS? NOT UNLESS. HOW LONG? TYPICALLY A YEAR, LIKE A YEAR. AND THAT'S THAT'S USUALLY WE DO AN WE DO AN ANNUAL RENEWAL FOR THE WAY THE CITY MANAGER APPROVAL FOR MOST OF THESE FOR THESE LICENSING TYPE AGREEMENTS WITH A THREE YEAR RETURN TO CITY COUNCIL, THREE YEARS. OKAY. REEVALUATION. FAIR ENOUGH. AND THAT'S ALWAYS UP TO YOU ALL TO, TO CHANGE AND MODIFY. BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE, WE'VE TRIED ON THE OTHER CASES IN THE EVENT THAT CONDITIONS CHANGE, I WOULD RECOMMEND A YEAR JUST UNTIL WE UNDERSTAND A BETTER WAY TO EVALUATE IT. I MEAN, THREE YEARS WE COULD BE I MEAN, I THINK IF WE REVIEW IT ANNUALLY AT THIS AND SEE HOW IT'S OPERATING, AND THEN WE CAN MAKE THE CHANGES LIKE WE DID WITH THE OUTDOOR DINING, BUT IT'D BE UP TO THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE BECAUSE IF YOU IF HE DOES, WHAT WITH THESE DEALS WITH THESE ALL THE TIME, AND IF HE WOULD SAY HE'D BRING IT BEFORE US IF WE NEEDED IT TO REMAND ANYTHING, THE COUNCIL SHOULD, I DEEM THAT IT SHOULD GO TO COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION, BECAUSE I DON'T AGREE WITH ITS CONTINUED EXISTENCE. AND BUT BUT I THINK THAT THE DELINEATION, AS YOU SAY, I WANT IT TO BE ABSOLUTE IN THE FIRST YEAR AFTER THAT. BUT I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR YOU. BUT I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT YOU. BUT I'M FINE EITHER WAY. YOU TELL ME, AND I'LL. AND I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR THIS CITY MANAGER OR THESE CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES. I'M TALKING ABOUT PROTECTION MECHANISMS FOR THE FUTURE IN CHECK AND BALANCE. THAT'S ALL. BECAUSE IF NOT, NOBODY KNOWS THAT THE CITY MANAGER IS DOING THAT. AND AT LEAST WHEN WE HAD THE HORSE AND BUGGIES, WE HAD TO RENEW IT ANNUALLY OR EVERY THREE YEARS THEY HAD, THEY KNEW THEY HAD TO PAY THEIR MONEY THERE. YOU KNOW, IT WAS, I DON'T KNOW, I, I, I THINK UNTIL WE FIGURE THIS OUT, IT'S A CHECK AND BALANCE THING.

SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO IDENTIFYING TERM, DOESN'T SAY THREE, DOESN'T SAY ONE. SO THAT LICENSE AGREEMENT WHEN IT COMES FORWARD CAN BE WHAT YOU GUYS WANT, ACTUALLY WANTS TO PUT IN.

BECAUSE IF YOU PUT ONE IN HERE, THEN YOU'RE LIMITED TO ONE IF IT'S IN THE CODE, BUT RIGHT NOW IT LEAVES IT OPEN ENDED IF THEY COME FORWARD AND YOU SAID, HEY, I WANT TO TRY THIS OUT FOR SIX MONTHS, I MEAN, THAT GIVES YOU THE FUN. WE'VE, WE'VE DONE A DIFFERENT DIFFERENTLY DEPENDING ON WHAT COUNCIL HAS DIRECTED. AND WE'VE DONE LIKE A PILOT TEST, I BELIEVE WHEN WE DID THE WHEN WE FIRST WHEN THE FIRST APPLICATION CAME IN, I BELIEVE FOR SLIDER, I THINK WE DID IT AS KIND OF A PILOT. AND THEN WE HAD RESTRICTIONS IN THERE. AND I THINK WE HAD AN EARLIER RETURN FOR REVIEW. YEAH. SO THE QUESTION IS, IS DO WE WANT TO LEAVE IT AT THE WAY IT IS NOW OR PUT VERBIAGE IN HERE TO HAVE A CHECK AND BALANCE THAT THE CITY MANAGER HAS THE WILL REVIEW IT EVERY THREE YEARS IS THAT I DON'T I HAVEN'T SEEN AN AGREEMENT YET. I THINK WHAT MATTHEW IS SAYING IS IF YOU JUST PUT IT IN EACH AGREEMENT, IT'LL AUTOMATICALLY STIPULATE IT MUST RETURN IN A YEAR. AND YOU CAN SAY IT JUST LIKE YOU DO A CONTRACT. IT'S, YOU KNOW, IN ONE YEAR OR WITH AN OPTIONAL WHATEVER. YOU CAN DO THAT BY LEAVING THE CITY MANAGER PARAGRAPH ALONE. YOU STILL LEAVE HIM THE ABILITY SHOULD HE NEED TO REVOKE SOMETHING. HE HAS THAT RIGHT. SO I THINK BUILDING IT INTO THE THE AGREEMENT GIVES YOU CONTROL.

WHEN YOU'RE AUTHORIZING IT. SAY EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT THAT DAY, AND THE AGREEMENT AND RULES AND PROCEDURES ARE GOING TO COME BACK TO US. YEAH. WELL, INDIVIDUALLY, THOSE THAT THAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOU WHEN THESE, WHEN EACH APPLICATION COMES IN, WE HAVE SAY IT'S FOR VALET. WE WE WOULD PRESENT THAT TO YOU. WE WOULD HAVE THE AGREEMENT IN THERE. WE WOULD HAVE THE RESOLUTION AGREEMENT. YES. IT'D BE WELL IT'D BE AN AGREEMENT THAT WOULD BE STANDARD THAT I'M SURE OUR CITY ATTORNEY WOULD BE PUTTING TOGETHER IN, IN WORKING THROUGH.

AND THEN WE WOULD COME BACK. COME BACK. YEAH. AND DEPENDING ON USUALLY THE TERMS AND THE LANGUAGE AND THE RESOLUTION INDICATE WHEN WE PLAN TO RETURN AND WHAT THE ALLOWANCES ARE FOR THE CITY MANAGER. OKAY. THIS IS NOT UNCOMMON TO THINGS I'VE DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. I DEVELOPED THE RIGHT OF WAY LICENSE AGREEMENT TEMPLATE, AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT TEMPLATE.

THESE ARE THINGS THAT. AND THEN THEY'RE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL. YEAH. SO THIS WILL BE PART OF THE PACKET APPLICATION PROCESS. ESSENTIALLY IF SOMEONE APPLIES THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO.

THERE'S NOT NEGOTIATING HERE. IT'S KIND OF A SIGN IT OR TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT SITUATION. SO PUTS ME IN A VERY GOOD POSITION FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT TO INCLUDE WHAT I BELIEVE THE CITY

[03:45:01]

NEEDS FOR PROTECTION. OKAY. SCHULTZ, LET ME SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO THIS FOR A BIT. THIS IS 40 MINUTES INTO THIS. WE'RE IN THE WEEDS. SO ARE WE GOING TO LIMIT THE NUMBER? BECAUSE THEN IF SOME INDUSTRIOUS INDIVIDUAL GETS OUT THERE AND MAKES IT SOMETHING BIG, AND THEN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SELL THEIR LICENSES, OR WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PRICE FIXING PREROGATIVES IN HERE, HOW MUCH CAN THEY CHARGE OR NOT CHARGE? WE'RE GOING DOWN BUNNY RABBIT HOLES HERE AND SO MANY DIFFERENT AREAS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT IS OUR ROLE? AND YES, WE HAVE TO REGULATE THINGS, BUT THE NUMBERS OF THEM, WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE COST PER LICENSE? WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE RENEWAL? HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN THE QUEUE? IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SAY, HEY, I DON'T LIKE THESE PEOPLE, THEY'VE HAD THIS FOREVER, WHY DON'T WE GET A RIGHT TO DO IT NOW? I MEAN, THESE ARE THINGS THAT CAN AND LIKELY WILL POP UP SOMEWHERE.

AND SO IF WE'RE GOING TO GET THIS FAR INTO THE WEEDS, LET'S GET INTO THE WEEDS. WELL, RESPECTFULLY, YOU, THIS IS NEW. I'VE SEEN IT FOR SINCE OH EIGHT. WHAT CAN HAPPEN? WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT IN THE WEEDS THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT, I WELCOME IT. MAYOR. CAN I JUST ANSWER THE TWO QUESTIONS YOU ASKED? YEAH. ADMINISTRATIVE FEE OF $1,000 IS ALREADY INCLUDED AND THE PERMITS NONTRANSFERABLE. SO THEY CAN'T SELL IT. CORRECT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO TURN IT INTO THE CITY. AND IT'S NOT EVEN NONTRANSFERABLE. THERE'S LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT SAYS IF YOU SELL MORE THAN 50% OF YOUR LLC, THAT'S CONSIDERED AN ASSIGNMENT. THEREFORE, YOU HAVE TO COME BACK BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL SOMETIMES SELL THEIR COMPANY AND TRY TO GET ALONG. BUT YES, IF YOU SELL MORE THAN 50%, WHICH MEANS SOMEONE WHO'S AN OWNER TODAY WOULD HAVE TO REMAIN AN OWNER, OR ELSE THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A TRANSFER. AND ONE PERSON CANNOT OWN MORE THAN ONE. SO YOU COULD HAVE SOMEBODY COME IN JUST CORNER THE MARKET, TAKE THE THREE LICENSES. IS IT WORTH FOR LLC, LLC, LLC? BANG, THERE'S THREE AND THEN THERE'S THREE. AND THEY CAN GOUGE ANYBODY ALL THEY WANT. HOW DO WE PREVENT SOMEONE GAMING THE SYSTEM? FRANCHISING. WELL, ALL OF THESE ARE COMING BEFORE YOU. AND THESE ARE GOING TO BE GREAT QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL TO ASK. THE MOMENT THAT AN APPLICATION COMES FORWARD. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THOSE PROTECTION MECHANISMS. OKAY. WE HAVE 1230 CERTAIN. YES WE DO. ARE WE ALMOST FINISHED WHERE WE CAN WRAP THIS UP BEFORE THEN? WELL, THAT'S WHAT I WAS HOPING UP TO. COUNCIL. I'M ALL FOR THAT, MISS PICKETT.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KNOW. I KNOW THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE IN HERE, AND I THINK WE TRIED TO GET INTO THE WEEDS ON SOME OF THIS. AND I'M NOT TRYING TO GET INTO THE WEEDS, BUT AS FAR AS ONE OF THE THE IS WE WE HAD ALREADY SPOKEN OF THE NUMBER OF RIDERS IN THE TOURS, THE TOURS.

WE ALSO HAVE LANGUAGE IN HERE. I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP AS FAR AS THE OPERATION, THE TOURS SHALL NOT OPERATE BETWEEN SUNSET AND SUNRISE AND DURING PEAK TRAVEL TIMES OF 7 A.M. TO 9 A.M. EASTERN STANDARD TIME AND 330 TO 530. UNDERSTANDING THOSE ARE MORE OF OUR HIGHER TRAFFIC TIMES, AND THAT'S WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE CITY. SO I WANTED TO JUST BRING THAT UP IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ONE OF THE POINTS THAT WE DIDN'T MAKE SURE THAT WAS INCORPORATED INTO THERE, I THINK IT'S JUST A KIND OF HIGHLIGHT POINT THAT I WANTED TO, TO JUST RELAY TO YOU. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY, I'M HAPPY. OH, SORRY. YEAH. WHY JUST EASTERN STANDARD TIME AND NOT DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME. WELL I. GOOD POINT. I, YEAH WE WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT IT WAS ON SUNSET AND SUNRISE. IT WAS SOME WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT RIDING AT NIGHT AND HOPEFULLY YOU'RE THE SAME. BUT YEAH ONE DAY. OH BUT BUT I AGREE BECAUSE IF IF YOU NOTICE THERE AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW, WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT PARKING, TALKING ABOUT WEEDS BECAUSE THEY DO GO TO THE PIER. AND I DO NOT KNOW THAT THERE IS A DESIGNATED PARKING AREA BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY PARK OR WHEN THEY COULD, RIGHT THERE AT THE FOOT OF THE ENTRANCE OF THE PIER, WELL, THAT IS AND THERE WERE LIKE 12 OF THEM. THERE IS LANGUAGE IN HERE, CORRECT? RELATING TO THAT IN THE PARKING OF THESE, WHICH WOULD BE PART OF THEIR BUSINESS PLAN, I'M ASSUMING. BUT CLARIFY, MATTHEW, HELP ME IF YOU FIND IT FIRST DESIGNATED PLACES AND NOT RESTRICTING AREAS THAT ARE, I THINK IS WHAT IT SAYS. AND ACCESS TO OTHER I DON'T THINK IS THERE'S A BLANKET LIKE YOU CAN'T STAGE IT ON PRIVATE OR PUBLIC PROPERTY. YEAH, THAT'S THE ONE CONSISTENT WITH ANYBODY COMING AND PUTTING THEM ON THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND THEN THERE'S OTHER PROTECTIONS AS IT PERTAINS TO A CITY BUILDING AND ACCESS. AND THERE'S LIKE THREE DIFFERENT PLACES. AND I THINK. AND THEN IF I COULD TAKE A MINUTE, THERE WAS JUST TWO TYPO

[03:50:04]

GRAMMATICAL ISSUES I WANTED TO BRING TO COUNCIL'S ATTENTION PRIOR TO SECOND READING. IF THIS DOES GO FORWARD, 367367 B ON PAGE EIGHT ACTUALLY SAYS SECOND PART OF THAT SENTENCE SAYS GOVERNING MICROMOBILITY FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS. IT'S GOING TO BE LICENSE AGREEMENTS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE DECIDED TO DO. AND THEN WAIT, DID WE DECIDE THAT THAT'S HOW THIS WHOLE THEY'RE REFERRED TO AS LICENSE AGREEMENTS, CORRECT AND RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS. OKAY. AND THEN 368 A. AND DETERMINING WHETHER TO AUTHORIZE, PERMIT, REGULATE, OR APPROVE THE OPERATION OF MICROMOBILITY DEVICES OR MICRO MOBILITY OPERATIONS, I ACTUALLY THINK IT SHOULD SAY THE OPERATION OF MICROMOBILITY LICENSE AGREEMENTS, MICRO MOBILITY PROVIDERS, OR MICRO MOBILITY TOUR COMPANIES. I IT JUST DIDN'T SOUND RIGHT ON SECOND GLANCE. SO AGAIN, MY APOLOGIES. THIS WAS PUT TOGETHER RATHER QUICKLY. GOOD. ADD ONE MORE QUESTION. SECTION NINE. THE ORDINANCE WILL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON ADOPTION AT SECOND READING. DOES THERE NEED TO BE A TRANSITION PERIOD FOR TOUR COMPANIES SO THAT THEY'RE NOT JUST OUTLAWED IMMEDIATELY? JUNE 17TH IS THAT THEY HAVE A TIME TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT AND GET IT CURED? I WAS GOING TO ASK THE QUESTION, AND I'LL LET MATTHEW ANSWER LEGALLY, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD IF IT INCORPORATED SOMETHING THAT SAID THAT THEY SHALL BE NOTIFIED. THEY SHOULD HAVE 60 DAYS TO MAKE APPLICATION OR OTHERWISE CEASE IF THE APPLICATION IS WITHIN, PENDING THE APPROVAL, PROVIDED THEY ARE ONE OF THE EIGHT AS IDENTIFIED HERE AT THE TIME, THAT THIS IS BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE IT MEASURED AS TO WHO THEY ARE, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I THINK IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING AND THEN WE BREAK FOR SUMMER, IF WE DID GET IT PASSED IN 17, THAT WILL PRESENT ITS OWN PROBLEM TO ME. SO I THINK SOME KIND OF TRANSITION THAT WAY WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, BUT I'LL DEFER. WHY DON'T WE JUST MAKE IT EFFECTIVE THE BEGINNING OF THE FISCAL YEAR, WHICH GIVES THEM AMPLE OPPORTUNITY IN A FEW MEETINGS FROM IN AUGUST AND FOR THE TOUR COMPANY PIECE AND THEN THE REST. THE FIRST PART APPLIES TO EVERYBODY WHO WANTS THEM CORRECT. USE A MACRO MICRO MOBILITY DEVICE, RIGHT? YOU DON'T WANT YOU KNOW, YES. I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT HOW TO HOW TO DO THAT. BUT I UNDERSTAND THE REQUEST. SO YOU CAN ADDRESS THAT A SECOND READING. CORRECT. OKAY. THANKS. SO ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS. COUNCIL ON THESE. OKAY. SO THE ONLY THING I SEE THAT IS UNCLEAR IS IT DOES MENTION RULES AND REGS IN HERE. AND I DON'T WE DON'T HAVE A COPY OF RULES AND REGS AS LONG AND A COPY OF WHAT THE LICENSE AGREEMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE. AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE CAME TO A CONCLUSION ON THE ANNUAL RENEWAL OR NOT. I BELIEVE WE SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST A CHECK AND BALANCE FOR A YEAR UNTIL WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE HAVE AND HAVE COUNCIL REVIEW IT.

SINCE COUNCIL IS ALLOWING THIS POLICY TO HAPPEN. YEAH, ONE THOUGHT MAYBE IT'S SIMILAR TO OUTDOOR DINING WHERE THE FIRST TIME THEY APPLY IS LIKE A ONE YEAR REVIEW ON HOW IT'S GOING, AND THEN WE CAN CHOOSE TO GIVE THEM THREE YEARS AFTER THAT. IF IT'S GOING WELL, THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. SO SINCE WE HAVE TIME, CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION SINCE WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO ALLOW THE TOUR COMPANIES A GRACE PERIOD TO APPLY THAT? WHAT I DO IS, IS I'LL USE THE SUMMER TO DRAFT THE LICENSE AGREEMENT TEMPLATE AND THEN PRESENT IT TO COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL. I WOULDN'T DO IT THIS SUMMER, BECAUSE YOU COULD HAVE FIVE MORE COMPANIES COMING IN AND OPERATING WITHOUT LICENSES. I MEAN, YOU'RE SO CLOSE. I'M SORRY, MARY, I'M CONFUSED. DID YOU JUST SAY YOU HAVE THE SUMMER TO WORK ON IT, TO WORK ON THE TEMPLATE THAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT AND BRING YOU BACK THE LICENSE AGREEMENT THAT WILL BE UTILIZED THROUGH THIS APPROVAL PROCESS SO THAT COUNCIL CAN APPROVE IT. AND THERE WE'LL TALK ABOUT TERM TIME, REVIEW PROCESS, EVERYTHING, BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED YOU HADN'T SEEN THE LICENSE AGREEMENT. SO I FIGURED MAYBE COUNCIL WANTS TO SEE. WELL, I'M SURE STAFF HAS ALREADY THOUGHT ABOUT THAT.

WELL, MAYBE. NO, NO, THE LICENSE AGREEMENT ARE FORMED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. OKAY. WITH RESPECT TO THAT. SO FROM MY STANDPOINT, I THOUGHT OF IT FROM IS HOW DO I HAVE A TRANSITION PERIOD. THIS ALLOWS FOR A TRANSITION PERIOD THAT'S LOGICAL AND FUNCTIONAL RULES AND REGS CAN'T BE WRITTEN UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT THE CODE IS. AND SO THAT GIVES TIME FOR ALL THOSE TO BE DEVELOPED WHILE PROVIDING THAT IT'S AN OCTOBER 1ST. HOWEVER, THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD IT WOULD BE THE ONE ITEM I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS IF IT'S THOSE THAT I WANT TO SAY THIS, THAT ONLY THOSE THAT ARE CURRENTLY OPERATING UPON ADOPTION SHALL BE RECOGNIZED AS.

THAT WAY, NOBODY ELSE CAN JUST START UP TOMORROW AND SAY, OH, I'M OPERATING. THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE THING. SO THE LANGUAGE ON THAT, I APPRECIATE THE COMFORT. THE FACT YOU DON'T

[03:55:03]

HAVE AN AGREEMENT WILL BE AGREEMENT WILL BE WRITTEN AND RULES AND REGS WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORDINANCE. BY THE TIME YOU COME BACK TO AUTHORIZE YOUR FIRST RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT, YOU'RE NOT DELAYING THE THE POTENTIAL APPROVAL OF THIS ON A SECOND READING AT THE NEXT MEETING, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO WORK ON LICENSE AGREEMENT, WE CAN IMPROVE. WE CAN APPROVE THIS. WITH YOU STILL HAVING TO WORK ON THE LICENSE AGREEMENT OVER SUMMER? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. WITH WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SUNSET PROVISION IS GOING TO BE APPLICABLE TO ALL. YEAH. THAT I HAVE RESERVATIONS OF MAKING IT APPLICABLE TO THE EIGHT THAT WE KNOW OF IT, THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE MICROMOBILITY TOUR AND LICENSE PROVISION WILL NOT BE EFFECTIVE OR ENFORCED UNTIL OCTOBER 1ST. IS THE IS THE IDEA. AND WHOEVER WANTS TO APPLY CAN APPLY. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. IT'S NOT JUST LIMITED TO THOSE EIGHT. IT'S IT'S EVERYONE. OKAY? DID WE COMPLETE THE YOUR QUESTIONS? MR. YOUNG YES. THE ONLY THING I WOULD I JUST WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION. I'M STILL WITHIN MY RIGHTS TO NOT GRANT A BETA UPON ADOPTION OF THIS, JUST TO GET ANOTHER ONE COMING IN DURING THIS INTERIM PERIOD.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE ON THAT WE CAN TALK OFFLINE. OKAY. I'M SORRY, I JUST I, THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING, BUT FOR ME, I THINK WE SHOULD ADOPT IT A SECOND RING. OTHERWISE WE NEVER MOVE THIS BALL FORWARD AND GET TO WRITING THE AGREEMENT AND THE OKAY. AND WE DID NOT DISCUSS THE PIER, BUT WE CAN. WELL, WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW THAT STATE OR NOT STAGING.

BUT I MEAN, AS A STOPPING PLACE, PART OF THEIR BUSINESS PLAN. BUT MAYBE THAT'S JUST PART OF THEIR BUSINESS PLAN THAT WE CAN. YES. AND WE CAN ALSO, WE CAN PUT EXTRAS. I KNOW SIGNAGE, I'M GOING TO USE A BAD WORD, BUT WE THERE WILL BE SPECIFICS THAT WE SHOULD PUT IN THAT LOCATION REGARDLESS. OKAY. BECAUSE I THINK THERE HAS TO BE A CONVERSATION ABOUT DROP OFFS AND SOME OTHER THINGS IN THAT ENTIRE UTILIZATION THERE AT SOME POINT RIGHT BEFORE WE COME BACK. THANK YOU. STAFF. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THIS WORK, EVERYONE. I NEEDED A MOTION JUST TO CLARIFY THE MOTIONS MADE. THIS IS WHAT I HEARD SO THAT THE MOTION WILL INCLUDE THIS. MAYBE NOT SPECIFICALLY, BUT JUST GENERALLY. SO 25 IS GOING TO 30MPH UNDER THE TOUR COMPANIES. WE ARE GOING TO LIST THE FOUR ROADS THAT BARTON IDENTIFIED IN A SEPARATE PROVISION, PART OF THE APPROVAL OF CITY. IN THAT SAME PROVISION, BASED ON THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION, IS GOING TO SAY, AS APPROVED BY THE RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT OR LICENSE AGREEMENT, ONE OF THE TWO, THEY BOTH HAVE TO BE APPROVED. AND THEN THERE WERE THE TWO GRAMMATICAL SUGGESTIONS I MADE TO 36, SEVEN, 368. AND THEN THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION FROM VICE MAYOR TO LOOK INTO IF WE CAN MAKE EVERYTHING ELSE EFFECTIVE, BUT FOR THE REGULATIONS ON THE TOUR COMPANIES TO ALLOW THEM TO SUMMER TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE, I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD SUMMARY. THANK YOU. MOTION. MADAM MAYOR, MOVE APPROVAL OF THIS ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING WITH THE CHANGES JUST OUTLINED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO THE MICROMOBILITY DEVICE ORDINANCE PROPOSAL AND ITEM 14 E. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN. YES. YES. KRAMER. YES. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ, I COUNCIL MEMBER. I'M SORRY. VICE MAYOR BLANKENSHIP. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KROLL. YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU. COUNCIL PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[13.B) Executive Session in regards to City of Naples v. City of Naples Airport Authority, et al; Case No. 2026-CA-001094, 20th Judicial Circuit, in and for Collier County, Florida (12:30PM Time Certain) (Supplement 1/Added Item).]

THANK YOU. STAFF. AND WITH THAT, WE'RE CONCLUDED WITH ITEM 14 E GOING TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. MR. MCCONNELL. YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. AT THE MAY 20TH, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING PURSUANT TO 286.011, SUBPARAGRAPH EIGHT CITY ATTORNEY ANNOUNCES REQUEST FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION IN CASE CITY OF NAPLES VERSUS CITY OF NAPLES. AIRPORT AUTHORITY ET AL. CASE NUMBER 2026CA1094. AND IN FOUR, COLLIER COUNTY CITY COUNCIL AGREED TO MEET IN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON JUNE 3RD, WHICH IS TODAY AT 1230 IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL,

[17) COMMUNICATIONS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND STAFF]

[04:03:23]

MILES YOU KNOW, AND AFFECTS WILDLIFE, NESTING BIRDS, EVERYTHING. I MEAN, NOT ALONE.

THE OTHER THING. SO YEAH, THEY CAN PUT A DATA CENTER NEAR OUR BORDER LINE AND IT'S GOING TO AFFECT PROBABLY THE MOST OF THE CITY. SO IT IS AN ISSUE. AND THAT'S WHY I THINK IF WE HAVE A BAN THAT THAT GIVES US A LITTLE MORE LEVERAGE ON SOMETHING THAT HAPPENING. YEAH. I, I DON'T KNOW HOW OR WHAT. I MEAN, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO TALK TO THE CITY MANAGER OR, YOU KNOW, BUT WHEN I MEANT WAS NOT AN AI DATA CENTER, BUT A CLOUD DATA CENTER, I THINK IS WHAT I DON'T KNOW. IS IT THE SAME? YEAH. VERY SIMILAR. I WOULD SAY THIS JUST I UNDERSTAND YOUR SENTIMENT. AND I REMEMBER RUNNING FOR OFFICE AND I WAS ASKED TO TAKE VARIOUS OATHS OF FEALTY TO WHATEVER ORGANIZATION. AND, AND THAT'S A HYPOTHETICAL THAT AND PLEDGE AGAINST SOME HYPOTHETICAL. AND I'M NOT DOING THAT. NOT FOR THIS, NOT FOR ANYTHING. IF IT'S NOT CONCRETE AND DOESN'T DIRECTLY IF I DON'T BELIEVE IN A IN A TAKING A KNEE FOR WHATEVER. CAUSE NOW I CAN ADVOCATE AGAINST IT. I'M ALL FOR WORKING PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS FOR THINGS, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT. I'M NOT GOING TO. TAKE A HYPOTHETICAL POSITION OR.

AND IT MAY BE A REAL POLITICAL POSITION FOR YOU, BUT IN MY CASE, I DON'T EVEN KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. AND I'VE ACTUALLY GOT A BUDDY WHO I WAS JUST VISITED OUT WEST WHO HE HE IS WORKING FOR MICROSOFT THIS WEEK, CLEANING. THEY HAVE TO HAVE BACKUP WATER SUPPLIES, THESE MASSIVE BACKUP WATER SUPPLIES. AND HE DOES ROBOTICS THAT GO IN AND DOES IT. HE'S

[04:05:02]