[00:00:06]
          WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. AS PER THE 164 PROCESS. I'D LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYONE HERE. AGAIN, I THINK I THINK WE CAN FOREGO A ROLL CALL. WE HAVE 100% ATTENDANCE FROM BOTH BOARDS FROM THAT STANDPOINT. I'D NOW LIKE TO ASK EVERYONE TO STAND AND SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WITH THAT, WE HAVE THE AGENDA IN FRONT OF US. MR. ROZANSKI. ANY ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR RESEQUENCING? NO. RESEQUENCING. CHAIR, I BELIEVE THE ONLY THING WHICH WE'VE PROVIDED, WHICH WASN'T IN THE ORIGINAL PACKET, WAS THE COPY OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT WE SHARED WITH THE CITY ON MAY 21ST. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND FROM THE CITY STANDPOINT, EVERYBODY COMFORTABLE WITH THE AGENDA? HEARING NO OBJECTIONS. WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT ITEM D PUBLIC COMMENTS. I'M SORRY, IS THE DRAFT IS THAT PART OF THE BACKUP MATERIAL? THE AGENDA THAT YOU GUYS PUBLISHED, THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT YOU REFERRED TO? MR. ROZANSKI, IS THAT PART OF THE ATTACHMENTS THAT THE CITY CAN LOCATE ON THE IPADS ON? ASK OUR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT WHETHER THAT WAS ADDED TO THE CITY'S VERSION. I BELIEVE IT'S ON THE VERSION OF WHAT WAS PUBLISHED. BUT IS IT ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE? I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE SAME DRAFT ORDINANCE WE HAD PROVIDED YOU PRIOR TO OUR CONFLICT ASSESSMENT MEETING. YEAH, I FIGURED I JUST WANTED TO TO MAKE SURE THEY HAD ACCESS. OKAY. COPY ME EITHER. NO. I THINK SHE'S GETTING EXTRA COPIES. OH, LOVELY. AND THANK YOU. WE DON'T EXPECT A LINE ITEM LINE BY LINE REVIEW TODAY ANYWAY. SO. BUT IT IS GOOD BACKGROUND INFORMATION. YES, YES. YOU FREE ACCESS. 
          THANK YOU. MR. IS THIS THE FIRST TIME? MR. MCCONNELL? IS THIS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE COUNCIL HAS SEEN THIS SINCE THE FIRST TIME COUNCIL HAS SEEN THIS? NO, I, I SENT THIS THE DAY I RECEIVED IT. OKAY. THANKS. AND DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO. NO PUBLIC COMMENTS. OKAY. WITH THAT, THEN WE'LL PROCEED TO THE DISCUSSION WITH REGARDING THE ITEMS FROM THAT STANDPOINT. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PACKET HERE, WE'VE PROVIDED THE INITIAL STATEMENT OF ISSUES PREPARED FOR THE CONFLICT ASSESSMENT. AND AGAIN WE LOOK FORWARD TO A ROBUST DISCUSSION THERE. I THINK THE THE PRIMARY POINT THAT I THINK WE SORT OF TOUCHED UPON IT EARLIER WAS OUR POSITION IN TERMS OF TRYING TO GET CLARITY AROUND LAND USE AND THE TERMS OF WITH REGARD TO AERONAUTICAL AND NON-AERONAUTICAL AND MIXED USE FROM THAT STANDPOINT. AND SO I THINK THAT IS AN IMPORTANT POINT OF NECESSITY FROM OUR STANDPOINT AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TOPICS WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IN TERMS OF LEASE NEGOTIATION, WE, YOU KNOW, THINK THAT WHILE THERE HAVE BEEN SOME BUMPS IN THE ROAD IN THE PAST, WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO PROVIDE CLARITY FOR THE EXISTING BOARDS, BOTH THE CITY AND THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY FOR FUTURE BOARDS. SO AGAIN, THERE'S NO LACK OF CLARITY. AND WE SPEND TIME PRODUCTIVELY TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S BEST FOR THE AIRPORT, THE AVIATION COMMUNITY AND THE BROADER COMMUNITY, BOTH AT THE CITY LEVEL AS WELL AS THE THE TWO THIRDS YOU TALKED ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE AIRPORT BEING ADJACENT TO THE COUNTY. SO WITH THAT, I GUESS I'D LIKE TO MAYBE TURN IT OVER TO EITHER MR. OWENS OR MR. KIRSCH TO SORT OF GIVE US A PREAMBLE TO WHAT WE HAVE IN THE PACKET HERE. I CAN I CAN GIVE A BRIEF INTRODUCTION. 
          CHAIR. THANK YOU. SO TO THAT POINT, WE APPRECIATE THE PRODUCTIVE DIALOG THIS MORNING. 
          AND THIS DISCUSSION. A JOINT MEETING REGARDING THE N A A'S CHAPTER 164 PROCEEDINGS REGARDING RESOLUTION ADOPTED BACK ON MAY, APRIL 30TH. CORRECTION APRIL 30TH. IT 
          [00:05:06]
PERTAINS TO CLARITY IN THE CITY'S OVERSIGHT AND REGULATION OF. PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON AERONAUTICAL LAND USES. AND WE'VE FRAMED ALL OF OUR DEFINITIONS AROUND FAA DEFINITIONS SO THAT WE WEREN'T THE ONES CREATING OR DEVISING ANY DEFINITIONS. THERE ARE VERY CLEAR FAA POLICY THAT THAT OUTLINES DEFINITIONS FOR. FOR EACH OF THESE AERONAUTICAL. 
          NON-AERONAUTICAL MIXED USE AND EVEN A CATEGORY CALLED AIRPORT USE. SO THERE'S THERE'S MORE OR LESS FOUR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF LAND USES, AS THE FAA DEFINES IT IN THEIR POLICY, WHICH WHICH WE'VE TAKEN VERBATIM AS THEY DRAFTED IT. SO THEN AS I THINK, AS WE ALL KNOW, WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE EXACTING DETAIL, THAT MORE THAN A YEAR AGO THERE WAS AN INCREASED FOCUS AND WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY, INCREASED FOCUS ON THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN AND THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS BETWEEN THE N, A, A AND THE CITY, AND WHETHER IT'S AN NAA. PETITION FOR DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING WHEN IT MAY BE A TENANT OR BUSINESS PETITION FOR DEVELOPMENT. AND SINCE THAT TIME, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF STATEMENTS THAT WE'VE HEARD IN COUNCIL MEETINGS AND OTHERWISE EXPRESSING A GREATER DESIRE FOR MORE OVERSIGHT OF THOSE AERONAUTICAL USES, TOUCHING UPON THINGS EVEN SUCH AS RUNWAY USE, HANGARS, ETC. WHICH ARE ALL VERY CLEARLY AERONAUTICAL FUNCTIONS. SO UPON ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION BACK ON APRIL 30TH REGARDING THIS CHAPTER 164 CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS, WE DID HAVE A CONFLICT ASSESSMENT MEETING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY MANAGER BACK ON MAY 26TH, AND HAD A HIGH LEVEL DISCUSSION ABOUT DELINEATING BETWEEN THESE USES AND SEEKING CLARITY IN IN WHAT THAT REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS MIGHT LOOK LIKE MOVING FORWARD. BECAUSE AS YOU ALL RECALL, LAST YEAR, LAST SUMMER, THERE WAS A RESOLUTION THE CITY HAD ADOPTED. AND THEN THERE THERE WAS A DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT WE COLLABORATED WITH THE CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY ON. AND WE BELIEVE THAT THAT THE LANGUAGE IN THAT ORDINANCE, THOSE DRAFT ORDINANCES, WAS ABANDONED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. HOWEVER, IT'S UNCLEAR TO US, BASED ON SOME COMMENTS, WHETHER OR NOT THE DIRECTION WAS TO STILL BRING EACH SITE PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE AIRPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL, WHICH IS A A CHANGE IN PRACTICE AND WHAT'S HAPPENED TO THE MANY DECADES, THREE DECADES PRIOR, NEARLY THREE DECADES PRIOR, UNDER THE UTILIZATION PLAN PROCESS, WHICH STARTED IN THE LATE 1990S. SO AS PART OF THAT CONFLICT ASSESSMENT MEETING ON MAY 26TH, WE DID DRAFT A PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY, RECOGNIZING IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DELIBERATED BY BOTH BODIES. AND CERTAINLY IT'S AN ORDINANCE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO ADOPT. AND I THINK THAT THAT'S HELPFUL IN HELPING TO DELINEATE WHAT WE VIEW IS SORT OF THE FAA BRIGHT, BRIGHT LINE IN THE SAND ABOUT WHAT WHAT AREAS OF AIR ARE OF AERONAUTICAL USE ARE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW. SO WE'RE HERE TODAY IN HOPES OF GAINING CLARITY REGARDING EITHER THAT DRAFT ORDINANCE OR AT A HIGH CONCEPTUAL LEVEL, SO WE CAN CONTINUE DISCUSSION AND WORK TOWARDS RESOLUTION ON DELINEATING THOSE AND CLARITY IN THE PROCESS MOVING FORWARD. WE DO HAVE A PROJECT THAT WE WILL SOON BE SUBMITTING TO THE CITY, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, FOR DRB REVIEW, AND THEN FOR BUILDING PERMITTING THROUGH THE CITY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES. SO ANY DISCUSSION WE HAVE TODAY MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR HELPING TO PROVIDE CLARITY AND GIVE US DIRECTION ON HOW TO PROCEED FORWARD WITH THAT PROJECT AND ALL FUTURE PROJECTS AT THE AIRPORT. SO, SO AS A BASELINE, I GUESS I BRING BACK TO WHAT WE THINK THE CURRENT PROCESS IS WHY YOU'VE ABANDONED THAT RESOLUTION. I THOUGHT I HEARD THAT SAID THERE WAS A, YOU KNOW, AN OPINION LETTER THAT WAS PRODUCED BY THE LAW FIRM THAT 
          [00:10:02]
WAS BEING UTILIZED BY STAFF TO BE ABLE TO MANAGE THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD. SO I GUESS I'D ASK MR. YOUNG, WHAT IS THE PROCESS WHEN THIS PROJECT COMES TO YOU? WELL, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE PROJECT IS. I DON'T I'LL REPEAT THE SAME THING I SAID IN THE MEETING IN MAY IS WE'RE HAVING A HYPOTHETICAL CONVERSATION, AND IT DEPENDS. I MEAN, AGAIN, YOU GO BACK TO THE CHARTER, THE CODE, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S MEMO. AND SO HYPOTHETICALLY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROJECT IS. SO I'M NOT GOING TO DEAL IN HYPOTHETICALS. ULTIMATELY, I HAVE TO ADMINISTER THE CODE ACCORDING TO THE CHARTER AND THE CODE. AND IN APPRECIATION OF THE ATTORNEY'S MEMO. SO I JUST WAS CONFIRMING WITH ERICA TODAY, WHICH I DID IN THE LAST MEETING, IS THERE'S NOTHING PENDING BEFORE US AT THE MOMENT. AND IT GOES TO THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF IS IT DEFINED IN THE UTILIZATION PLAN, YES OR NO? AND SO TO JUST SAY IT'S A COOKIE CUTTER, IT'LL TAKE THIS PATH. I CAN'T DO THAT EITHER AT THIS TIME. I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S THE SHORT ANSWER TO IT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE PROJECT IN FRONT OF ME. YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THE PROJECT? WELL, THE PROJECT IS ONE EXAMPLE. IT'S IT'S NOT WE'VE NOT YET SUBMITTED IT. I THINK THE THE BIGGER THE MORE IMPORTANT DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THE PROCESS, WHICH WILL IN ALL LIKELIHOOD HAVE TO BE CODIFIED, ADOPTED AND CODIFIED BY BY CITY COUNCIL. SO I KNOW WE PROVIDED A COPY OF THAT DRAFT ORDINANCE. I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE THAT, BUT THE QUESTION WAS, IS WHAT WAS THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING? THE DRAFT ORDINANCE. 
          YOUR CHAIR ASKED ME A QUESTION ABOUT OUR PROCESS ON WHAT IF YOU SUBMITTED IT, WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE, AND I CAN'T ANSWER THAT WITH THE INFORMATION I HAVE. LET ME ASK IT. SO WHAT IF IT WAS A PURELY, YOU KNOW, AERONAUTICAL USE IN TERMS OF AS DEFINED BY THE FAA? AGAIN, OUR CODE ISN'T DEFINED AS AERONAUTICAL OR NON AERONAUTICAL. AND THIS IS BEING PROPOSED. SO I WOULD HAVE TO CONFER WITH THE ATTORNEY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE 2023 LAW SUPERSEDES OR DOES ANYTHING TO THE MEMO THAT WE ALREADY HAVE THAT BECAUSE AGAIN, THERE WAS A PROCESS AND THAT CHANGED AND WE HAVEN'T HAD A SUBMISSION, I WANT TO SAY CHANGE THE MEMO, CREATED SOME QUESTIONS, AND IT'S A FAIR QUESTION, BUT I CAN'T I'M JUST NOT GOING TO TRY TO ANSWER BASED ON THE HYPOTHETICAL. I JUST THAT'S THAT'S AN UNFAIR THING FOR ME TO DO. I WOULD CONFER WITH MY ATTORNEY RESPECTFULLY, IN APPRECIATION OF HIS MEMO AND OUR CODE AND SAY, IF I IF WE APPROVE THIS ADMINISTRATIVELY, AM I FOLLOWING EVERYTHING? DO WE CONCUR OR NOT? AND SO, IN FAIRNESS, I'M NOT TRYING TO DUCK THE QUESTION. I JUST DON'T WANT TO I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK THAT'S WHY THE RESOLUTION THAT WE PROVIDED CREATES THAT KIND OF CLARITY AND GIVES YOU GREAT COMFORT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE DOING EVERYTHING RIGHT IN TERMS OF BOTH THE LOCAL REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS. YEAH. AND THAT WAS WHY I SPECIFICALLY SAID THE TERMS AREN'T DEFINED IN OUR CODE. SO I, I JUST DON'T WANT TO ANSWER BASED ON THAT PART OF THE TERM THAT HASN'T EVEN BEEN BROUGHT INTO THE CODE EXACTLY YET. SO. CHAIR KAVANAGH NO. OVER HERE. I'M SORRY. NO WORRIES. I ONLY HAVE ONE GOOD EAR. I'LL SPEAK VERY LOUDLY. HAVE ONE GOOD EYE. SO I'M NOT. 
          IF I WERE A DOG, THEY'D PUT ME DOWN. SO YOU'RE HALFWAY THERE. SO BASED ON THAT CONFLICT MEETING WE HAD, THERE WAS A FEW QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS THAT THE CITY MADE THAT I THOUGHT WOULD HELP CLARIFY THIS DISCUSSION. ONCE WE WERE HERE, ONE OF THEM WAS A MAP OR SOME KIND OF DIAGRAM IDENTIFYING WHAT THE AERONAUTICAL AND NON AERONAUTICAL USES WERE ON THE AIRPORT AS IT CURRENTLY SITS. AND I THINK I MADE ONE MORE REQUEST THAT I JUST CAN'T REMEMBER. I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD PASS OUT. SO THAT CITY COUNCIL CAN SEE EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE IDENTIFY AERONAUTICAL AND NON-AERONAUTICAL USES. AND TO ADD TO THAT, THAT THE QUESTION WAS, IF YOU HAD TO PICK A PERCENTAGE, WHAT WAS THE PERCENTAGE MENTIONED? ROUGHLY 80 TO 80, 70%. I THOUGHT IT WAS THE DISCUSSION. AND SO THAT WAS WHEN MR. MCCONNELL SAID, YOU COULD HAVE SOMETHING THAT ILLUSTRATED THAT THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR THIS MEETING. I'M NOT I'M ONLY YOU SAID HE WASN'T UNCLEAR. WHAT? I'M NOT ARGUING WITH YOU. BUT WHAT IF HE GOT THOSE NUMBERS? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? WELL, I STILL WOULDN'T KNOW UNTIL I SAW THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT I WAS. I WAS WHERE HE PARAPHRASED. I WAS ANSWERING THE QUESTION. I WERE I WAS ADDING THE EXACT REQUEST THAT WAS MADE WHEN THE DISCUSSION WAS. I STILL COULDN'T ANSWER YOU BASED ON WHAT IT WAS UNTIL I SAW WHAT WAS SUBMITTED. CORRECT. AND THE REASONING BEHIND THE REASONING BEHIND THE QUESTION WAS. I WAS PRETTY ADAMANT ABOUT THIS IS THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A DISTINGUISHING FACTOR BETWEEN AERONAUTICAL AND NON-AERONAUTICAL USES ON THE 
          [00:15:04]
UTILIZATION PLAN, AS SUBMITTED OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS. THAT PLAN HAS ALWAYS DEPICTED BOTH ALL THE USES, ALL THE DEVELOPMENT, ALL THE BUILDINGS. SO THE QUESTION IS WHAT CHANGED? WHY NOW? THE ANSWER WAS WE'VE HEARD COMMENTS AT COUNCIL, RIGHT? NO ORDINANCES HAVE BEEN PASSED. NO POLICIES HAVE CHANGED. ALL MY OPINION DID WAS ANALYZE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LANGUAGE THAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE CODE. WHEN WE PROPOSED THIS AIRPORT ORDINANCE, YOU GUYS WERE THE FIRST ONE TO OBJECT TO IT. SO WERE THE TENANTS. SO THEN COUNCIL MADE A DECISION TO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. AND NOW YOU ALL ARE PROPOSING AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS A LITTLE IRONIC, BUT WE'RE HERE. SO I GUESS WE'RE JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE NEED TO MAKE THIS CHANGE WHEN THE UTILIZATION PLAN HAS ALWAYS DEPICTED ALL USES, WHETHER THEY'RE AERONAUTICAL OR NON AERONAUTICAL. AND TO DATE, COUNCIL HAS NEVER DENIED AN AERONAUTICAL USE PERMIT. SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE. I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE THE NEED FOR CLARITY GOING FORWARD. AND I THINK RIGHT NOW, I THINK IF WE POLLED EVERY MEMBER IN THIS ROOM ON BOTH SIDES, WE MIGHT GET DIFFERENT VARIATIONS OF WHAT WE THINK WE'RE DEALING WITH. SO AGAIN, I THINK IT'S USEFUL TO CODIFY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF AERONAUTICAL NON-AERONAUTICAL AND MIXED USE. SO AGAIN THERE'S CLARITY. AND WE DON'T JUST SPEND HOURS DEBATING SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, EVERY EVERY YEAR WHEN WE COME TO YOU WITH, WITH A PROJECT THAT'S COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. AND IT'S ALSO, I THINK IN SOME CASES, A REFER TO OUR ATTORNEYS IN TERMS OF NOT LEGAL. OKAY. CAN I, CAN I ADD, I BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A SUMMARY OF WHAT OCCURRED IN THE CITY, HAD AN ORDINANCE CHANGE TO THEIR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WAS BEING PROPOSED. YOU PRESENTED IT TO US, AND WE HAD CONCERNS THAT THERE WERE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS BEING ASKED OF THE FAA THAT HAD NEVER BEEN ASKED OF BEFORE, AND THAT'S WHY THIS MODIFICATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED. I THINK ALL OF THE THE PROCESSES BEFORE US HAS WAS IN QUESTION. HOW WAS THE CITY GOING TO BE REVIEWING PROJECTS GOING FORWARD? AND I THINK OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DID EXPLAIN WHAT THE PROCESS WAS. AND THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT OR THIS THIS LANGUAGE THAT'S BEING PRESENTED BY THE N A OR OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IS TRYING TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS CITY COUNCIL HAD. BUT THEN CLEARLY MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT IS AERONAUTICAL AND WHAT LIMITED AUTHORITY, IF ANY, THE CITY HAS FOR REVIEWING THOSE PARTICULAR USES. AND WHAT IS NON-AERONAUTICAL? AND THE CITY WOULD BE REVIEWING THEM JUST LIKE THEY DO ANY OTHER PROJECT GOING FORWARD. WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE OR DOCUMENT THE PROCESS THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST IN TERMS OF REVIEWING USES, SO THAT'S WHY IT'S BEING PRESENTED TO YOU ALL TODAY, SO THAT THERE'S NO CONFUSION ON ANYBODY'S PART. WE THINK IT'S A POSITIVE FOR BOTH PARTIES FROM THAT STANDPOINT. SO I WILL SAY, MATTHEW, I, MR. MCCONNELL, WE WE BELIEVE A LOT HAS CHANGED. A LOT HAS CHANGED. THERE'S QUESTIONS. THERE WAS A UTILIZATION PLAN PROCESS THAT REALLY IS ONLY DEFINED BY 2 OR 3 SENTENCES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY CODE. THERE'S NOT MUCH DETAIL SURROUNDING IT. AND I THINK WE BOTH WOULD AGREE THAT IT WOULD. IT IT'S AMBIGUOUS, ALTHOUGH FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS IT WAS PRACTICED SUCCESSFULLY, AND THERE WERE MANY UTILIZATION PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY. HOWEVER, I STARTED THE MEETING DESCRIBING WHAT HAS CHANGED AND A LOT OF QUESTIONS WERE RAISED. AND, AND, AND I THINK WE CERTAINLY AGREE THAT MORE, MORE DETAIL CAN BE PROVIDED ON THOSE UTILIZATION PLANS. WE WERE SIMPLY FOLLOWING THE PATTERN OF WHAT HAD BEEN DONE IN THE PAST. I THINK COUNCILMAN KRAMER HAS COMMENTED ON THAT. AND I SAID, YEAH, OKAY. I SEE WHAT HE'S SAYING HERE. WE WE'VE SINCE IN A DRAFT, WE'VE UPDATED, WE'VE NOT SUBMITTED TO THE CITY, BUT IN A DRAFT THAT WE'VE RECENTLY UPDATED FOR THE AIR BOARD, THE UTILIZATION PLAN IS NOW BASED ON A MORE ENGINEERING LIKE SET OF PLAN DOCUMENTS THAT YOU WOULD SEE. SO I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO ALL THE EXACTING, DETAILED HISTORY, BUT I MEAN, OVER THE PAST YEAR, A LOT HAS TAKEN PLACE THAT HAS GIVEN US A LACK OF CERTAINTY AS TO HOW THESE PROJECTS ARE TO MOVE FORWARD. SO ALL WE'RE DOING IS SEEKING CLARITY IN THAT PROCESS. 
          [00:20:04]
SO I THINK EVEN TAKING THIS STEP IN GOOD FAITH OF DRAFTING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE, I DON'T FIND IT IRONIC. I FIND IT AS A, YOU KNOW, AN OLIVE BRANCH AS TO HOW TO HOW CAN WE WORK TOGETHER ON, ON DELINEATING A CLEAR PATH FORWARD. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE ALL WANT HERE. SO I AM CURIOUS WHAT UNDERSTANDING THAT I DON'T KNOW WHETHER MEMBERS OF COUNCIL HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THIS. IT WAS PROVIDED TO THE CITY BACK MAY 21ST. I BELIEVE IF YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT OR IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON IT, WE CAN HAVE ANY AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION YOU SEE FIT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE SEEKING TODAY. I UNDERSTAND, AND JUST TO CLARIFY MY COMMENT, THE IRONY COMMENT IS THIS ORDINANCE DOES CHANGE THE PROCESS. THAT WAS WHERE I WAS COMING FROM BECAUSE THE PROCESS HAS REMAINED AS IS. OUR ORDINANCES WASN'T APPROVED. 
          THEREFORE THE PROCESS DIDN'T CHANGE. BUT YOUR PROPOSAL WOULD CHANGE THE PROCESS. SO THAT'S I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WHERE MY COMMENT WAS COMING FROM. AND I THINK THE REASON IS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS EVER AGAIN WITH CLARITY FOR BOTH SIDES, SO WE CAN HAVE REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS FOR ANY A AND TENANT SLASH BUSINESS SPONSOR PROJECTS, AND ALL HAVE THE PREDICTABILITY OF KNOWING WHAT THOSE PROCESSES ARE, WHICH WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE TODAY. 
          SO THAT'S OUR POSITION. I LOOK FORWARD TO FEEDBACK FROM THE CITY COUNCIL IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT RESONATES WITH YOU OR NOT FROM THAT STANDPOINT. AND AGAIN, I THINK WE WOULD TALK ABOUT A SIMILAR TRACK TO THIS IN TERMS OF, AGAIN, WE COULD WORK AGAIN, ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS, THAT WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH WITH, AGAIN, FINE TUNING THIS RESOLUTION TO PRESENT IT TO YOU AT A FUTURE DATE. YES. I'M LOOKING AT THIS IN REGARDS TO RECEIVE. YOU ARE CLEARING THE DECKS TO EXPAND THE RUNWAY. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THAT'S THE CASE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO DO? EXPAND THE RUNWAY? YES. NO, NO. IN FACT, THE BOARD HAD A RECENT DISCUSSION ABOUT POTENTIALLY EXTENDING RUNWAY 1432 AND SAID IT'S NOT PRACTICAL. IT DOESN'T RESULT IN ANY MEASURABLE BENEFITS. AND SO THEY CONCLUDED THEY'RE NOT IN FAVOR OF IT AT THIS TIME. OKAY. SO SECTION 58-691, MAXIM DECLARED. YOU HAVE IT ALL LINED OUT. THAT HAS BECAUSE YOU'VE DECIDED NOT TO EXTEND THAT RUNWAY. THAT'S WHY THAT GOT LINED OUT. I'LL DEFER TO MR. KIRSCH ON THAT. THERE IS SOME. LET ME EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAVING A PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE AND WHAT THE CITY CITY'S AUTHORITY IS. WE STRUCK THAT BECAUSE UNDER FEDERAL LAW, THE CITY HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DICTATE TO THE N A WHETHER THEY EXPAND THE RUNWAY OR NOT. AS MR. ROZANSKI HAS MADE CLEAR THAT THE AUTHORITY HAS NO PLANS TO DO SO, BUT CAN'T BE IN THE POSITION WHERE THE CITY IS ASSERTING AUTHORITY, WHICH IT DOESN'T HAVE UNDER FEDERAL LAW. OKAY. SO THAT IF I'M TO THE SHORT, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT FEASIBLE. I THINK MR. ROSANSKY SAID IT JUST WASN'T GOING TO WORK. SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S LINED OUT ON PAGE EIGHT OF NINE. 
          NO, NO, IT'S LINED OUT BECAUSE WHAT YOUR CURRENT ORDINANCE SAYS IS IT REGULATES WHETHER OR NOT NAA CAN PURSUE A RUNWAY EXTENSION. SO WE STRUCK IT BECAUSE WE DON'T BELIEVE THE CITY HAS THAT AUTHORITY. NOW, AS A MATTER OF FACT, RIGHT NOW THE N A HAS NO INTENTIONS OF EXPANDING THE RUNWAY. BUT WE CAN'T BE IN A POSITION WHERE THE CITY HAS VETO POWER OVER THAT. SHOULD WE CHANGE OUR MINDS IN A YEAR OR 30 YEARS? OKAY. SECONDLY, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR NON-AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT. NON AERONAUTICAL PROJECT MEANS A NEW PRINCIPAL BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT IS GREATER THAN 1000FT OF NON-AERONAUTICAL PROPERTY. AND THEN THERE'S DISCUSSION OF A THEATER. WHAT? I'M SORT OF CONFUSED. AND THAT'S ON PAGE TWO OF THE RED. THANK YOU. IN THE BACK THAT PAGE TWO. UNDER ORDINANCE 2026, THAT WHOLE CONVERSATION. PAGE TWO, PAGE TWO RIGHT HERE. ON THE ORDINANCE DOWN HERE. COULD YOU SAY AGAIN THE PART THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, PLEASE? THERE'S COMMENTARY HERE. NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY, I MEAN, THE CITY'S AIRPORT AUTHORITY, NON AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT AND OR NON AERONAUTICAL PROJECT MEANS A NEW PRINCIPAL BUILDING OR 
          [00:25:01]
STRUCTURE OR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT IS GREATER THAN 1000FT■!S. THE ON THE AIRPORT NON-AERONAUTICAL PROPERTY. I DON'T SEE A REFERENCE TO THEATER. I'M SORRY. 
          IT'S THE LAST DEFINITION. YEAH, I SEE IT. DEFINITION FOR NON OR NOT. PROPOSED DEFINITION FOR NON-AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT. RIGHT. ARE YOU PLANNING A BROADCASTING STUDIO? OH NO. 
          OKAY, SO NO TOWER. I SEE NO TOWER. BUT THAT WAS THAT. BUT THAT THAT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING AS A NON AERONAUTICAL PROJECT THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE LAND USE AUTHORITY OVER. 
          OKAY. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S IN FRONT OF ME AND THEN NO GOOD QUESTIONS. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. WHAT YOUR COMMENT ON PAGE EIGHT. WHAT OTHER USES SIMILAR TO AND NO MORE INTENSE THAN CURRENTLY IN ENUMERATED. PAGE EIGHT. MAYBE THE SECOND PAGE EIGHT. 
          THE RED LINES. PAGE EIGHT. IT WOULD BE IT HAS THE PAGE. YEAH. SORRY. SAY THAT AGAIN, PLEASE. 
          COUNCILOR SCHULTZ, AS I'M READING IT. NONE OF THE CONDITIONAL USES WOULD BE PERMITTED TO HAVE DIRECT INGRESS EGRESS ON AIRPORT PULLING, EXCEPT THOSE THAT CURRENTLY EXIST. SO YOU'RE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT YOU'RE NOT LOOKING FOR ANY INGRESS EGRESS OTHER THAN WHAT IS ALREADY THERE. IS THAT AM I CORRECT? CORRECT. SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ENTRANCES TO THE AIRPORT. THERE'S ALSO A SEPARATE ENTRANCE TO THE HUMANE SOCIETY FROM AIRPORT ROAD THAT ALREADY EXISTS TODAY. BUT THE HUMANE SOCIETY IS ON AIRPORT PROPERTY. BUT YOU'RE NOT LOOKING TO FOR ANY MORE. NO, NO THANK YOU. THAT'S MY QUESTION. 
          OKAY. I JUST HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT? BECAUSE THE THE RED WORDING IS THE NEW LANGUAGE, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT. ANYTHING IN BLACK ALREADY EXISTS IN YOUR CODE. YES. SO JUST SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE A DISTINCTION WITH WHAT WAS ADDED VERSUS WHAT IS EXISTING IN THE CODE. AND THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME TEXT THAT IS STRUCK THROUGH, AND THEN THERE'S SOME NEWLY PROPOSED TEXT IN IN RED. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO. I WAS GOING TO ASK I KNOW HE'S IN CHARGE. I'M SORRY. YES. SORRY. THAT WAS I'M GOING TO TRY TO REMEMBER NOT TO ASK HER AGAIN. SO JUST ON A VERY HIGH LEVEL, WHEN I READ THROUGH THIS, WHEN IT WAS INITIALLY SENT AND I TALKED WITH MR. MCCONNELL ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT, I TOOK IT ON FAITH, ON GOOD FAITH THAT THESE WERE REALLY FAA DEFINITIONS. PERHAPS THAT WASN'T WHY I DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF RESEARCHING THAT MYSELF, BUT I'M WONDERING IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I SHOULD HAVE, OR WE SHOULD HAVE HAD CONSENSUS FOR WHEN WE WANTED. WE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH A COPY OF THOSE DEFINITIONS RIGHT NOW, IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. IT'S JUST ONE PAGE HAS ALL THE DEFINITIONS ON IT THAT WOULD BE JUST ADDED TO THE RECORD WOULD BE GREAT. JUST, YOU KNOW, TRUST, BUT VERIFY, RIGHT? TRUST AND VERIFY. ANYWAY, THE THE ORDINANCE, EXCUSE ME, HAS BEEN DRAFTED SO THAT WHATEVER THE FAA DEFINITIONS ARE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE RELYING ON. THAT WAS MY ASSUMPTION AND THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE. BECAUSE CLAIRE IS WHAT WE WANTED FROM THE OUTSET, SINCE AT LEAST SINCE I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL, LIKE WHAT'S WHAT HAVE THE SIMILAR DEFINITIONS AND LET'S NAME THE DOCUMENTS PROPER NAME AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS IS WHAT MR. MCCONNELL HAS SAID. HE NEVER WANTED TO WRITE IT AN ORDINANCE. WE FORCED HIM TO DO THAT AS A COUNCIL. OUR CONTENTION HAS ALWAYS BEEN, AND WITH GREAT DIRECTION FROM OUR ATTORNEY, THAT THERE IS AMBIGUITY AND WE DO NEED CONSISTENCY, CONSISTENCY THROUGH ALL THE VARIOUS GOVERNMENTAL DOCUMENTS, AND WE HAVE NOT HAD THAT IN THE PAST. SO HAVING SAID THAT, I FIND IT INTERESTING WITH THE FAA DEFINITIONS, LIKE I TOLD MATTHEW, LIKE, SO IT'S THE HUMANE SOCIETY. IT'S LIKE SOLID WASTE, HERTZ RENTAL. THAT'S THE STUFF THAT WE THAT'S NOT AERONAUTICAL. AND ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS AERONAUTICAL. SO I THINK WHAT AND I DON'T WANT TO PICK A SCAB, BUT YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE JET CENTER OR YOU WEREN'T WHEN PEOPLE WERE FUSSING ABOUT THE JET CENTER SAYING, YOU KNOW, IT'S A, IT'S GOT A HOTEL IN IT OR WHATEVER, IT'S LIKE, NO PILOTS HAVE TO SLEEP. THERE'S RULES, THERE'S LAWS ABOUT REST OR WHATEVER IT WAS, OR THE AMENITIES ARE TOO NICE. I KNOW YOU GUYS HEARD THAT SORT OF 
          [00:30:01]
THING. AND YOU'RE LIKE, WELL, DON'T WE WANT BEST IN CLASS? LIKE, I GET THOSE THINGS. I THINK IF WE HAD A DIAGRAM OF WHAT WAS AERONAUTICAL AND NON-AERONAUTICAL, THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE CONCERNED WITH THIS WHOSE HEADS WOULD EXPLODE QUITE HONESTLY. AND. 
          AND MAYBE THEY JUST HAVE TO GET OVER THAT BASED ON FAA LAW, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A HAPPY MEDIUM HERE BETWEEN WHAT'S PROPOSED AND FOR OUR ATTORNEY AND PERHAPS OUR AIRPORT ATTORNEY COULD DIGEST THIS FURTHER. AND THEN AND I'VE READ THROUGH IT A COUPLE TIMES AND I COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION. WOW, IT'S JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING'S AERONAUTICAL. 
          WHICH WOULD WOULD EXCLUDE US TO GO THROUGH OUR PROCESS. BUT WE COULDN'T SAY NO. AND IF I'M WRONG ON THAT, THEN LET ME KNOW. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO CAUSE HEADS TO EXPLODE. IF IF I MAY, CHAIR CAVANAUGH YES, SIR. REAL QUICK, I MADE THE SAME DISTINCTION AT THE FIRST HEARING, AND I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION TO MAKE APPROVAL OF SOMETHING IS DIFFERENT THAN BEING NOTIFIED OF SOMETHING ON A PLAN AND APPROVING THE PLAN. SO LAST I CHECKED, JET CENTER. YOU GUYS DON'T APPROVE BUILDING PERMITS. THAT'S THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, RIGHT, TO BUILD IT. BUT THE UTILIZATION PLAN HAS CLEARLY IDENTIFIED THE CURRENT STRUCTURES AND WHAT'S PROPOSED. AND THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE ASTERISK 0 TO 5 YEARS, 5 TO 10 YEARS, SO ON AND SO FORTH. AND SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF PETER KIRSCH, MR. KIRSCH FEELS DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THE PREEMPTION, BUT I'M UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE PREEMPTION IS THE APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF SOMETHING, BUT NOT BEING NOT BEING PRESENTED TO YOU AS PART OF THE UTILIZATION PLAN, WHICH HAS BEEN PART OF OUR CODE FOR 30 YEARS. FAIR ENOUGH. SO, SO SO SO SO SO IF WE WERE TO PRESENT THIS, WHAT ACTION IS IT JUST FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES THEN THAT YOU GET THIS INFORMATION BASED ON OUR CURRENT CODE OR ON LET'S TALK ABOUT GOING FORWARD. LET'S TALK ABOUT GOING FORWARD. WELL, GOING FORWARD NOTHING'S CHANGED. 
          SO OUR CURRENT CODE WOULD APPLY. AND THE UTILIZATION PLAN HAS ALWAYS BEEN APPROVED BY COUNCIL. 
          BUT IF WE'RE TALKING HYPOTHETICALLY ON YOUR PROPOSAL THEN A LOT WOULD CHANGE. 
          BECAUSE THAT UTILIZATION PLAN, UNLESS I'M WRONG, WOULD ONLY DEPICT 10% OF THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN WILL SHOW EVERYTHING. WELL, WOULDN'T IT? IT. PETER, CAN YOU HELP EXPLAIN THIS A BIT FURTHER, PLEASE? WE TRIED IN THIS DRAFT ORDINANCE TO TO DRAW THE LINE AS BRIGHTLY AND SIMPLY AS WE CAN, GOING IN PART TO MR. MCCONNELL'S QUESTIONS ABOUT REVIEW VERSUS APPROVAL, WE THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE VERY COMPLICATED FOR YOU TO RECEIVE DOCUMENTS OVER WHICH YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY. AND JUST AS INFORMATION WOULD CONFUSE THE PUBLIC AND POTENTIALLY SUCCESSOR CITY COUNCILS. AND SO IT WAS DRAFTED. SO THE UTILIZATION PLAN WILL IDENTIFY THOSE STRUCTURES ON THE AIRPORT OVER WHICH YOU HAVE AUTHORITY. THAT IS, THE NON-AERONAUTICAL FUNCTIONS. AND ANY CHANGES TO THAT PLAN WOULD REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL AND ALL YOUR NORMAL LAND USE APPROVALS. AS TO EVERYTHING ELSE. SINCE YOU HAVE NO JURISDICTION, WE'RE HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT TO YOU, JUST AS WE WOULD TO THE FAA, THE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN JUST FOR INFORMATION, BUT WE TOOK OUT ANY REQUIRED PROCESS FOR THAT BECAUSE ANY PROCESS WOULD SUGGEST THE CITY HAS AUTHORITY OVER THAT, AND THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY OVER THE AERONAUTICAL USES. SO THAT'S WHY WE DREW A BRIGHT LINE. WE COULD TALK ABOUT ALL KINDS OF FUZZY LINES, WHICH I THINK WOULD MAKE THIS WAY MORE COMPLICATED THAN IT IS. BUT GIVEN THAT THE LAW DISTINGUISHES AERONAUTICAL AND NON-AERONAUTICAL USES, RATHER THAN REINVENTING THE WHEEL, HERE, WE. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE USE THE FAA DEFINITION AND WE SAY THE AERONAUTICAL USES ARE OUTSIDE THE CITY'S JURISDICTION FOR ALL PURPOSES, AND NON-AERONAUTICAL ARE INSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY FOR ALL PURPOSES. SO JUST A QUICK QUESTION, BECAUSE ALL PURPOSES, I GUESS JUST SO COUNCIL UNDERSTANDS, LET'S SAY YOU'RE PROPOSING AN AERONAUTICAL USE. ARE YOU STILL REQUIRED TO GET A CITY PERMIT BUILDING PERMIT. BUILDING PERMIT? YES. SO THEN IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ALL REVIEW, RIGHT. BECAUSE THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT STILL REVIEWING THE BUILDING FOR BUILDING PERMIT PURPOSES. THAT'S RIGHT. THIS IS JUST DEALING WITH LAND USE, NOT NOT WITH HEALTH AND SAFETY CODES OR JUST DEALING WITH CITY COUNCIL. NO, JUST DEALING WITH HEALTH WITH WITH WITH LAND USE THAT THE LAW ON, ON HEALTH AND SAFETY CODES IS ALLOWS MUCH MORE CITY CONTROL. AND GENERALLY AIRPORTS ARE SUBJECT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODES, WHETHER IT'S THE THE HEALTH, THE RESTAURANT CODE OR THE ELECTRICAL CODE OR THE PLUMBING CODE. THOSE GENERALLY APPLY ON AIRPORTS. WELL, I GUESS THE DISTINCTION I'M MAKING IS THE ONLY THING THAT THIS PROCESS CHANGES IS WHAT YOU ALL REVIEW. EVERY PERMIT GETS STILL PROCESSED THE SAME. OKAY, SO THEN HYPOTHETICAL, SINCE WE'RE THROWING OUT HYPOTHETICALS. 
          [00:35:12]
THERE'S ALL KINDS OF GREEN SPACE STILL AT THE AIRPORT. IF YOU WANTED TO BUILD HANGARS ON EVERY INCH OF THAT, THEN THAT'S AERONAUTICAL USE, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND BY THE WAY, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO HANGARS. I NEVER OWNED A PLANE, BUT I OWNED A BOAT AND I HAD IT COVERED ALL THE TIME BECAUSE WHY WOULDN'T YOU? SO THAT'S THE CRUX OF WHAT WE'RE WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE DISCUSSING AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION FROM, FROM THAT STANDPOINT. SO AGAIN, WE AGAIN, YES, THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING OUR MASTER PLAN AND HOW HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE 2045 PLAN THAT IS IN CURRENTLY UNDERWAY? AND HOW MANY CONFLICTS DO YOU SEE WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT IS BEING BANDIED ABOUT IN THAT RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS GOING TO BE FURTHER FLESHED OUT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT DONE WITH IT YET? DO YOU SEE MUCH CONFLICT WITH THAT? THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS. WE DID SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE CITY EXPRESSING THOSE CONCERNS, BUT WE DIDN'T GET INTO ANY DETAIL ON THAT. I THINK WE'D BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE CITY STAFF, CITY ATTORNEY ON WORKING THROUGH THOSE ISSUES. OKAY. THANK YOU. WHY NOT COUNCIL? WELL, I MEAN, WE WORK I MEAN, YOU COULD HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION WITH CITY COUNCIL, BUT IN TERMS OF DRAFTING THE LANGUAGE AND WORKING THROUGH THE DETAILS, I THINK FIRST, MOST APPROPRIATE TO START WORKING WITH STAFF AND THE ATTORNEY. BUT YOU IT WAS JUST STATED THAT THIS WOULD ELIMINATE ALL CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT WAS SAID. IT DOESN'T ELIMINATE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. THE CITY HAS JURISDICTION OVER NON AERONAUTICAL FUNCTIONS ON THE AIRPORT. BY DEFINITION. I'M SORRY, BY BY THE DEFINITION THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US, THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF THE FAA. THE AERONAUTICAL USE DEFINITION IS FOR THE FAA IS PER THE FAA. AND THOSE PROJECTS YOU'RE CORRECT WOULD WOULD NOT COME TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THEY WOULD GO THROUGH THE STAFF AND MR. YOUNG TO MANAGE, AS THEY WOULD IN MAKING SURE THAT WE COMPLY WITH ALL THE CODES WITH REGARDS TO BUILDING. SO, MAYOR, I CAN APPRECIATE YOUR STRUGGLE WITH THIS BECAUSE I'VE LOOKED BACK. I DON'T PRETEND TO KNOW ALL THE RECORDS PRIOR TO MY ARRIVAL, BUT GOING BACK BEYOND TEN YEARS AGO, THERE WAS A LOT OF DEBATE AND LOCAL DISCUSSION ABOUT THE RUNWAY EXTENSION IN 2010, AND THEN THE NEXT YEAR THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CUSTOMS BORDER PROTECTION FACILITY, AND I, I CAN'T I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS IN THE MINDS OF MY PREDECESSOR AND PRIOR LEGAL COUNSEL AT THAT TIME, BUT WE DO KNOW THAT THEY WORK CLOSELY WITH CITY STAFF, CITY ATTORNEY, AND THE NAA WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS, BUT WE ALSO KNOW THE CITY ATTORNEYS AT THAT TIME WROTE OPINIONS THAT SAID, THIS IS WE YOU CANNOT OPINE ON THIS. 
          IT'S FEDERALLY PREEMPTED. AND AND THAT WAS THE CASE WITH BOTH THE RUNWAY EXTENSION AND THE CUSTOMS FACILITY. AND IF I RECALL, I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I RECALL STATEMENT THAT YOU, YOU YOU DO HAVE A SAY IN REGARDS TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODES, BUT NOT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY DEVELOP A CUSTOMS BORDER PROTECTION FACILITY. THAT WAS A PRIOR CITY ATTORNEY OPINION, BUT THE NAA IN TRYING TO RESPECT. THE ROLE OF THE CITY AS THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE LANDLORD, THE LOCAL ZONING BODY, THE NAA, I THINK DID COOPERATE IN GOING THROUGH SOME OF THOSE PROCESSES, EVEN THOUGH ARGUABLY THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO. SO I CAN APPRECIATE THE HISTORY HERE AND WHY IT'S, IT'S IT'S A IT'S A CHALLENGE, I THINK, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE LACK OF CLARITY THAT WE'RE NOW DEALING WITH TODAY. SO I ASK A QUESTION. 
          WAIT, I'M SORRY, I JUST WHILE I'M THINKING, DO WE DO WE HAVE A CUSTOMS FACILITY, 24 OVER SEVEN IN THE AIRPORT? NOW, IF A CUSTOMS FACILITY, IT'S SCHEDULED IN ADVANCE BY APPOINTMENT. SO. AND THAT THERE ARE THERE'S REGULAR PUBLISHED HOURS AND THEN THERE'S AFTER HOURS. BUT IT ALL HAS TO BE SCHEDULED IN ADVANCE. AND SO THAT'S THE TSA. CBP, OKAY, THE TSA, THE CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, NOT TSA. WHAT ABOUT TSA? NO, THEY DON'T OPERATE 
          [00:40:03]
THAT FACILITY. TSA IS ONLY REQUIRED IF YOU HAVE SCHEDULED AIRLINE SERVICE. RIGHT. SO IN 2011, TSA WAS DISCUSSED, CORRECT. OR JUST CUSTOMS. IF IF THE AIRPORT HAD AIRLINE SERVICE AT THAT TIME, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TSA. BUT THIS IS FOR A SEPARATE FACILITY. SO ARE YOU SAYING IF YOU GO TO 58 691, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME BECAUSE YOU JUST SAID THE RUNWAYS WERE EXTENDED AND IT WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING AND. THAT WHAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE IN OUR CODE OF 5000FT RUNWAY FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER, THAT THERE WAS A DISPLACED THRESHOLD THAT HAPPENED IN 2011. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THAT EXPANDED THE RUNWAY, THAT THAT, BY DEFINITION WAS A RUNWAY EXTENSION? NOW THE RUNWAY USEFUL RUNWAY LENGTH IS LIMITED BY THOSE DISPLACED THRESHOLDS. AND THE USEFUL RUNWAY LENGTH, OR IS THAT THE DECLARED THOSE ARE DECLARED DISTANCES, WHICH IS VERY TECHNICAL AND CONVOLUTED BECAUSE THERE'S FOUR I BELIEVE, DIFFERENT DECLARED DISTANCES. EIGHT. EIGHT IT HAS TO DO WITH TAKEOFF, DISTANCE. 
          LANDING DISTANCE. TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE. LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE. THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS, BUT WITHIN THE CATEGORY YOU DECLARE DISTANCES. THERE ARE SEVERAL VARIETIES. SO. THIS DECLARED DISTANCE OF WHAT WAS IT, 800FT EACH SIDE. I COULDN'T SITTING HERE I DON'T KNOW THOSE THOSE DAYS ROUGHLY. SOMETHING IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 800 TO 1000FT, I BELIEVE, ON BOTH ENDS. SO THAT CHANGED THE RUNWAY. TO WHAT? WAS IN OUR CODE YEAR AFTER YEAR OF 5000. TO WHAT? WE'D HAVE TO LOOK UP THE RUNWAY DECLARED DISTANCES TO GIVE YOU PRECISE NUMBERS. I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. WELL, IT'S ON YOUR WEBSITE. SO, I MEAN, I WOULD THINK YOU'D I MEAN, THAT'S YOU NEED TO KNOW. YEAH. I JUST DON'T COMMIT IT TO MEMORY. I'M SURE YOU'RE CORRECT. BUT I THINK THE POINT IS FROM A LAND USE REGULATION PERSPECTIVE. 
          PETER, YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE. REGULATIONS AROUND LAND USE OF THE RUNWAY IS AN AERONAUTICAL FUNCTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL AND DECADES OF CASE LAW. UNLESS IT'S WITHIN OUR CODES AND OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. NO, NO, NO. SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT WHAT'S BEEN IN OUR CODE. YOU DID NOT HAVE TO ADHERE TO? CORRECT. BECAUSE THE FAA HAS AUTHORITY OVER OUR LAND CODES AND OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. CORRECT. AND WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN? WELL, IT HAPPENED OVER TIME. IT REALLY STARTED IN THE 1940S. BUT BUT 1980, 82 IS GENERALLY REGARDED AS THE THRESHOLD. WHEN THE COURTS FINALLY DECIDED THAT LOCAL LAND USE AND LOCAL LAND USE JURISDICTION DID NOT EXTEND TO AERONAUTICAL FUNCTIONS. BUT IT'S IT'S EVOLVED OVER TIME AS THE COURTS HAVE MADE THESE DECISIONS. AND I THINK I INTERRUPTED COUNCILMAN SCHULTZ. 
          YEAH. THANK YOU. I WASN'T QUITE DONE. BUT RECENT PRESS REPORTS SHOW THAT AMERICAN AIRLINES IS WANTING TO COME IN GENERAL CARRIER. ARE YOU ANTICIPATING THAT TYPE OF ACTIVITY TO CONTINUE WITH OTHER MAJOR CARRIERS? SO I'LL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT I WAS SOMEWHAT SURPRISED ABOUT THEIR EXPRESSION OF INTEREST. WE LOST MAINLINE BRANDED AIRLINE SERVICE AROUND 2010 DURING THE GREAT RECESSION. WE HAD A REGIONAL AIRLINE IN THE 2016 2017 TIME FRAME, BUT THAT DIDN'T LAST VERY LONG. SO THEY APPROACHED US A COUPLE A FEW MONTHS AGO NOW, LET'S SAY FEBRUARY, MARCH, TIME FRAME, AND JUST WANTED TO COME STOP BY AND THEY TOOK A SITE VISIT. WE DIDN'T HEAR FROM THEM AGAIN. AND THEN JUST WITHIN THE PAST MONTH OR SO MONTH OR TWO, I WOULD SAY THEY EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO REESTABLISH REGULAR 
          [00:45:03]
SERVICE, THREE FLIGHTS A DAY ON REGIONAL JETS THAT COULD OPERATE WITHIN THE RUNWAY. 
          WEIGHT BEARING CAPACITY OF TWO OF WHICH TO CHARLOTTE, I THINK, 2 OR 3 OF WHICH TO CHARLOTTE. 
          IT'S A LITTLE BIT UNCERTAIN YET. WE'VE ASKED FOR DETAILED SCHEDULE. SO WE WE TOOK THEIR LETTER OF INTENT TO THE BOARD IN MAY AND AND GOT THE BOARD'S CONSENSUS TO CONTINUE WORKING ON DUE DILIGENCE AS TO WHAT THEIR SERVICE MIGHT LOOK LIKE STARTING IN DECEMBER OF THIS YEAR. NOW WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE OF OUR FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS, WE CAN'T NECESSARILY WORK WITH ONE AIRLINE AND NOT CONSIDER OTHERS. AND I THINK THAT'S PERHAPS YOUR PRIMARY QUESTION. SO WE HAVE RECEIVED OTHER INQUIRIES. HOWEVER THAT TOO, HOWEVER, ALL BY AIRLINES THAT OPERATE AIRCRAFT, LARGER AIRCRAFT THAT CANNOT USE OUR RUNWAY. THEY WANT TO USE AIRLINE. THEY WANT TO USE. 737 AIRBUS A320, AIRBUS 220 TYPE AIRCRAFT THAT ARE ALL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 150 ZERO ZERO 0 POUNDS MAX TAKEOFF WEIGHT, OR IS IT WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW TO DENY AMERICANS THE TYPE OF PLANES THEY WANT TO COME IN? IF YOU IF YOU IF YOU WANTED TO SAY, WE DON'T REALLY WANT THIS SERVICE HERE, ARE YOU AN AUTHORITY TO DO THAT, OR IS THE FAA GOING TO SAY, NO, YOU MUST DO THIS? CORRECT. WE CANNOT UNREASONABLY DENY THEIR ACCESS USING AIRCRAFT THAT CAN SAFELY USE OUR RUNWAYS. AND IT PARTICULARLY BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THAT TYPE OF SERVICE BEFORE. YEAH. DO YOU HAVE BAGGAGE HANDLING FACILITIES THAT ARE ABLE TO FACILITATE THESE TYPE OF JETS, OR IS THAT ANTICIPATED COMING? WE WE HAD AND WE ACTUALLY REMOVED IT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS COMING BACK. AND WE REPURPOSED THE SPACE FOR ANOTHER FOR PARKING OF SOME OF OUR GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. BUT THAT THAT IS A MINOR, YOU KNOW, REINSTATING OF BAGGAGE. IT'S TSA CAN BRING BACK THE BAGGAGE SCREENING EQUIPMENT. 
          FINDING THE EQUIPMENT IS THE MOST CHALLENGING ASPECT. WE'VE JUST RECENTLY REENGAGED TSA TO DO SOME DUE DILIGENCE. CAN THEY BE BACK IN PLACE WITH EQUIPMENT AND SCREENERS, AND ARE THEY ABLE TO PROCESS FLIGHTS BEGINNING IN DECEMBER? NOW, THE BAGGAGE CONVEYOR SYSTEM IS THE PART I WAS TELLING YOU WE ACTUALLY REMOVED BECAUSE WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS COMING BACK. 
          BUT THERE ARE SIMPLE, RUDIMENTARY SYSTEMS THAT THAT CAN BE PUT BACK INTO PLACE THAT SERVE THE SAME PURPOSE. COULD YOU GIVE PROVIDE JUST A GENERAL SENSE OF HOW MANY OTHER AIRLINES ARE CONTEMPLATING USING THIS, THIS AIRPORT WHOSE AIRCRAFT CAN SAFELY USE THE AIRPORT? YES, SIR. NONE. NONE OTHERS? NONE YET. I THINK THERE ARE A COUPLE OF AIRLINES THAT COULD OFFER A SIMILAR SERVICE, MAYBE TO ONE OF THEIR HUB AIRPORTS THAT OFFER REGIONAL JET SERVICE, BUT WE'VE NOT HEARD FROM THEM YET. DO YOU HAVE ADEQUATE PARKING FOR ALL THIS AIRSIDE AND LANDSIDE? YES. AIRSIDE IS CHALLENGING. LANDSIDE. WE HAVE WE HAVE A LOT OF PARKING AVAILABLE. WE DO PRIMARILY USED FOR RENTAL CARS. BUT THAT CAN BE WE BELIEVE THAT CAN BE ACCOMMODATED. SO YOU WON'T HAVE TO DO SHUTTLES. NO ANCILLARY PROPERTIES. NO. THE AIRSIDE PARKING IS ACTUALLY MORE CHALLENGING. RIGHT. AND WHERE ARE YOU IN IN THAT STAGE OF WHERE YOU WANT TO GO VERSUS WHERE YOU'RE AT? JUST SOME PRELIMINARY PLANNING ABOUT PARKING, 20% PERCENTAGE INCREASE. PERCENTAGE INCREASE. YEAH. FROM WHAT AMERICANS TALK ABOUT THREE FLIGHTS A DAY. I THINK WE WE'VE WE HAVE A ROUGH SKETCH OF A PLAN WE CAN REALLY ONLY ACCOMMODATE RIGHT NOW. ONE SECURE HOLDING AREA, ONE GATE AREA. SO NATURALLY, WE'RE LIMITED IN THE NUMBER OF FLIGHTS THAT COULD BE ACCOMMODATED. AND, YOU KNOW, IT TAKES 60 TO 90 MINUTES TO PROCESS A TURN BY AN AIRLINE. SO THERE ARE SOME NATURAL CONSTRAINTS THERE THAT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO OVERCOME WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT IMPROVEMENT OF FACILITIES. BUT BACK TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT LAND USES. I THINK, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE A TERMINAL LIKE AN AIRLINE TERMINAL IN SUPPORT OFFICES THAT DIRECTLY SUPPORT THE OPERATION OF THE AIRLINE TERMINAL. THOSE ARE, BY FAA DEFINITION, CONSIDERED AERONAUTICAL USE. THEY ARE UNLESS, PETER, IS THERE ANY CLARIFICATION OR. I KNOW SOME OF THAT IS CALLED AIRPORT USE, WHICH IS A FUNNY DEFINITION, BUT AIRPORT USE IS A KIND OF 
          [00:50:04]
AERONAUTICAL USE IS A, I'M SORRY, A KINDER, A KIND OF. SO AIRPORT USE IS YOU HAVE AN OPERATIONS OFFICE, YOU HAVE A SECURITY OFFICE, YOU HAVE AN ID BADGING OFFICE. THOSE ARE IT'S NOT AERONAUTICAL, BUT IT'S A IT'S AN AIRPORT USE THAT SUPPORTS THE AERONAUTICAL USE. 
          DO YOU SEE AMERICAN'S ENDEAVORS THUS FAR IN YOUR CONVERSATIONS? WHEN THEY DID THE ON SITE VISIT, THEN DIDN'T TALK WITH YOU. THEN YOU GOT A LETTER. IF. WELL, THEY THEY THEY, WE DID HEAR FROM THEM BEFORE THEY SUBMITTED THE LETTER. TO BE FAIR, THIS THEY, THEY VISITED, THEY WENT AWAY FOR A WHILE AND THEN THEY CAME BACK. RIGHT. OKAY, SO I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU. ALL RIGHT. 
          THAT THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. AND COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ, WE ARE DOING A STUDY THAT I GUESS WILL BE PRESENTED LATER IN THE YEAR IN TERMS OF TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE FUTURE OF AVIATION AS IT RELATES TO FLORIDA AND SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FROM THAT STANDPOINT. AND THE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT THE THE EV AIRCRAFT, IN TERMS OF WHAT THAT LOOK LIKE IN FIVE, TEN, 15 YEARS IN TERMS OF WHAT KIND OF ACTIVITY WILL BE HERE, NOT JUST ON THE AIRPORT PROPERTY, BUT IN PERHAPS OTHER PLACES. HAVE YOU GOTTEN INTO ANY CONVERSATIONS ON PILOTLESS PLANES COMING IN AND OUT OF THERE? WE'VE HAD NO I'VE NOT AWARE OF ANY DISCUSSIONS FROM THAT STANDPOINT. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S AGAIN, EVERYTHING YOU READ IN TERMS OF AVIATION PRESS, YOU KNOW THAT THAT IS COMING. YOU'RE MARKETING ON THOSE IS FAR MORE ADVANCED THAN THE PRACTICAL REALITY OF IT. FAIR ENOUGH. BUT IF AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS. THIS CITY, THE CITY COUNCIL AT THAT TIME WOULD THEY WOULD HAVE NO SAY IN ANY OF THAT. IS THAT ACCURATE? IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION, THE ANSWER TO WHICH IS NOT KNOWN. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THE FAA AND THE REGULATORS ARE TRYING TO DETERMINE IS, HOW DO THESE NEW GENERATION OF AIRCRAFT BE GET HOW ARE THEY INTEGRATED INTO THE NATIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM? SO THERE HASN'T YET BEEN A DECISION BY THE FAA AS TO HOW THEY WILL BE TREATED, AND IN MAY POSSIBLY HAVE TO DO WITH HOW BIG THEY ARE. I MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE, DRONES RIGHT NOW ARE NOT CONSIDERED AN AERONAUTICAL USE. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, HOW CAN THAT BE? WELL, WE HAVE AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT. BUT THE THE ARGUMENT IS THEY DON'T NEED RUNWAYS. THAT'S THE FAA'S POSITION BECAUSE THEY CAN GO WHEREVER. NOW, THERE ARE A WHOLE BUNCH OF REALLY INTERESTING PROBLEMS ABOUT DRONES AND LAND USE, REGULATION OF DRONES. BUT BY AND LARGE, LAND USE REGULATION OF DRONES IS LARGELY NOT PREEMPTED TODAY. AAM THESE NEW PILOTLESS AIRCRAFT NOT QUITE CLEAR HOW THE FAA IS GOING TO BE HANDLING THEM. AND NEEDLESS TO SAY WHETHER THEY'RE TREATED MORE LIKE DRONES OR MORE LIKE TRADITIONAL AIRCRAFT IS A IS A DEBATE THAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW IN WASHINGTON. SO WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, BUT WOULD YOU ANTICIPATE THAT A COMMUTER THAT SOMEBODY WOULD LANDED, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A PILOTLESS DRONE, TAKE SOMEBODY TO A SPECIFIC LOCATION SOMEWHERE? LOOK, THERE ARE A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT USE CASES. ONE, ONE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT'S THE KIND OF USE CASE THAT'S MORE LIKELY IN NAPLES AS SOMEBODY LANDS AT OR S W AND THEY TAKE ONE OF THESE PLANES TO THEIR BACKYARD. YES. IF THEY'RE ALLOWED TO LAND IN THEIR BACKYARD UNDER LOCAL ZONING. RIGHT. THERE ARE OTHER USE CASES THAT TAKE PEOPLE FROM AN AIRPORT TO THE MIDDLE OF A CITY LIKE NEW YORK OR CHICAGO OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS ALL I WAS GOING TO SAY SPECULATIVE WAY IN THE FUTURE, BUT THESE PLANES ARE BEING TEST FLOWN TODAY. I KNOW THAT. AND AND SO, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE LOTS OF DIFFERENT THEORIES AS TO HOW THEY'RE GOING TO OPERATE. AND WE JUST DON'T KNOW. BUT BUT BUT IN CONTRAST TO OUR PROPOSAL AND WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AT THE AIRPORT, MANY LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ARE ADOPTING LAND USE REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THESE IN CASE THE FAA DECIDES IT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE LANDING AND TAKING OFF OF THEM AND NOT TREAT IT AS AERONAUTICAL. SO WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER RIGHT NOW, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY A VERY HOT TOPIC THROUGHOUT FLORIDA AND THE WHOLE UNITED STATES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN'T IF THEY DON'T WANT THEM TO LAND ON THE CUL DE SAC AT THE END, AT THE END OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA, THAT'S SORT OF WHERE I WAS GOING. BUT BUT THAT'S SOMETHING TOTALLY OUTSIDE THE AUTHORITY OF THE OF THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, UNLESS IN FACT THEY LAND AT THE AIRPORT, THEN IT'S A DIFFERENT MATTER. IN JUST TWO YEARS FOR MEMBERS OF THIS BODY AREN'T GOING TO BE HERE AGAIN. I MEAN, IT'S ELECTION AND THERE'S GOING TO BE FOUR PEOPLE THAT WON'T BE HERE. AIRPORTS CONSTANTLY, THERE'S ENORMOUS PRESSURE. YOU KNOW, THEY MIGHT BE, OH, I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE ONE OF THE THERE'S ENORMOUS PRESSURE TO GET THESE AIRCRAFT INTO THE SYSTEM IN TIME FOR THE OLYMPICS IN LOS ANGELES, IF YOU ASK ME. I THINK THAT'S TOO OPTIMISTIC. BUT BUT THERE IS A LOT OF PRESSURE. THE. UNDER CURRENT TECHNOLOGY, THE ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT BEING DEVELOPED, THE PILOTED ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT HAVE A RANGE OF 100, 150 MILES. AND FAA MANDATES OPERATIONALLY THAT 
          [00:55:06]
YOU HAVE SOME MARGIN OF RESERVE FOR SAFETY AND AN ALTERNATE AIRPORT. RIGHT. IT MAKES GOOD SENSE. SO NATURALLY, THE THE EARLY THE EARLY BUSINESS CASES FOR THESE TYPE OF AIRCRAFT ARE IN LOS ANGELES AND MIAMI AND MAYBE TAMPA OR ORLANDO. EVENTUALLY. I THINK IF THE TECHNOLOGY EVOLVED, BATTERY TECHNOLOGY, PARTICULARLY, THEN, YOU KNOW, WE WE MIGHT BE WE'RE THEN THAT'S WHEN WE MIGHT START TO SEE INTEREST FOR THAT SORT OF THING HERE. RIGHT NOW, THOUGH, IT'S A VERY NOVEL IDEA, REALLY ONLY APPLICABLE, I THINK, IN DENSE URBAN MARKETS BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE A YOUNG MAN AND YOU'RE RUNNING THE AIRPORT AT THE PACE OF CHANGE. I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE HAVE SOME SORT OF REMEDY, EITHER TO FACILITATE THAT. YEAH. THANK YOU. I'D JUST LIKE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD WHICHEVER WAY WE'RE GOING, DEALING WITH REAL STUFF RIGHT NOW. OBVIOUSLY, FROM THESE DEFINITIONS, REGULATIONS 85474 FROM DECEMBER 8TH, 2023, THEY IT'S CLEAR THAT AS FAR AS THE FAA IS CONCERNED. WE DON'T HAVE MUCH TO DO WITH MUCH OF WHAT YOU DO. I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT I'D SAID IT EARLIER. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THROUGH OUR. AS WE LOOK AT AMENDING THE LEASE MOVING FORWARD, THAT WHATEVER EXISTS IN HERE, WHATEVER, WHATEVER THE NEXUS IS BETWEEN WHAT EXISTS IN THIS ORDINANCE AND WHAT OUR CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY MANAGER BRING TO THE TABLE WITH YOUR REPRESENTATIVES, THAT THIS CAN GETS KICKED DOWN THE ROAD. AND AND ALL OF THIS CAN START TO BECOME SOLVED AND, AND COHERENT. AND, AND WE CAN FIND THE THINGS WE HAVE IN COMMON FIRST. THAT'S, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN. FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, ANY OTHER. YES, MISS MAYOR. DOES THE AIRPORT MAINTAIN THAT THE VOLUNTARY PART 139 CERTIFICATION MAKES IT EASIER FOR THE AIRPORT TO ACCOMMODATE SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL PASSENGER OPERATIONS? IT'S A REGULATORY REQUISITE, SO IF THE AIRLINE HAD APPROACHED US, IN FACT, THEY ASKED US, DO YOU HAVE CURRENTLY HAVE A 139 CERTIFICATE? DO YOU WANT TO DESCRIBE THAT FOR THE PUBLIC? SURE. IT'S A CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATION PART 139 THAT AN AIRPORT MUST HAVE AND MAINTAIN IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE SCHEDULED AIRLINE SERVICE AIRPORT THAT A PUBLIC AIRPORT THAT DOESN'T HAVE A 139 CERTIFICATE IS IS SIMPLY CONSIDERED A GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, WHICH THERE STILL ARE STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS FOR. 
          THAT'S ACTUALLY WHERE THE STATE LICENSING STEPS IN. IF THERE'S NOT A PART 139 CERTIFICATE, THEN GENERALLY THE STATE WILL LICENSE THE AIRPORT. BUT IN TERMS OF DOES IT DOES IT MAKE IT EASIER? I, I DON'T I DON'T THINK SO, BECAUSE ANY AIRPORT COULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO BECOME CERTIFICATED AS FROM AN OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT, HOW DOES IT LOOK? OH, IT'S A, IT'S A MUCH HIGHER LEVEL OF SAFETY PROVIDED FOR THE AIRCRAFT USING THE AIRPORT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU HAVE AIRLINE SERVICE. SO IT'S REALLY A SAFETY PROTOCOL THAT WE WOULD WANT TO KEEP HERE FROM THAT STANDPOINT. AND AGAIN, WHY IT'S ATTRACTIVE TO SCHEDULED CARRIERS TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE LANDING AT AN AIRPORT THAT HAS THAT CERTIFICATION. BUT I DON'T THINK AIRLINES DON'T GO AROUND THE COUNTRY AND SAY, WELL, WHICH AIRPORT HAS THIS 139 CERTIFICATE? THAT'S WHERE WE WANT TO GO. IT'S IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THE AIRLINE EXPRESS INTEREST, AND IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THE AIRPORT TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO BECOME CERTIFICATED. SO HAVE YEAH. SO HAVE THE AIR FORCE, THE RESILIENCY AT THE AIRPORT, IMPROVEMENTS LIKE THE UPGRADED LIGHTING SYSTEM AND THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS MEASURES AND THE REVISED APPROACH PROCEDURES IN THE HIGHER ALTITUDE HOLDING PATTERNS INCREASED THE AIRPORT'S ABILITY TO SUPPORT COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 
          I BELIEVE IT, IT HEIGHTENS. IT INCREASES OUR ABILITY TO BE PREPARED FOR AND RESUME OPERATIONS BEFORE AND AFTER A STORM. BUT DO ARE THOSE THINGS NEEDED FOR COMMERCIAL TO COME INTO THE NAPLES AIRPORT? I MEAN, YOU NEED RUNWAY LIGHTS AND NAVIGATION AIDS FOR THE. BUT THE UPGRADED LIGHTING. NO, THAT'S EXCLUSIVELY FOR RESILIENCY TO BE BETTER, BETTER PREPARED AND REDUCE OUR OUR LOSSES. AFTER A STORM, THE ELEVATED RUNWAY LIGHTS. YOU 
          [01:00:01]
KNOW, WE HAVE 1100 RUNWAY AND TAXIWAY LIGHTS OUT THERE, AND EVERY ONE OF THEM IS THREE, $400 A PIECE. SO THEY GET THAT SALT WATER INUNDATION. AND THAT'S, THAT'S A BIG EXPENSE. 
          HAS THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY DISCUSSED BY PHONE SURVEY THE CURRENT THIS YOU JUST SAID SOMETHING ABOUT A SURVEY. ARE YOU CONDUCTING A SURVEY ABOUT COMMERCIAL. WE ARE. IT'LL BE PRESENTED AT THE JUNE MEETING. AND WHAT'S THAT CALLED. IT'S JUST A PUBLIC SENTIMENT SURVEY REGARDING RETURN OF AIRLINE SERVICE TO NAPLES. AND WHO'S DOING THAT? A THIRD PARTY, A REPUTABLE NATIONAL POLLING FIRM. I'M AMERICAN PULSE. I'M JUST ASKING THESE QUESTIONS JUST SO I HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING. AND I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO CONTINUE THIS DIALOG. BUT HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO THE 164 PROCESS FOR THE AIRPORT? I'M SORRY, HOW DOES YOUR LINE OF QUESTIONING. I'M I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO GO THIS WAY, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO RELATE TO YOU IN TERMS OF WHAT YOUR QUESTIONS HAVE TO DO RELATES TO THIS, AND I'M NOT SURE WHY THIS RELATES TO THE 164 PROCESS. AND THE ONLY WAY I CAN RELATE IT TO THE 164 PROCESS IS THE FACT THAT THE. AND I'LL ASK MY QUESTION AT THE END TO MR. KIRSCH, BUT DOES THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY AGREE THAT THE 500 ZERO FOOT RUNWAY DECLARED DISTANCE LIMITATIONS ARE AMONG THE MOST IMPORTANT REMAINING CONSTRAINTS ON COMMERCIAL AIRPORT AIR SERVICE? WELL, THERE AREN'T THERE ARE TODAY. NO, NO. SORRY. THANK YOU. THERE ARE TODAY NO LEGAL CONSTRAINTS ON THE LENGTH OF THAT RUNWAY. THERE MAY BE PRACTICAL CONSTRAINTS, BUT THERE ARE NONE. TODAY, THE CITY ORDINANCE THAT PURPORTS TO PUT A LIMITATION IS NOT VALID. WHAT IS VALID? THE CURRENT RUNWAY. WHAT'S WHAT'S ON THE GROUND TODAY? WHAT'S THE CURRENT RUNWAY? I DON'T I DON'T KNOW ALL THE ENGINEERING STATISTICS OF HOW MUCH PAVEMENT THERE IS AND WHAT THE THE TORAH AND TODA AND EL DIA AND ALL THE OTHER MEASUREMENTS, RUNWAY LENGTH ARE, I DON'T KNOW. SO IN 2011, WHEN WE INCREASED THE DISPLACED THRESHOLD, WHICH BECAME PART OF THE RUNWAY, LET'S, LET'S MAKE SURE WE USE THE LANGUAGE CORRECTLY HERE. YES, THE RUNWAY, THE RUNWAY IS THE PAVEMENT ON THE GROUND. OKAY. NORMALLY AN AIRCRAFT IS ALLOWED TO USE ALL THAT PAVEMENT. OCCASIONALLY AN AIRPORT WILL SAY FOR VARIOUS GOOD ENGINEERING REASONS, NO, YOU CAN'T USE ALL THAT PAVEMENT. YOU CAN ONLY USE SOME OF THAT PAVEMENT. MAYBE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE A WEIGHT CAPACITY, MAYBE BECAUSE OF OBSTRUCTIONS THAT WOULD BE UNSAFE. ALL KINDS OF SAFETY REASONS. IF A PILOT CANNOT USE THE RUNWAY, THEN THE RUNWAY HAS WHAT ARE CALLED DISPLACED THRESHOLDS, THE THRESHOLD MEANING NOT THE END OF THE RUNWAY, BUT SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE END OF THE RUNWAY. NOW, WHERE THAT DISPLACED THRESHOLD IS, IS A FUNCTION OF THE GEOGRAPHY AND THE OTHER SAFETY ELEMENTS AT THAT PARTICULAR SITE. THE THRESHOLD MAY BE DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES, ONE END OR ANOTHER. FOR EXAMPLE, MAYBE YOU CAN TAKE OFF FROM THE VERY END OF ONE END OF THE RUNWAY, BUT NOT AT THE END. MAYBE YOU HAVE TO BE ANOTHER 20, 30, 100FT IN. OKAY. AND THOSE ARE DIFFERENT FROM LANDING AND TAKING OFF. 
          AND SO WHEN YOU SAY AN AIRPORT HAS A RUNWAY, HAS A DISPLACED THRESHOLD, WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT YOU NEED TO LOOK UP EXACTLY WHAT THE VARIOUS DISTANCES ARE THAT AN AIRCRAFT CAN USE ON THE RUNWAY, AND THE REMAINING PAVEMENT IS SIMPLY THERE FOR SAFETY PURPOSES. IT CAN'T BE USED FOR LANDING OR TAKING OFF, DEPENDING ON WHICH THRESHOLD IS BEING DISPLACED. 
          SO IT'S A FAIRLY TECHNICAL ISSUE. BUT THE POINT BEING THIS, THIS MAIN RUNWAY AT THIS AIRPORT HAS DISPLACED THRESHOLDS. THAT IS, THERE IS MORE PAVEMENT ON THE GROUND THAN CAN BE USED ON A REGULAR BASIS FOR LANDING AND TAKING OFF. COULD THAT CHANGE OVER TIME? OF COURSE, IT COULD CHANGE OVER TIME. I'M NOT GOING TO PREDICT SOME YEARS FROM NOW, AND I DON'T KNOW. AND MAYBE, CHRIS, YOU DO KNOW AS TO WHAT THE BASES WERE FOR THE FAA, WHICH IS THE AGENCY THAT MAKES THAT DECISION. WHEN THE DECISION WAS MADE TO DISPLACE THE THRESHOLD, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TECHNICAL BASIS WAS AT THAT TIME, I PRESUME. I MEAN, IT HAS TO BE SAFETY BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY BASIS, THE FAA SAFETY, THAT'S THE ONLY BASIS THE FAA IS ALLOWED TO USE FOR DISPLACED THRESHOLDS. SO. THAT GOES TO THE QUESTION OF YOU MENTIONED 115 ZERO ZERO 0 POUNDS IS CAN YOU IS THAT THE WEIGHT THAT. NO. SO IF I COULD JUST TO ILLUSTRATE PETER'S POINT ABOUT THE LENGTH OF PAVEMENT ON THE GROUND VERSUS THE DIFFERENT DECLARED DISTANCES, BECAUSE I FOUND THE DATA, YOU KNOW, THERE'S 6600FT OF PAVEMENT LENGTH ON RUNWAY 523. SOME OF THE DISTANCES ARE 5800FT. SOME OF THE DECLARED 
          [01:05:08]
DISTANCES ARE 5000FT. IS IT CLEAR? AS CLEAR AS MUD NOW? OH, AND IT VARIES BETWEEN TAKEOFF AND LANDING. AND IT DOESN'T. IT ALL HAS TO DO WITH SAFETY AND THE CLEAR. THE APPROACH, THE AVAILABILITY OF APPROACHES WITH LACK OF. WITH NO OBSTRUCTIONS, FREE AND CLEAR. MEETING THE FAA STANDARDS FOR APPROACHES THAT GO OUT OFF THE END OF EACH RUNWAY END. SO IT IS VERY COMPLEX AND CONFUSING, BUT THERE'S 6600FT OF PAVEMENT. THERE ARE SOME DECLARED DISTANCES THAT ARE 5800FT, AND OTHERS THAT ARE 5000FT SEPARATE. BUT EQUALLY IMPORTANT IS THE RUNWAY WEIGHT BEARING CAPACITY, RIGHT? SO. THIS TOO IS CONFUSING. THE RUNWAYS ARE ACTUALLY STRONGER THAN 7500 0 POUNDS. THE WEIGHT LIMIT IS 75,000 POUNDS. THE RUNWAYS ARE STRONGER, BUT THE TAXIWAYS AND THE PARKING APRONS ARE NOT. TAXIWAYS AND PARKING APRONS. 
          TAXIWAYS AND PARKING APRONS ARE NOT STRONGER. SO THE FAA ALLOWS US TO MAINTAIN THAT 7500 0 POUND RESTRICTION TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND THE UTILITY OF THOSE OTHER PAVEMENTS FOR WHICH THEY HAVE MADE SOME INVESTMENT IN, THROUGH THROUGH GRANTS. AND THERE'S A FEDERAL SHARE STATE SHARE AND A LOCAL SHARE FOR EACH GRANT GENERALLY. SO. THANK YOU. SO THE RUNWAY STRONGER THAN 75,000 POUNDS, BUT THE TAXIWAY AND PARKING APRONS AREN'T. IS THE AIRPORT ABLE TO MAKE THE TAXIWAYS AND PARKING APRONS STRONGER? WOULD THAT BE WITHIN YOUR ALLOWED ABILITY BY THE FAA SO THAT THEN YOU WOULD INCREASE THE 75,000 POUNDS TO SOME BIGGER NUMBER? I POTENTIALLY, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S EVER BEEN DISCUSSED TO MY KNOWLEDGE. AND THAT'S NOT PART OF ANY OF OUR PLANS THAT WE HAVE UNDER THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT THAT YOU GET. AND I'M STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ALL THIS, LIKE WHAT'S POSSIBLE, WHAT'S NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THIS PROPOSED WORDING. WHAT A FUTURE IN A BOARD BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT DECISION. AND THEN THEY JUST NEED FAA APPROVAL AND THEY'RE DONE. NO, IT WOULD IT WOULD BE QUITE A PROCESS. AND I THINK PETER CAN SHED SOME LIGHT ON ON THE PROCESS, BUT IT WOULD BE A LENGTHY PROCESS TO MAKE THAT CHANGE, POTENTIALLY REQUIRING SOME ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. THE THE RUNWAYS, TAXIWAYS, APRONS ARE ALL AERONAUTICAL FUNCTIONS AT THE AIRPORT. SO THEY'RE SUBJECT TO FAA REGULATION, FAA SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. SO WHETHER WHEN HOW THE AUTHORITY WOULD INCREASE THE WEIGHT LIMIT ON A PARTICULAR PIECE OF PAVEMENT WOULD BE A CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE AUTHORITY AND THE FAA AND YES, A COMPLICATED APPROVAL PROCESS. THE FAA DOESN'T LIKE TO PAY FOR PAVEMENT JUST FOR THE FUN OF IT. AND SO THEY WOULD NEED TO KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME NEED FOR THAT. AND THE FAA HAS NEVER FOUND THAT THERE IS A NEED AT THIS AIRPORT FOR MORE INTENSE PAVEMENT. IF IF YOU WERE AN AIR FORCE BASE, IT WOULD BE A VERY DIFFERENT STORY, OF COURSE, BUT GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE TRAFFIC HERE, THE FAA HAS MADE THE DECISION THAT FOR SAFETY REASONS, IT'S ADEQUATE FOR THE TAXIWAYS AND APRONS TO HAVE A WEIGHT LIMIT OF 75,000 POUNDS. YEAH, I GET THAT. I'M JUST QUESTIONING THE POSSIBILITIES AND THE FUTURE THAT IF A FUTURE, A BOARD WANTED TO AND THEY COULD CONVINCE THE FAA IT WAS REASONABLE AND THERE WAS A NEED FOR IT, THEY COULD. YES. I MEAN, ALL ALL THOSE HYPOTHETICALS COME TOGETHER. YES. THAT THAT THAT COULD BE POSSIBLE, IF I MAY. AND THAT WOULD. I JUST I UNDERSTAND WHY SOMEBODY IN THE FUTURE MIGHT WANT TO DO THAT. DOES THAT ALLOW FOR BIGGER. WELL THAT'S THAT COMMERCIAL JETS. THAT'S A HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER. HERE'S THE REASON. IF AN AIRCRAFT OPERATOR WANTS TO OPERATE AT AN AIRPORT, HE OR SHE IS GOING TO LOOK AT A COUPLE OF THINGS. HOW LONG IS THE RUNWAY? OKAY. HOW MUCH SPACE DO THEY HAVE? AND SECONDLY, THEY WILL LOOK AT AVAILABLE FACILITIES AND THEY'LL LOOK AT WEIGHT LIMIT THE LENGTH OF THE RUNWAY, LIMITS YOU FROM EVER BEING ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE LARGEST AIRCRAFT BECAUSE THEY NEED MORE THAN 5000FT OR 5800FT, AND OBVIOUSLY THE WEIGHT LIMIT AS WELL. SO EVEN IF THE AUTHORITY WERE SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, AGAIN, HYPOTHETICALLY, TO, TO GET THE FUNDING TO INCREASE THE 
          [01:10:03]
WEIGHT LIMIT ON THE TAXIWAYS AND APRONS, THEY'D HAVE TO SHOW THAT THERE ARE, IN FACT, ARE AIRCRAFT THAT COULD USE THAT AND THAT THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH OF THOSE AIRCRAFT TO JUSTIFY. 
          THE FAA WILL NOT ALLOW AN AIRPORT TO SPEND MONEY TO IMPROVE A RUNWAY FOR ONE AIRCRAFT A YEAR, OR FOR TWO AIRCRAFT A YEAR. AND GENERALLY, THE STANDARD FOR MOST OF THESE IS 500 AIRCRAFT A YEAR. THAT IS, IF THE AIRPORT CONTEMPLATES RECEIVING 500 AIRCRAFT A YEAR AT A PARTICULAR WEIGHT OR A PARTICULAR SIZE, THEN THE FAA WILL CONSIDER LOOKING AT CHANGES TO THE GEOMETRY OF THE OF THE RUNWAYS AND TAXIWAYS TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE AIRCRAFT. 
          OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER OH WAIT, I WASN'T FINISHED, HE ANSWERED. HE WENT INTO MINE. YEAH, I WAS JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW UP BECAUSE I'VE HAD TROUBLE IN THE PAST AND NOW UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WEIGHT LIMIT AND THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF IT, HOW IT PLAYED INTO THE OPERATION OF THE AIRPORT AND WHY IT MATTERED FOR FUTURE USE. SO I WOULD JUST JUST TO FINALIZE YOUR POINT IN THIS DISCUSSION, PETER, MAYBE YOU EXPLAIN IT BETTER, BUT FOR PURPOSES OF OUR DISCUSSION TODAY, LAND USE AND FEDERAL PREEMPTION, I THINK I MEAN, CLEARLY TAXIWAYS AND RUNWAYS AND APRONS ARE AERONAUTICAL SAFETY FUNCTIONS AND USES. THAT WOULD BE PART OF THIS PREEMPTION ISSUE THAT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THANK YOU. 
          HE HAS A QUESTION ON THE SAME. JUST TO FOLLOW UP. SO THE STAGE ONE BAN, BECAUSE WHEN YOU FIRST LOOK AT IT FROM 99, THAT TALKS ABOUT 7500 0 POUNDS, THAT WOULD THAT WOULD BECOME IRRELEVANT IN THIS CASE IF, HYPOTHETICALLY, A FUTURE BOARD WANTED TO IMPROVE AND THE FAA ALLOWED IT AND ALL THOSE. THE CONFLUENCE OF EVENTS CAME TOGETHER. AND YOU COULD BEEF UP THOSE AREAS THAT CURRENTLY CANNOT HANDLE MORE THAN THAT WEIGHT. WE'RE MIXING LOTS OF APPLES AND LOTS OF ORANGES HERE. STAGE ONE IS A NOISE CERTIFICATION. STAGE ONE AIRCRAFT ARE BANNED IN THE UNITED STATES. STAGE TWO AIRCRAFT ARE BANNED IN THE UNITED STATES. WE WERE THE FIRST AIRPORT IN THE COUNTRY TO BAN STAGE ONE AIRCRAFT. WE WERE THE FIRST AND ONLY AIRCRAFT AIRPORT IN THE COUNTRY TO BAN STAGE TWO AIRCRAFT, STAGE THREE AIRCRAFT. THERE'S SOME OF THEM LEFT, BUT THEY'RE BECOMING LESS AND LESS COMMON, AND STAGE FOUR AND STAGE FIVE ARE THE MOST COMMON. SO THE RESTRICTION ON STAGE ONE IS ALREADY IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST. THE ONLY REASON I'M BRINGING UP IS JUST BECAUSE OF THAT. I THINK THERE'S BECAUSE WHEN YOU WHEN YOU READ THAT THE LANGUAGE ABOUT IT, HISTORICALLY, IT, IT PUTS IN THERE 700 0 POUNDS. AND SO ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT'S IRRELEVANT. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. OKAY. THANKS, MADAM. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. SO. HAVE YOU CONDUCTED OR RELIED UPON THE CONSERVATION OR THE ENVIRONMENTAL STORMWATER, WILDLIFE, THE NOISE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT STUDIES IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CURRENT POTENTIAL GROWTH. WITH AMERICAN AIRLINES? I THINK THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THREE FLIGHTS A DAY, BUT TO IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THEM, WE WOULD WANT TO GO TO 500 OR THE FAA WOULD WANT THEM TO GO TO 500 IF WE ARE GOING TO. YES. NO, PLEASE. NO. WELL, I'M JUST ASKING. I'M JUST ASKING IF YOU'RE. BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE CHANGES TO ME ARE CHANGES THAT COULD COULD TAKE AWAY THE PROTECTION MECHANISMS THAT THE CITY HAS IN PLACE WITHIN THEIR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE MEAT. 
          THANK YOU. NEITHER THE CITY NOR THE AUTHORITY HAS THE POWER TO DENY ACCESS TO AMERICAN AIRLINES. NEITHER OF US DOES. SO IF IF TODAY AMERICAN AIRLINES WANTED TO START OPERATING, THEY COULD OPERATE. NOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF PRACTICAL THINGS THAT THEY CAME TODAY BECAUSE TSA ISN'T HERE YET TODAY. AND AND THE BAGGAGE SYSTEM ISN'T YET BUILT. BUT BUT WE CANNOT DENY ACCESS. AND THEREFORE THERE'S NO ACTION BY THE AUTHORITY THAT THAT CONTROLS WHETHER THEY CAN ACCESS THE AIRPORT OR NOT. DO THEY HAVE THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS? DOES THE AIRPORT HAVE THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND THE SAFETY AND THE SECURITY TOOLS THAT ALLOW THEM TO OPERATE UNDER FEDERAL LAW? THEN WE MUST ALLOW THEM, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY I'M ASKING THESE QUESTIONS. BUT I GUESS MY MY POINT IS I UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS. BUT BUT AMERICAN SERVICE HERE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT EITHER OF US HAVE AUTHORITY TO DENY. I DON'T NOT INTERESTED IN DENYING THEM. I'M INTERESTED IN FOLLOWING OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE GROWTH EXPECTATIONS FROM OUR COMMUNITY WHO OWN THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHO WE ENJOY A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE N, A, A, 
          [01:15:03]
AND THOSE FLYING IN AND OUT, AND HOW THEY IMPACT THE RESIDENTS WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN. SO I CAN ONLY ADD THAT NOT MATERIAL TO THE COMP PLAN, BUT THE AIRPORT. WE DID AN ANALYSIS LAST YEAR OF OUR THEORETICAL CAPACITY. SO AS YOU STATED EARLIER, MAYOR, OR WE HAD ABOUT 125,000 TAKEOFFS AND LANDINGS LAST YEAR. OUR THEORETICAL CAPACITY, AND THERE ARE SOME VARIABLES, RANGES FROM ABOUT 140 TO 155,000 TAKEOFFS AND LANDINGS PER YEAR. AND THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS THAT PLAY INTO THAT. THE GREATER THE PROPORTION OF JET ACTIVITY, THE LOWER THE NUMBER. SO WE'RE WITHIN ABOUT 1,520% OF THE AIRPORT'S MAXIMUM CAPACITY AS IT IS TODAY. MOSTLY, OF COURSE, WHICH HAPPENS IN SEASON, RIGHT. 
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
          IT'S A WILDLIFE CONCERN. THERE ARE DRAINAGE ISSUES. THERE'S A LOT OF MUNICIPAL TYPE GARBAGE BURIED, AND IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS. BUT BUT I, I WANT TO BE CLEAR, BUT IN TERMS OF I THINK LONGER TERM, IT ONCE THAT PROPERTY IS REMEDIATED AND GRADED, IT COULD BE USED FOR AERONAUTICAL USE. YES. BUT CAN I, CAN I JUST COUNCIL MEMBER HAS BEEN VERY PATIENT AND I'M JUST THIS ONE LAST QUESTION AND IT'S ABOUT THE MIXED USE. YOU MENTIONED MIXED USE IN THIS BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY WE'RE GETTING AN ORDINANCE THAT'S CHANGING. WHAT'S THE MIXED USE? LET ME READ THE DEFINITION FROM THE PAGE. WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. DO WE HAND OUT THE YES, YES YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU KNOW, I KNOW, I'M SORRY. 
          I KNOW WHERE I'M GOING. IS THAT NOT THE QUESTION? I APOLOGIZE. WHAT'S THE MIXED USE AREA THAT THIS THAT THERE ISN'T A MIXED USE AREA. OKAY. IT IS A CHARACTERISTIC OF A PARTICULAR LAND USE. RIGHT. THE PARTICULAR BUILDING, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT MAY HAVE BOTH AERONAUTICAL AND NON-AERONAUTICAL USES WITHIN THE SAME STRUCTURE. AND THAT'S IDENTIFIED ON OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAPS. I DON'T KNOW THAT MISTER ROSANSKY OR THE BOARD, DO YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S IDENTIFIED AS A MIXED USE ON YOUR OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAPS BECAUSE IT'S PART OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? NO, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S SPECIFIED IN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND WE HAVEN'T IDENTIFIED MIXED USES IN THE PAST. BUT THIS IS AN FAA DEFINITION THAT WE BELIEVE WILL HELP PROVIDE CLARITY MOVING FORWARD. WE'RE NOT LOOKING BACK. WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD. AND THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE BEHIND THIS IS TO CREATE CLARITY AND DEFINITION. SO AGAIN, WE, YOU KNOW, CAN GO FORWARD WITH WITH AN ACTION PLAN THAT MAKES YOUR LIFE EASIER AND YOU FEEL PROTECTED. AND WE RUN AN EFFICIENT AND SAFE AIRPORT. I HAVE MAJOR ISSUES WITH WHAT YOU'VE PRESENTED, AND UNLESS YOU CAN GIVE ME A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHY THESE WOULD NEED TO BE CHANGED, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE COMING BEFORE. LET ME SEE IF I CAN EXPLAIN CONCISELY HERE. THE LAW IS WHAT THE LAW IS, AND RIGHT NOW YOUR CODE HAS BOTH PROVISIONS THAT ARE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND THEREFORE ARE INVALID. IT HAS OTHER PROVISIONS THAT ARE AMBIGUOUS. AND WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME DEBATING WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL'S ROLE IS WITH RESPECT TO LANGUAGE IN YOUR COMP PLAN OR IN THE UTILIZATION PLAN OR IN THE CODE. THAT'S AMBIGUOUS. THE PURPOSE HERE IS TO MAKE CRYSTAL CLEAR WHAT HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A LOT OF CONVERSATION BY CITY COUNCIL, AND THE AUTHORITY AS TO WHERE THE LINE IS DRAWN, RATHER THAN HAVING CONTINUED DISPUTE OVER WHERE THE LINE IS DRAWN. WELL, 
          [01:20:05]
WE ARE PROPOSING HERE IS TO BE ABSOLUTELY BRIGHT LINE, CRYSTAL CLEAR WHEN IT COMES TO AERONAUTICAL USES AS DEFINED BY THE FAA, MIXED USES AND AIRPORT PURPOSES AS DEFINED BY THE FAA. 
          THE CITY HAS NO LAND USE AUTHORITY, AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAW. AS TO NON-AERONAUTICAL USES, THE CITY HAS WHATEVER LAND USE CONTROL IT WISHES TO HAVE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROPOSAL IS, AGAIN, BECAUSE WE'RE IN A PART OF CHAPTER 164 PROCESS IS TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE OVER WHERE THE LINE IS DRAWN BETWEEN CITY AUTHORITY AND NO AUTHORITY. SO IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE SEEKING HERE. NOW, WE COULD TALK ABOUT WHETHER THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE NEEDS SOME TWEAKING, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THAT. BUT THE INTENT HERE IS TO DRAW A BRIGHT LINE BETWEEN WHERE CITY HAS AUTHORITY AND WHERE IT DOESN'T. TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR, THE CITY HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER THE AERONAUTICAL AIRPORT PURPOSE AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT THE AIRPORT. AND I THINK THAT'S, BY DEFINITION PURPOSES. AND THAT'S WHAT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME. WHAT IS CONCERNING TO ME IS IF WE OPEN UP, CHANGE THAT, LEASE, THE FAA THEN CAN TAKE AUTHORITY OVER OUR LAND USES. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT. 
          YOU'RE SAYING TO ME THAT THE FAA CONTROLS OUR LAND USES OR OUR ABILITY TO CONTROL OUR LAND USES THROUGH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. LET LET'S BE PRECISE HERE. FEDERAL LAW. THE FAA IS SIMPLY THE REGULATOR. FEDERAL LAW SAYS THAT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS DO NOT HAVE ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROL OVER AERONAUTICAL FUNCTIONS OF THE AIRPORT. BY DEFINITION, THAT'S CORRECT. AND IT'S IMPORTANT WE BELIEVE SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS REPEATEDLY, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO COME TO YOU REPEATEDLY AND ASK FOR, FOR, FOR YOUR REVIEW AND HAVE DEBATES ABOUT THIS THAT WE PUT, AS YOU SAY, BY DEFINITION, WE PUT THAT INTO THE CITY CODE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT YOU AGREE THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT JURISDICTION. WELL, I DISAGREE WITH YOU, AND I GUESS A COURT WILL HAVE TO DECIDE THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. 
          WE'RE HOPING TO AVOID THAT. NOW I GET IT. IT ALL MAKES SENSE RIGHT NOW. THIS ALL MAKES SENSE NOW, MADAM MAYOR, AGAIN, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, MAYBE YOU CAN COMPOSE YOUR THOUGHTS AND WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU. BUT AGAIN, AGAIN, COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN HAS BEEN VERY GRACIOUS AND SHE'S GOT SOME QUESTIONS. AND I FEEL IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE HER ON THE FLOOR. SO THANK YOU. MY I'M GOING TO CONCENTRATE A LITTLE BIT ON VOLUME AT THE AIRPORT AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME, AND I'M PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THE FLIGHT SCHOOLS. NOW. CHRIS, I DON'T KNOW WHERE I GOT THIS FROM. I LIKE TO THINK I WAS AT ONE OF YOUR MEETINGS, BUT HOW MANY TOUCH AND GOES WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOU HAVE ON A DAILY BASIS AT THE AIRPORT? BECAUSE MY NOTE SAYS ANYWHERE BETWEEN 15 AND 20,000, IS THAT ON AN ANNUALIZED BASIS, AN ANNUALIZED RECOLLECTION, BUT IT VARIES IN SEASON. THERE ARE FEWER TOUCH AND GOES BECAUSE OF THE JET ACTIVITY. IN THE SUMMER MONTHS, THERE ARE MORE TOUCH AND GOES. REPEAT THAT. SO DURING THE BUSIER MONTHS OF JET ACTIVITY IN SEASON, THERE'S LESS FLIGHT TRAINING ACTIVITY THAT TAKES PLACE. DOES IT GO ELSEWHERE? SOMETIMES, BUT THAT'S ON THEIR OWN ACCORD. NOT BECAUSE WE DIRECT THEM. WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE THE LAWFUL ABILITY TO DO THAT DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS WHEN THERE'S LESS JET ACTIVITY. YOU GO OUT THERE TODAY AND YOU'D SEE A LOT MORE FLIGHT TRAINING, TOUCH AND GOES THAN YOU WOULD THE REST OF THE YEAR. SO IF WE MOVE THE FLIGHT SCHOOLS, SAY OUT TO IMMOKALEE, WOULD THAT FROM THE PERCEPTION OF THOSE OF US THAT FEEL THAT THERE'S TREMENDOUS VOLUME AT THE AIRPORT, WOULD THAT SHOW AN APPRECIABLE DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF VOLUME? HOW WOULD WE MOVE THE FLIGHT SCHOOLS? PARDON ME? HOW WOULD WE MOVE THE FLIGHT SCHOOLS TO THE I'M SORRY, OUT TO IMMOKALEE. HOW HOW DO YOU OH, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S JUST BEEN A THOUGHT OF MINE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THAT IF WE IF WE COULD MOVE THEM, MAYBE WE CAN GIVE YOU SOME. CAN WE CAN WE GET AN OPINION ON THAT? IS THAT A POSSIBILITY? I MEAN, FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, IT CREATE MORE CAPACITY FOR MORE JET OPERATIONS. EXACTLY. YEAH. BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE LAWFUL NEITHER THE CITY NOR THE NEA HAVE THE LAWFUL ABILITY TO TELL A FLIGHT SCHOOL AIRCRAFT. THEY CAN'T USE THOSE RUNWAYS SO LONG AS THEIR AIRCRAFT AND CAN SAFELY OR SAFELY QUALIFIED TO MEET THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE 
          [01:25:04]
RUNWAY AND THE PILOTS ARE QUALIFIED, ETC. BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, PALM BEACH COUNTY HAS BEEN TRYING FOR 30 YEARS TO MOVE FLIGHT TRAINING OUT OF PARTICULAR LANTANA AIRPORT OUT TO PAHOKEE. AND WE KNOW, WITH NO INSULT INTENDED TO PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN PAHOKEE, IT'S NOT PARTICULARLY NEAR ANYTHING, AND THE COUNTY HAS TRIED TO INCENTIVIZE FLIGHT SCHOOLS TO MOVE OUT THERE. THEY'VE TRIED TO PAY, THEY'VE TRIED TO CAJOLE. THEY'VE TRIED TO MAKE LIFE MISERABLE FOR THEM AT THE AT THE OTHER AIRPORTS. THEY'VE NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL. AND THAT'S PART OF THE CHALLENGE. I MEAN, COULD YOU IN THEORY, SURE. BUT BUT TRYING TO FIND A WAY THAT YOU COULD INCENTIVIZE THE FLIGHT SCHOOLS TO SAY, I'D LOVE TO BE IN IMMOKALEE INSTEAD OF IN NAPLES IS HARD FOR THE VERY PRACTICAL REASON THAT THE NAPLES AIRPORT IS IN A REALLY ATTRACTIVE LOCATION. AND WHEN YOU FINISH DOING YOUR FLIGHT TRAINING, YOU CAN GO TO DINNER. 
          AND I'M NOT I'M NOT MAKING FUN OF IT. IT'S THERE'S A REASON PEOPLE CHOOSE TO DO FLIGHT TRAINING HERE. AND I APPRECIATE THIS, THESE THOROUGH ANSWERS BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS SOME THIS IS A WHAT IS NOW GOING TO BE DECLARED A MYTH THAT, IN FACT, IF WE COULD MOVE THE FLIGHT SCHOOLS, THAT IN FACT, THAT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE RELATIVE TO DAILY VOLUME. SO THANK YOU. DO WE KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE OTHER POINT IS, IS THERE ARE FLIGHT SCHOOLS THAT ARE NOT DOMICILED HERE THAT DO THE TOUCH AND GO? OH, SURE. SO AGAIN, YEAH, WE CALL THEM REGULARLY. YEAH, YEAH. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU FERNANDA. EXCUSE ME, VICE MAYOR. 
          THANK YOU. JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. SO I NEED TO SPEND MORE TIME UNDERSTANDING THE WORDING AND THE DEFINITIONS AND WHAT THINGS MEAN. THE DEFINITIONS THAT THE FAA APPLIES. DO THEY HAVE A LIST OF EXAMPLES THAT WE CAN SEE? YES. AND IF YOU GO TO THAT PARTICULAR CITATION THAT'S THE PAGE ON THE FEDERAL REGISTER. IT'S ABOUT A PAGE AND A HALF OF EXAMPLES IF YOU WANT TO PULL IT DOWN. OKAY, AWESOME. I'LL DO THAT. BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT AERONAUTICAL USE. SO A QUESTION, ARE THERE ANCILLARY THINGS THAT REALLY AREN'T AERONAUTICAL USE, BUT THEY ARE IN THE BUILDING WITH AERONAUTICAL USE. SO THAT'S WHERE MIXED USE COMES INTO BEING. SO THAT'S THAT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION. AND YES IS THE ANSWER. I'M THINKING OF AN EXAMPLE IS THE TERMINAL ON NORTH ROAD, WHERE OBVIOUSLY PASSENGERS ARE COMING IN AND OUT AND YOU'VE GOT BAGGAGE, SO YOU'VE GOT THAT. BUT YOU ALSO HAVE THE RENTAL CAR OPERATION, WHICH IS LARGELY FOR INSURANCE PURPOSES, WHERE PEOPLE ARE IN A CAR WRECK AND GO RENT A CAR THAT'S NOT REALLY NEEDED TO OPERATE THE AIRPORT, BUT IT'S IN THE SAME BUILDING. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. AND THAT AND THAT'S WHERE THE AIRPORT PURPOSE CATEGORY COMES IN. THAT IS THE WHAT THE FAA ASKS IS, DOES FIRST THEY ASK, DOES THIS PARTICULAR USE HAVE TO BE LOCATED AT THE AIRPORT? WELL, RENTAL CARS ARE NOT IS THE PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OF THIS USE TO SERVE AIRPORT CUSTOMERS, AIRPORT OPERATORS. AND THE ANSWER IS PROBABLY YES FOR THE RENTAL CARS. NOW, IN THE CASE OF NAPLES, MAYBE THE ANSWER IS NO BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY DRIVING TO THE AIRPORT AND USING THE RENTAL CAR RATHER THAN FLYING IN. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. IT'S IT'S A COMBINATION OF THE TWO. SO IF, IF, IF AIRCRAFT OPERATORS AND AIRCRAFT PASSENGERS ARE USING THE RENTAL CAR, THEN THAT'S CONSIDERED TO BE AIRPORT PURPOSE BECAUSE IT'S A SERVICE FOR USERS OF THE AIRPORT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? AND IT GETS A LITTLE FUZZY WHEN YOU GET TO THINGS LIKE, LIKE RESTAURANTS AND, AND RENTAL CARS. BUT THE FAA MULTIPLE USES. YEAH, INDEED. YEAH. PEOPLE COMING IN ON AN AIRPLANE, BUT THEY ALSO CAN BE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THAT'S RIGHT. AND BIGGER AIRPORT. THAT'S THAT'S LESS LIKELY PEOPLE DON'T DRIVE TO, TO SE IN ORDER TO RENT A CAR. MAYBE THEY DO HERE, BUT BUT THE FAA TAKES THE POSITION THAT IF THERE IS A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE LOCATED IN AN AIRPORT TERMINAL, THEN IT IS DESIGNED BECAUSE IT'S IN THE AIRPORT TERMINAL TO SERVE AIRPORT PASSENGERS. THAT THAT THAT'S THEIR VIEW. ALL RIGHT. AND TO FOLLOW UP ON THE COMMENT ABOUT CAPACITY, CHRIS, I THINK YOU SAID WE HAD 125,000 FLIGHTS A YEAR, ROUGHLY, BUT THE CAPACITY WAS CALCULATED AS 145 TO 155,000 140 TO 155,000. CORRECT. I THINK I'VE HEARD YOU SAY BEFORE THAT DURING SEASON, WE'RE BASICALLY ALMOST AT CAPACITY. YEAH. THERE ARE DAYS THAT WE ARE AT OR BEYOND CAPACITY, BUT IT'S DAYS IT'S PERHAPS TWO DOZEN DAYS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, WHICH ARE ALL IN SEASON. BUT THOSE ARE THE DAYS THAT WE ALL GET THE MOST COMPLAINTS ABOUT. YEAH, 
          [01:30:04]
IT'S THANKSGIVING, CHRISTMAS, NEW YEAR'S, PRESIDENT'S DAY, EASTER, MLK, TO A LESSER EXTENT, SIMILAR TO COUNCILOR PENMAN'S COMMENT ABOUT DISPELLING MYTHS ON THOSE BUSY DAYS, THERE'S NOT MUCH MORE TRAFFIC YOU COULD HANDLE. THERE'S NOWHERE FOR THE PLANES. THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH ROOM FOR THEM TO LAND AND TAKE OFF OR PARK. CORRECT. AND, YOU KNOW, THIS PAST YEAR, WE'VE STARTED TO SEE THE EFFECT OF SOME OF THE HIGH END DESTINATIONS THAT ARE OPENING UP NOW, THE VISITATION TO THOSE AND THE CORPORATE EVENTS RELATED TO THOSE. I MEAN, WE'VE SEEN AN INCREASE IN IN CORPORATE TRAVEL BOARD MEETINGS, BUSINESS MEETINGS. WE'RE GOING TO STAY AT SOME OF THESE HIGH END AMENITIES THAT ARE OPENING IN TOWN. YES, DOWN ON THE BEACH AND THE CHRISTMAS NEW YEARS. WE WERE RAZOR THIN TO REACHING OUR PARKING CAPACITY. SO IT MAY BE COUNTERINTUITIVE TO THINK IF YOU ACTUALLY HAD MORE HANGARS OR MORE PARKING SPACE, YOU COULD HAVE FEWER FLIGHTS BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE PEOPLE DOING DROP OFFS LIKE THE FRACTIONAL JETS WHERE THEY COME IN AND DROP OFF, BUT THEY CAN'T STAY, SO THEY HAVE TO LEAVE, AND THEN SOMEBODY ELSE COMES BACK LATER TO PICK THEM UP WHEN THE BOARD MEETING'S OVER. YEAH. 
          FRACTIONALS AND CHARTERS. THEIR BUSINESS MODEL IS PREDICATED ON UTILIZATION, RIGHT? SO THEY THEY DO A LOT OF MOVEMENTS BETWEEN AIRPORTS. SOMETIMES YOU'LL SEE THEY, THEY DROP OFF OR PICK UP IN NAPLES AND THEN THEY GO TO SARASOTA, PALM BEACH, MIAMI, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEIR NEXT REVENUE PAYING FLIGHT IS. OR MAYBE THAT'S WHERE THE PASSENGER, NAPLES, WANTS TO GO. IT'S HARD TO SAY, BUT FOR THE OWNER OPERATORS AND THE CORPORATE FLIGHT DEPARTMENTS, YES, I THINK YOUR STATEMENT IS CORRECT THAT IF THEY HAD A PLACE TO PARK OR HANGAR, THAT THEY WOULD MUCH RATHER DO THAT THAN HAVE TO DROP AND GO SOMEWHERE ELSE, BECAUSE THEN ULTIMATELY THEY HAVE TO COME BACK AND GO AGAIN. DOUBLES THE FLIGHTS, CORRECT? YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANKS. ANY OTHER. SURE. CHAIR. I'M SORRY. YOU FIRST, I MEAN, FIRST OF ALL, IF IF THE AIRPORT DIDN'T WANT AMERICAN TO COME IN, THEY COULD JUST LET THEIR 139 CERTIFICATE EXPIRED, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THEM. YOU COULD FOLLOW THE SAME SAFETY STANDARDS. SO THERE IS AN OPTION TO IF YOU EVER WANT TO NOT DO THAT. SECONDLY, I WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE WAITING LIST FOR RESIDENTS AND ACCESS TO THE AIRPORT. WE HAVE OVER 100 ON THAT LIST. AND HOW IS THAT CALCULATED TO ALL THIS FUTURE GROWTH WITH ALL THIS COMMERCIALIZATION, WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAID ABOUT THE RESORTS, YOU KNOW, WITH ALL THE CORPORATE EVENTS, WHAT'S YOUR FEEL ON THE RESIDENT ACCESS AT THIS POINT IS IT'S BEING DIMINISHED AND IS THERE A CURE FOR THAT? DOES THAT FIT INTO THE THOUGHT PROCESS? TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION, COUNCILMAN CRAWLEY, I DON'T THINK IT'S QUITE ACCURATE TO SAY IF WE JUST LET IT LAPSE AND THEY COULDN'T COME IN, WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO WORK IN GOOD FAITH. I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S AS SIMPLE AS US LETTING THE CERTIFICATE LAPSE, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE WE'VE WE'VE HAD IT IN THE PAST. WE'VE MAINTAINED IT. IT'S NOT NOT PRESENTED AN EXTRAORDINARY BURDEN FOR US TO MAINTAIN. AND IT PROVIDES A HIGHER LEVEL AND STANDARD OF SAFETY. SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD USE AS A WAY TO NOT TO DISALLOW THEM FROM ENTERING THE MARKET. WELL, THE CERTIFICATE, THEY CAN'T THEY CAN'T UTILIZE YOUR AIRPORT. SO I'M JUST WE HAVE THE KEYS. I'M NOT SAYING THAT IN THE PAST. YEAH. SO THAT'S THE CHALLENGE REGARDING ACCESS TO THE AIRPORT FOR FOR RESIDENTS. WE DO HAVE A WAIT LIST. IT'S ROUGHLY 80 NAMES LONG. NOW. IT'S COME DOWN OFF OF THE THE PEAK EXPERIENCE DURING COVID. BUT WE WE HAVE HEALTHY ATTRITION. AND I THINK WE HAVE A WAIT LIST. AND THE WAY IT WORKS GENERALLY IS IF IT'S IN ORDER OF WHO SIGNED UP FOR IT FIRST, IT'S NOT OR ORCHESTRATED BY. DO YOU LIVE IN THE CITY OF NAPLES OR NOT? THAT'S NOT A FACTOR WE CAN CONSIDER WHEN CONSIDERING DEMAND FOR. FOR. FOR USE OF A HANGAR. LIKE ANY GOOD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MANAGER, WHETHER IT BE AN APARTMENT, AN OFFICE, OR AN AIRPORT HANGAR, WE. WE TAKE A DEPOSIT ON THAT WAIT LIST. THAT'S HOW WE KNOW THAT THEY THEY'RE SERIOUS. 
          [01:35:04]
THEIR INTENTIONS ARE REAL. AND THEN THERE'S A PROCEDURE FOR. WHEN THE HANGAR BECOMES AVAILABLE, WE REACH OUT TO THEM AND THEY DECLINE IT. WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT NAME. BUT YOU CAN ONLY DO THAT SO MANY TIMES BEFORE YOUR NAME IS REMOVED FROM THE WAIT LIST. SO I THINK WE STILL HAVE A HEALTHY WAIT LIST. IT'S IT'S DECLINED FROM THE PEAK SEEN DURING COVID. AND IT IS VERY COST OF CONSTRUCTION. I MEAN, THE ONLY REAL SOLUTION TO THAT IS, IS TWOFOLD. IT'S YOU MANAGE RENT AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE USE OF THE HANGAR TO MANAGE DEMAND. THAT'S SUPPLY AND DEMAND UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE. YEAH. WE HAVE TO BE REASONABLE. AND THEN SECONDLY, IS THERE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD MORE HANGARS? I THINK THE THERE IS SOME OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD ADDITIONAL HANGARS. HOWEVER, IT'S VERY LIMITED. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE COULD EVER BUILD ENOUGH HANGARS AT THAT AIRPORT TO ACCOMMODATE ALL THE DEMAND THAT EXISTS. I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE. BUT IF I MAY, BOTH MR. BLANKENSHIP AND MR. CROFT HIT ON THIS SITUATION, THIS QUESTION ABOUT HANGARS, AND I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT HANGARS ARE NOT A BAD THING. 
          THEY'RE A GOOD THING TO REDUCE FLIGHTS. AND THAT'S A MYTH. YOU KNOW, WE'VE I'VE HEARD THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. WE CURRENTLY HAVE SOME RESIDENTS WHO DON'T HAVE A HANGAR, AND THEY HAVE A BEAUTIFUL JET, AND THEY DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THE JET SITTING OVERNIGHT HERE. SO THEY JET COMES AND DROPS OFF THEIR OWNER AND THEN FLIES SOME OTHER CITY TO GO GET INTO ITS HANGAR AND SPEND THE NIGHT OR TWO NIGHTS, ONLY TO RETURN THE NEXT DAY. SO THE AMOUNT OF INS AND OUTS OF THE AIRPORT ARE DOUBLED. AND THIS IS TRUE ALSO FOR THE FRACTIONS. THE FRACTIONS WANT TO FLY WITH FILLED AIRPLANES. NOT NOT EMPTY LEGS. AND EMPTY LEG IS WHERE THEY DROP A PASSENGER OFF AND LEAVE WITHOUT A PASSENGER. THIS IS THE DEATH OF THE FRACTIONALS. 
          THEY NEED TO FLY WITH FILLED LEGS TO MAKE MONEY. SO BETTER FOR THAT JET TO SIT HERE AND WAIT FOR A DAY OR SO TO TAKE ANOTHER PASSENGER ON ITS WAY OUT, THAN IT IS TO LEAVE ON AN EMPTY LEG. SO MORE PARKING, MORE HANGARS WILL REDUCE OVERALL FLIGHTS, REDUCE VOLUME IS MY POINT, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I EXPRESS THAT THE MYTH OF HAVING MORE HANGARS ATTRACTS PEOPLE IS NOT CORRECT. IT ACTUALLY REDUCES VOLUME. THANK YOU, MAY I? YES, SIR. 
          THANK YOU. JUST SPEAKING ON THE ORDINANCE REAL QUICK, I JUST QUICK QUESTION. SO, MR. KIRSCH, YOU SAID, FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S NOT THE CITY IN GENERAL, IT'S CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE BUILDING PERMITS. YOU SAID PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL BUILDING CODE, ALL THAT STUFF WILL STILL BE PROCESSED THE WAY IT IS, WHETHER IT'S AERONAUTICAL OR NON AERONAUTICAL. THAT'S CORRECT. CORRECT. SO WHAT IF THE CITY COUNCIL WAS REPLACING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? WOULD THAT SATISFY FEDERAL. SO LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, ALL OF THOSE THINGS FOR HEALTH SAFETY WERE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL INSTEAD OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT THAT'S YOUR CHOICE. BUT THAT WOULD BE OKAY. AGAIN, THERE'S NO FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF HEALTH AND SAFETY CODES. HOW YOU MAKE THOSE DECISIONS IS YOUR IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. IT'S NONE OF OUR IT'S NOT OUR BUSINESS. OKAY? AS LONG AS YOU MAKE ALL THE BUILDING PERMITS THAT ARE IN THE CITY, GO TO CITY COUNCIL. 
          IS THAT TRUE? YEAH. NO, NO, I'M SAYING IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE THINKING. WELL, I'M ASKING YOU CAN BE LIMITED JUST TO AERONAUTICAL USES. I THINK THE QUESTION YOU RAISED, BOARD MEMBER ARNOLD, IS A REALLY IMPORTANT ONE, WHICH IS THAT IF A LOCAL JURISDICTION ADOPTS A SET OF REGULATIONS ON ANY TOPIC THAT PURPORTS TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST AERONAUTICAL USES, THEN THERE IS A RISK, A VERY SERIOUS RISK THAT WOULD BE PREEMPTED. SO LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE NO BUILDING CODE IN THE ENTIRE CITY EXCEPT FOR THE AIRPORT. THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE PREEMPTED. THAT'S A IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY'S EVER TRIED THAT BEFORE. SO THERE'S NO LAW ON THE SUBJECT. BUT I THINK THAT TO YOUR POINT, MOREOVER, ARNOLD, IS THAT IF THE CITY TAKES ACTION, WHICH IS DESIGNED BY ITS PURPOSE TO INTERFERE WITH THE OPERATION OF THE AIRPORT, THEN THAT'S MORE LIKELY TO BE FOUND PREEMPTED. 
          WE ARE LOOKING, FRANKLY, HERE AT THE LOW HANGING FRUIT. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE AREAS WHERE THE LAW IS CRYSTAL CLEAR AND WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THE DAIS HAVE EXPRESSED SOME CONSIDERABLE INTEREST IN REGULATING. UNDERSTOOD. BUT BUT, FOR EXAMPLE, IF I ADOPTED A REGULATION THAT WAS ALL PERMITS RELATED TO CITY OWNED PROPERTY FOR HEALTH SAFETY WILL COME TO CITY COUNCIL. THAT'S A GENERAL APPLICABLE THING RELATED TO ALL PROPERTY IN THE CITY THAT WE OWN, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE AIRPORT. AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT ALL THE HYPOTHETICALS AND ALL THE PERMUTATIONS, BUT I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF THAT WOULD BE PREEMPTED. OKAY. THANK YOU. I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR CLARITY BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO DIFFERENTIATE AERONAUTICAL AND NON-AERONAUTICAL. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THAT YOU MAKE 
          [01:40:01]
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CITY COUNCIL AND AND CITY STAFF. THE LAW DOES NOT MAKE THAT DISTINCTION. YOU ARE THE CITY OF NAPLES. HOW THE CITY OF NAPLES MAKES ITS LAND USE DECISIONS AND HOW IT MAKES OTHER DECISIONS IS NOT GENERALLY THE MATTER OF OF CONCERN IN THE PREEMPTION ANALYSIS, UNLESS IT GOES TO AN ABSOLUTE SORT OF ABSURD EXTREME. 
          AND SO IF IF LAND USE DECISIONS IN THE CITY ARE GENERALLY MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THEN THAT'S WHO THEY MAKE AND WHERE THEY AFFECT AERONAUTICAL, THEY ARE PREEMPTED. IF THE CITY COUNCIL DOESN'T GENERALLY GET INVOLVED, THEN THEY DON'T GET GENERALLY INVOLVED. AND WE AREN'T TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT. WE'RE SIMPLY ADDRESSING YOUR LAND USE JURISDICTION, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN YOUR BUILDING CODE JURISDICTION, BECAUSE THAT'S THE AREA WHERE PREEMPTION IS CLEAREST AND THE AREA WHERE THE POTENTIAL FOR FOR INTERFERENCE WITH THE AIRPORT OPERATIONS IS GREATEST. OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL. ALSO, FOR EXAMPLE, ON 58, 683, JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. SO YOUR POSITION, MR. KIRSCH, IS IF ANY OF THESE CURRENT CONDITIONAL USES WERE IN FACT UNDER THE UMBRELLA, UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF AERONAUTICAL, THEY WOULD BE PREEMPTED IN THAT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO APPLY FOR CONDITIONAL USE. RIGHT. SO LIKE, NO, I THINK I THINK THERE'S A CONTRADICTION HERE BECAUSE THESE USES THAT ARE LISTED HERE, NONE OF THESE ARE AERONAUTICAL CORRECT, WHICH IS WHY WE CAN REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW. I MEAN, I FRANKLY THINK SOME OF THE REVISIONS WE MADE, THEY WERE REFLECTING REFLECTIVE OF YOUR PRIOR DRAFT. AND I BELIEVE YOUR PRIOR DRAFT HAD HAD SOME THINGS THAT WERE STRICKEN. AND SO WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE ANY PARTICULAR VIEW AND WERE NOT AS PART OF THIS PROPOSAL, MAKING ANY PROPOSAL AS TO HOW YOU REGULATE NON-AERONAUTICAL USE. AND THEN JUST THE LAST QUESTION. SO AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH YOUR OPINION TO ALL THE OPINIONS, THERE'S BEEN QUITE A BIT ACTUALLY FROM CITY ATTORNEYS ON THE AIRPORT. SO I UNDERSTAND THE EXTENSION OF THE RUNWAY. I UNDERSTAND THE JOINT OPINION THAT YOU GUYS ASKED FOR FOR THE FAA QUESTION IS IF YOU IF THE FAA WAS DECIDING TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR THE POTENTIAL THE POTENTIAL INTENT OF EXTENDING A RUNWAY IS THE PURCHASE ITSELF SOMETHING THAT THE CITY OF NAPLES. I'M SORRY, DID YOU SAY FAA PURCHASE? NO, NO. THE FAA. 
          OH. SO, LIKE, YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY EXTENDING THE RUNWAY. YOU ARE PURCHASING PROPERTY WITH HOPES OF POTENTIALLY EXTENDING IT. THE LAW IN THAT REALM IS FAR FROM CLEAR. THE FAA HAS TAKEN THE POSITION IN A CASE THAT WAS NEVER LITIGATED, BECAUSE IT WAS SETTLED THAT FEDERAL PREEMPTION DOES APPLY TO ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THERE'S PLENTY OF CASE LAW THAT SAYS IT DOES NOT. SO THE LAW IS UNCLEAR. WELL, AND HERE'S HERE'S THE PRINCIPLE AT ISSUE IS WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF THE AIRPORT. AND AND GENERALLY IT IS OF COURSE BY FEDERAL LAW AND REGULATION. IT IS THE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN AND THE BOUNDARY OF THE AIRPORT. 
          AND A CITY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE LOCATION OF AN AIRPORT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER EXPANSION FALLS IN THAT CATEGORY OR WHETHER EXPANSION FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF AN AIRPORT. AND BECAUSE THE LAW IS NOT CLEAR, WE'RE NOT WE'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT ADDRESSING THAT BECAUSE BECAUSE THE PURPOSE HERE WAS TO WAS TO DRAW BRIGHT. OKAY. SO IF CITY COUNCIL WAS ENTERTAINING, MOVING THIS FORWARD AGAIN, TALKING IN HYPOTHETICALS, IS THERE A WAY THAT IN THE DEFINITION OF AERONAUTICAL OR WE COULD WE COULD LIKE, COULD WE DO THAT? BECAUSE IN ONE OF THE EDITS, WHEN WE WERE WORKING THROUGH THE AIRPORT ORDINANCE, WHICH WE MEANT WITH EACH OTHER LIKE 4 OR 5 TIMES, I REMEMBER INCLUDING LANGUAGE ABOUT THAT VERY FACT, LIKE YOU WERE OKAY AT THAT POINT, KIND OF WITH CITY COUNCIL BEING INVOLVED IN THE APPROVAL OF ANY ADDITIONAL LAND PRIOR TO THE EXPANSION OF THE RUNWAY, IF THAT'S A COUNTERPROPOSAL THAT THE CITY WANTS US TO TAKE BACK. I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY TO TALK TO THE TO THE BOARD ABOUT IT. AND I THINK WITHOUT WITHOUT TELLING YOU WHAT ADVICE I WOULD GIVE THEM, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A REASONABLE PROPOSAL. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. THANK YOU FOR NOT SHOWING YOUR CARDS. I THINK I DID A PRETTY BAD JOB OF THAT, I APOLOGIZE. I HAVE I WAS JUST CURIOUS. I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS. I HAVE ONE OTHER JUST TO FOLLOW UP BECAUSE THAT WAS I HAD ORIGINALLY THOUGHT BECAUSE COUNCILMAN KROLL, THAT IF 139 HAD LET WAS LET TO EXPIRE, THEN THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY OF COMMERCIAL AIR TRAFFIC HERE. 
          BUT THEN UPON FURTHER REVIEW, I WANT WHATEVER ATTORNEYS TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN A VACUUM. AND THE FACT THAT YOU ONCE HAD IT, THE FAA REALIZES THAT AND SAID, LOOK, YOU HAD THIS IN THE PAST. AND SO WE KNOW YOU POTENTIALLY CAN HAVE IT ANYWAY. THEN THE 
          [01:45:02]
NOTION OF IF YOU CONTINUED WITH THOSE, BECAUSE IT'S HIGHER SAFETY EXPECTATIONS, HIGHER SAFETY PERFORMANCE, WHICH WE WANT BECAUSE OF FAA REVIEW ON ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND ALL OF OUR SAFETY. AND LIKE YOU SAID, THE YEARLY REVIEW, THEY WOULD KNOW THAT YOU'D MAINTAIN THAT LEVEL OF SERVICE. AND SO AT THAT POINT, IT'D BE VERY DIFFICULT TO ANYWAY IF THERE WAS A WAY OF NOT IF WE JUST LET IT LAPSE, THEY WOULD KNOW, WELL, YOU DID IT IN THE PAST AND YOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE IS STILL THERE. AND SO IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR US TO DENY EVEN EVEN IN THAT CONTEXT, COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC. IS THAT THE CASE? CORRECT. YEAH. AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WOULD IF YOU DON'T WANT TO OPINE ON THAT. NO. OKAY. NOT REALLY. AND I DON'T KNOW IF I'M RIGHT OR WRONG OR AND THOSE WHO THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE A BAD ACTOR OR IN CAHOOTS OR WHATEVER, I DON'T KNOW, PROBABLY DON'T DON'T THINK THAT'S RELIABLE. MR. KIRSCH, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH WITH WHAT I SAID, MAYBE THAT WOULD GIVE IT MORE VALID. MORE VALID? YEAH, I, I APOLOGIZE, BUT I THINK THAT THE SPECULATION IS SO RAMPANT WITH IFS AND ANDS AND POSSIBILITIES. 
          FAIR ENOUGH. I'M NOT REALLY INCLINED TO GIVE GIVE ADVICE. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT OCCURS VERY OFTEN. OKAY. AND SO I CAN'T REALLY TELL YOU HOW IT WOULD BE HANDLED, FRANKLY. FAIR ENOUGH. THE FACT IS, WE HAVE KEPT IT IN PLACE. AND THE FACT IS THEY DO HAVE A RIGHT TO THAT. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, COULD WE SPECULATE. YEAH. BUT I COULD GIVE YOU SOME REALLY WILD STORIES. AND THE ONLY REASON I WOULD EVEN MENTION IS BECAUSE I THINK DOWN THE ROAD, IT'S POSSIBLE AMERICAN CHOOSES NOT TO COME. WE CHOOSE TO LET IT, TO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS ANYMORE. AND THEN IN THE FUTURE, THIS IS THE CONTINGENT OUT HERE IN THE PUBLIC IN THE FUTURE. THEN IF THEY DON'T COME, THEN WE LET IT PASS AND THEN WE WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THEM COMING IN THE FUTURE. AND I'M JUST THINKING, I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE OVER A PERIOD OF MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS BEFORE THAT. I THOUGHT THE PROCESS WAS A FEW YEARS AND NOT MANY, MANY YEARS. WELL, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THIS IS HERE. 
          SORRY. I'M CONFUSED. TO PARTICIPATE IN PART 139, WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN THINGS. YES, YES. RIGHT. AND AND APPLY THAT CASE. YEAH. WE YOU YOU MAINTAIN A CERTIFICATION MANUAL. IT'S INSPECTED ANNUALLY UPDATED REGULARLY. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS IF WE DIDN'T DO THAT, HOW LONG WOULD IT BECOME NULL AND VOID? HOW LONG WOULD IT NO LONGER BE IN EFFECT IF WE WOULD IT NO LONGER BE IN EFFECT? YEAH. IF WE JUST WELL, THIS TIME NEXT YEAR WHEN IT'S UP FOR RENEWAL, IF IT LAPSES AND WE'RE NO LONGER CERTIFICATED. OKAY, SO THAT'S MY QUESTION. YEAH. AND SO JUST BECAUSE THAT'S THE CONTENTION FROM SOME OF OUR CITIZENS IS THAT, HEY, WE JUST LET IT LAPSE AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS ANYMORE. SO I HAVE A QUESTION. I TOO AM CONFUSED. WHAT IS THE CONCERN ABOUT A COMMERCIAL SERVICE? I DON'T HAVE ONE PERSONALLY. WHAT IS THE CONCERN? THE CONCERN, WHICH I THINK IS IRRATIONAL, IS THAT IT CREATES MORE AIR TRAFFIC. AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THREE FLIGHTS A DAY. I DON'T SEE THAT. I ACTUALLY THINK IT WOULD IT MAY CAUSE LESS AIR TRAFFIC BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD HOP ON THAT. IT'D PROBABLY BE MUCH CHEAPER THAN GETTING ON A FRACTIONAL OR TRYING TO CHARTER SOMETHING. AND ALSO THE CONCERN OF OUR CONSTITUENTS IS THAT IF WE LET THEM IN NOW AND THEY DO THREE FLIGHTS A DAY AND THEN IT'S SIX, THEN IT'S 18. AND THAT THAT IS THAT'S THE RATIONAL CONCERN, WHETHER IT'S RATIONAL OR IRRATIONAL CONCERN, THAT IS THE CONCERN OF THE CONSTITUENTS THIN END OF THE WAY. THAT THAT'S RIGHT. AND YET WE'VE SEEN JET TRAFFIC GO UP EXPONENTIALLY. THAT'S THE WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER AT ALL. IT WILL CONTINUE TO GO UP AS THE HIGH VALUE RESIDENCES ARE BUILT. AND I HOPE IT'S WIDELY KNOWN THAT THE CURRENT PROPOSITION IS FOR A REGIONAL JET THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY QUIETER THAN A LOT OF THE AIRCRAFT ALREADY USING OUR OUR LOVELY AIRPORT. THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT. AND AND I'D JUST END WITH, I'M GLAD WE CAN GET ALL OF THAT OUT RIGHT THERE. THANKS. WHAT DID THE OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU. JUST ON THAT. COMMISSIONER CHRIS IS. THAT IS IF THEY AGREE TO THE RECOMMENDED JET THAT YOU THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO USE AN AIRCRAFT WHICH IS WITHIN 75,000 POUNDS PAVEMENT LIMIT. IT'S THEY HAVE TWO BATCHES OF AIRCRAFT. TO MY KNOWLEDGE. THE NEWER BATCH HAS A LARGER ENGINE, BUT IT'S THE TUNED. SO IT'S PRODUCING THE SAME AMOUNT OF POWER WITH A LOWER LESS LESS OF NOISE AND AND FUEL AND POLLUTION. IT'S A VERY ADVANCED GE ENGINE THAT THEY'RE USING. RIGHT. AND I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS ASKING THAT THEY BRING THOSE PARTICULAR. I THINK EVEN IF THEY WOULD USE THE CR 600, 707, 700, 700, IT'S IT IS STILL 
          [01:50:01]
QUIETER THAN A LOT OF THE AIRCRAFT THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE OPERATING OUT OF OUR AIRPORT. 
          AND TO YOUR OTHER POINT IS SEASON IS NOT SEASON FOR US ANYMORE. SO THERE ARE OTHER TIMES WITHIN THE YEAR THAT 300 CAN GO TO 500 AND OTHER COMMERCIAL JETS CAN COME IN AND, YOU KNOW, AT ONE POINT, AT SOME POINT, HOW DO YOU CONTROL THE CAPACITY NOT JUST IN SEASON, WHICH WE ARE SEEING THAT IT'S NOT A SEASON, MAYBE FOR THOSE WHO HAVE A HOME IN ANOTHER. 
          STATE, BUT THERE ARE MORE AND MORE HOTELS, TRANSIENT LODGING OPPORTUNITIES, AND A MARKETING MACHINE THAT THE COUNTY HAS BRINGING PEOPLE HERE FOR YEAR ROUND. SO MY BIGGEST FEAR FOR THE RESIDENTS WHO ONLY HAVE A FEW FLIGHTS OVER THEIR HEAD AND THEY SHOULD GET OVER IT, IS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE MORE THAN A FEW FLIGHTS AND IT WOULD BE ALL YEAR LONG WHICH WHICH IT COULD BE IF IT WAS NETJETS OR ANY ANY OTHER FRACTAL COMPANY. CORRECT. THEY'RE FREE. FREE TO OPERATE 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, 52 WEEKS A YEAR. WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THAT AT ALL. AND I THINK IT'S A CASE OF BETTER THE DEVIL WE KNOW THAN DOUBLE. WE DON'T. AND WE KNOW, FOR INSTANCE, THAT NETJETS HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY SUPERB IN BEING A GOOD USER OF THE AIRPORT AND A GOOD NEIGHBOR. THEY USE SUSTAINABLE AIRCRAFT FUEL. THEY HAVE AIRCRAFT WHICH HAVE THE NEWEST ENGINES, AKA QUIETEST ENGINES. WE REFERENCED STAGE ONE, STAGE TWO, STAGE THREE, STAGE FOUR. THEY'RE OPERATING STAGE STAGE FIVE ENGINES, AND THEY ADHERE TO THE CURFEW TO THE POINT THAT THEY TELL THEIR FARE PAYING CUSTOMERS PARTIAL FRACTIONAL OWNERS. NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BREAK THE CURFEW. WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT. MY CONCERN MORE IS THE HEIGHT OF WHICH THEY ARE APPROACH IN COMING IN AND THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE SURROUNDING IT. FOR NAVIGATIONAL PURPOSES. I'M AFRAID WE HAVE A 2000FT HOLD, WHICH IS COURTESY OF MAINLY RSW, AND IT'S AGAIN, IT'S A SAFE IT'S A SAFETY ASPECT. WE HAVE VERY WE HAVE OUR S W TO THE NORTH. WE HAVE MARCO TO THE TO THE SOUTH. BOTH ARE BUSY AIRPORTS. AND IT'S REALLY LIKE TRYING TO PULL ON 75 FROM TWO DIRECTIONS AT ONCE. IN THE HEIGHT OF THE THE RUSH HOUR, THE THE FAA IS, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE ALSO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT SAFETY IS IS FIRST AND FOREMOST. 
          THANK YOU. I JUST MY FINAL COMMENTS ON THIS. MR. ROSANSKY THIS ISN'T ABOUT YOU AGAIN. I TOLD YOU YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB AT RUNNING THIS FACILITY. BUT YOUR BYLAWS DON'T SAY YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL OF OUR COMP PLANS AND CODES, DO THEY? I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING THERE. DOES THE CITY DOES THE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT? IT SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL OF OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS. DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU NEED TO FOLLOW OUR COMP PLAN AND CODES? I MEAN, I BELIEVE THAT'S IN THE LEASE. SO. RIGHT. AND IF WE OPEN THAT LEASE, IT IS MY BIGGEST CONCERN THAT ITEM FIVE WILL GO AWAY BY PREEMPTION OF THE FAA. AND IF SOMEONE CAN PROVE TO ME THAT OPENING THE LEASE OR. GETTING A NEW LEASE, THAT THE FAA IS NOT GOING TO PREEMPT THAT, WHICH IS IN WITHIN THE NEW THE LEASE EXISTING NOW, I WILL BE SINCERELY RELIEVED. LET'S LET'S BE CLEAR WITH THE LEASE SAYS THE LEASE SAYS THAT THE AUTHORITY WILL COMPLY WITH LAWS THAT ARE IN EFFECT TO THE EXTENT THE LAW TODAY IS PREEMPTED, THE AUTHORITY DOESN'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH IT ANYWAY. SO OPENING THE LEASE WOULDN'T CHANGE THAT. IT WOULD CERTAINLY CLARIFY AND MAKE IT MORE CLEARER TO EVERYONE WHAT IS AND ISN'T PERMITTED. BUT BUT SAYING SOMETHING IS PREEMPTED OR SAYING SOMETHING IS NOT PREEMPTED DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT ITEM FIVE, THE LESSEE AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT PERTAIN OR APPLY TO THE PREMISES OF THE OF THE USES. THEREFORE, THAT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO ABIDE BY IT. NO, NO, NO, THE THE, THE KEY THERE IS THAT APPLY. OKAY. OKAY. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY DOES NOT APPLY TO THE AIRPORT, THEN THE CURRENT LEASE SAYS THE AUTHORITY DOESN'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT. AND WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING HERE TODAY, THE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE UNDER THIS CHAPTER 164 PROCESS IS WE BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE ORDINANCES IN THE CITY THAT ARE 
          [01:55:02]
PREEMPTED. WE BELIEVE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN, IN FACT, EXERCISING GREATER AUTHORITY THAT'S PREEMPTED. AND RATHER THAN HAVING REPEATED DISPUTES ABOUT IT, WE BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD SAVE OBVIOUSLY, AVOID LITIGATION, BUT ALSO SAVE A LOT OF TROUBLE IF WE'RE JUST CRYSTAL CLEAR AS TO WHAT IT MEANS WHEN THE LEASE SAYS APPLY, WHAT APPLIES TO THE AUTHORITY AND WHAT DOESN'T IN THIS REALM. WE CAN TALK ABOUT OTHER TOPICS IF YOU WANT, BUT IN THE REALM OF LAND USE, WE THOUGHT WE SHOULD MAKE THAT CRYSTAL CLEAR. 
          YEAH. AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR A CONSENSUS APPROVAL PROCESS THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT. THAT SEEMS TO BE AMBIGUOUS AND NOT CLEAR. I CAN GIVE YOU EVIDENCE AND THAT IT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED SINCE WAY BEFORE 2003. AND IT WAS VERY CLEAR ON HOW A UTILIZATION PLAN AND A SITE SPECIFIC PLAN WOULD GO TO COUNCIL. LET'S SEPARATE TWO, TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, WHETHER IT'S PREEMPTED AND WHETHER THE AUTHORITY, AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE, HAS VOLUNTARILY ADHERED TO IT. THE AUTHORITY HAS VOLUNTARILY ADHERED TO THIS PROCESS FOR MANY YEARS. WHY HAS THE AUTHORITY DONE SO? BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN A BIG BURDEN AND IT HASN'T BEEN WORTH. TO BE VERY FRANK ABOUT IT. IT HASN'T BEEN WORTH THE AUTHORITY BRINGING A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY BECAUSE IT WASN'T A BIG DEAL. WELL, IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS BY CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT SUGGEST THIS IS GOING TO BECOME A BIG DEAL, AND THE CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE AUTHORITY TO PURSUE. 
          AND THEREFORE, THE ISSUE. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN PREEMPTED, BUT THE ISSUE IS OF MORE IMPORTANCE TODAY THAN IT USED TO BE TO THE AUTHORITY, BECAUSE THE RISK, THE BURDEN LOOKS LIKE IT'S GETTING WORSE. AND THAT IS IMMINENT BECAUSE OF VARIOUS STATEMENTS. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. I GUESS I MISREAD THE FAA STATEMENT ON THEIR WEBSITE THAT SAYS THEY DO NOT PREEMPT OVER LAND USE OF A MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. NO, NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE FAA SAYS. IT SAYS IT DOES NOT PREEMPT LOCAL LAND USE SURROUNDING AN AIRPORT. OKAY, CHAIR CAVANAUGH, IF I MAY, I HAVE A SUGGESTION. YES. THERE'S CLEARLY, YOU KNOW, THE CITY IS STILL DIGESTING THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WE PROVIDED BACK IN MAY. THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS SUGGESTED AT LEAST ONE EDIT TODAY. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE ASK THE CITY TO PROVIDE A DRAFT, AN UPDATED DRAFT, IN RESPONSE TO WHAT WE'VE PROVIDED AS A AS A RATIONAL NEXT STEP IN THIS PROCESS. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M FULLY. THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING, BUT I GUESS I'D LIKE TO HEAR A CONSENSUS FROM THE. OR HEAR FROM OTHER MEMBERS IN TERMS OF WHETHER THAT ACTIVITY WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST INITIALLY ENDORSED FROM FROM THE STANDPOINT, MUCH LIKE YOU DID THIS MORNING WITH THE OTHER TWO ISSUES, BECAUSE THIS IS A BIG ISSUE IN TERMS OF I THINK IT'S TIED TO, AGAIN, THE LEASE RENEGOTIATION, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THAT THIS HAS TO WE HAVE TO PROVIDE CLARITY AROUND THIS IN ORDER TO HAVE A SOUND AND EFFECTIVE AND FINANCIALLY ATTRACTIVE LEASE. SO I GUESS I IS, IS IT APPROPRIATE FROM, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE TO ASK YOU FOLKS TO INDIVIDUALLY OPINE ON, AGAIN, THE SUGGESTION THAT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JUST MADE, I WILL YES, PLEASE. I HAVEN'T HAD MUCH TO SAY WITH THIS. I'VE BEEN LISTENING INTENTLY AND TAKING IT ALL IN, DIGESTING, IF YOU WILL, YOU KNOW THE CRUX OF WHAT I. HOW I INTERPRET THIS. THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE HERE IS, IS CLARIFICATION TO USE MR. ROSANSKY IN THE START THERE, AND I EMBRACE THAT WHOLEHEARTEDLY. AND SPECIFICALLY, WE WERE DISCUSSING THE CITY COUNCIL'S JURISDICTION AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY AS IT AS IT PERTAINS TO LAND USE MATTERS SPECIFICALLY. I'M GOING TO JUMP TO THIS ONE PARAGRAPH HERE. TOWARDS THE END OF ALL THE RED RED LANGUAGE HERE. IT'S. WHAT IS IT, 4646 BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO FLIP A COUPLE OF PAGES AND IT'S GOING TO BE PAGE FIVE AT THE BOTTOM. AND IT SAYS THE NUMBER THREE NEXT TO IT. IT SAYS AIRPORT AERONAUTICAL PROPERTY. IN ITS REVIEW OF THE SITE PLAN PETITION, THE CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT LACKS LAND USE, JURISDICTION AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO LAND USES OF THE AIRPORT AERONAUTICAL PROPERTY. SO, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THESE ALL OF THIS LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE LOOKING HERE FOR THREE, 3 OR 4 PAGES HERE OF RED LANGUAGE REALLY IS IT'S IT'S GETTING REAL CONCISE HERE IN THAT IN THAT LITTLE THREE LINE PARAGRAPH, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. THAT PARAGRAPH IS QUANTIFIED AND QUALIFIED BY YOUR DEFINITIONS. AND AS, AS COACH KRAMER SO ELOQUENTLY SAID, TRUST BUT VERIFY. AND I'M RIGHT THERE WITH HIM ON THAT TOO. I, I, I, I BELIEVE THAT THESE ARE PROBABLY ACCURATE FAA DEFINITIONS AND THEREFORE WHAT I WOULD SAY TO BRING IT FULL CIRCLE. AND THAT IS TO BACK TO 
          [02:00:07]
WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HERE WITH MR. ROZANSKI SUGGESTING THAT THAT OUR OUR STAFF. TAKE A CRACK AT IT, MAYBE MASSAGING THIS A LITTLE BIT, WHAT I WOULD WANT, WHAT I WOULD NEED. AND AGAIN, KEEPING IN MIND, THIS IS JUST ONE COUNCILMAN'S OPINION. WHAT I WOULD WANT AND NEED IS FROM FROM OUR LEGAL TEAM IS FOR THEM TO VERIFY THAT THESE ARE IN FACT, THE, THE DEFINITIONS THAT WE SHOULD BE USING TO PUT GUIDELINES AND GUARDRAILS ON WHAT WE AS A CITY COUNCIL CAN AND CANNOT DO IN REFERENCE TO LAND PLANNING ISSUES AS IT PERTAINS TO AERONAUTICAL ACTIVITIES. ONCE I HAVE THAT FROM THEM, I THEN WANT TO KNOW HOW IS IS FROM A LEGAL OPINION STANDPOINT, HOW CAN. WHAT CHANGES ARE GOING TO SPECIFICALLY HAPPEN WITH WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IN THIS DRAFT VERSUS WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE ON THE BOOKS IN OUR ORDINANCES? I NEED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION NOT ONLY WITH OUR WITH OUR WITH OUR LEGAL TEAM, BUT WITH WITH THE OTHERS ON THE DAIS UP HERE SO THAT WE CAN AGAIN, DIGEST AND REALLY KIND OF DIG INTO THIS AND FIGURE OUT WHAT WE THINK OUT OF THIS WILL WORK AND WHAT MAYBE WE REALLY DO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH. BUT AGAIN, WE NEED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS IT AMONGST OURSELVES. AND PRIOR TO THAT, WE NEED TO HAVE HAVE SOME OPINIONS FROM OUR LEGAL TEAM SO THAT WE CAN PROPERLY DIGEST AND DISCUSS IN AN EDUCATE OR IN A CONCISE MANNER WHAT, AGAIN, WE THINK IS GOING TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR CONSTITUENTS AND THE AIRPORT. 
          LET'S NOT FORGET THE AIRPORT IS I'M I DON'T KNOW IF I PUBLICLY SAID IT TODAY, BUT I'M GOING TO RIGHT NOW. IT IS A VALUABLE ASSET OF OUR COMMUNITY, AND IT NEEDS TO BE RIGHT WHERE IT'S AT. 
          IT NEEDS TO KEEP DOING RIGHT WHAT IT'S DOING. WE JUST WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY FOR US TO, TO WORK TOGETHER AND FIGURE OUT, AGAIN, WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR COMMUNITY. SO WITH THAT SAID, I AM ALL FOR THAT TO TO GO BACK. LET US TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. ANOTHER LOOK AT THIS FOR ANOTHER CRACK AT THIS AND AND DO SOME REDLINING OF OUR OWN AND POTENTIALLY COME BACK TO YOU WITH SOME SUGGESTIONS THAT WE HOPE WOULD THAT WOULD BE AMICABLE ON YOUR SIDE. THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'RE LOOKING FOR. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO? WE'VE CLEARLY HEARD THE MAYOR'S OBJECTIONS FROM THAT STANDPOINT. SO ARE THERE ANY OTHER. OH EXCUSE ME. I'D BE HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS WITH HIM. I'M GLAD THAT YOU'RE COUNCILMAN. 
          I THINK THAT'S A GOOD PROCESS. OKAY. AND FOR MY FELLOW MEMBERS, ANY COMMENTARY OR QUESTIONS OR. 
          WE'RE ALL COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROCESS AS DESCRIBED. I AM COMFORTABLE. OKAY. SO AGAIN, THE WORK PRODUCT COMING OUT OF THAT IS AGAIN, WE WILL LEAVE IT TO STAFF TO AGAIN, CONTINUE TO WORK WITH A DOCUMENT THAT WILL CREATE CLARITY IN TERMS OF A RESOLUTION, IN TERMS OF HOW WE WOULD EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE AS AN EFFECTIVE AIRPORT WITH REGARDS TO DEFINITIONS AROUND AERONAUTICAL. NON-AERONAUTICAL MIXED USE. AND AGAIN, THIS WILL ALSO HAVE ADJACENCY, IN MY OPINION, TO BE RENEGOTIATED LEASE DISCUSSIONS THAT WILL ALSO BE TAKING PLACE. 
          AS WE DESCRIBED THIS MORNING. AND I WOULD I WOULD JUST SUGGEST, AS FAR AS TIMING, THAT TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE THAT YOU WOULD TAKE, AS I THINK THEY'VE SUGGESTED, THE FIRST STAB AT GETTING BACK TO US, ANY PROPOSED CHANGES AFTER YOU VERIFY EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO VERIFY WITH THE GOAL OF GETTING IT BACK TO US, AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE SOME BACK AND FORTH WITH THE HOPE OF HAVING THIS BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION AT OUR JULY 6TH JOINT MEETING, SO THAT WE COULD BE A PRODUCTIVE MEETING. IF THAT'S THE CASE, WONDERFUL. BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO THAT WITH OUR AGENDAS. I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK THE SAME QUESTION. YOU HAVE TWO. YOU HAVE TWO MEETINGS NEXT WEEK, AND THEN YOU DON'T MEET AGAIN UNTIL JULY 6TH. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO DO YOU WANT ME TO JUST. YEAH, I'M JUST LOOKING FOR A DIRECTION. DO YOU WANT ME JUST TO DRAFT WHAT I THINK YOU GUYS WANT? AND THEN WITH NO FEEDBACK FROM YOU AT ALL? NO, I, I MEAN, I THINK A START IS TO VERIFY THE DEFINITIONS. OKAY. 
          LET'S JUST HYPOTHETICALLY SAY THE DEFINITIONS ARE OKAY. THEN WHAT BYRNE SAID SPECIFICALLY, HOW DOES THIS VARY FROM WHAT WE CURRENTLY DO? 95% OF WHAT'S DEPICTED ON THE UTILIZATION PLAN WILL NO LONGER BE THERE. AND HOW IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH FAA RULES AND REGULATIONS? MAYBE. MAYBE VERY CONSISTENT. MAYBE THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW. OKAY. IF IT IS CONSISTENT, IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH OUR CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THOUGH, BUT I DON'T SEE WHERE OUR CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS ALLOWED TO OVERRULE FAA REGS. CORRECT FOR THE APPROVAL. BUT YOU GETTING SUBMITTED A PLAN WITH AERONAUTICAL USES ON IT THAT YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T APPROVE OR DENY, BUT YOU SHOULD STILL SEE EVERY TWO YEARS IS DIFFERENT THAN I AM GOING TO APPROVE OR DENY. THAT WOULD BE A GREAT EXAMPLE. SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD WANT ADDED. I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT LIKE WE TIRED OF THE CLIP ART. JUST SHOW US WHERE EVERYTHING'S GOING, RIGHT? GIVE US A HEADS UP WHEN AMERICAN CALLS YOU. I MEAN, SIMPLE THINGS THAT BUILD 
          [02:05:04]
TRUST, RIGHT? WELL, AGAIN, THE, THE, OUR DRAFT GOING BACK TO THEM, BUT THAT WOULD BE SOME GREAT LANGUAGE THAT YOU COULD PUT INTO OUR DRAFT GOING BACK TO THEM. AND IT WOULD AGAIN, IT WAS NOT AN APPROVAL THAT WE'RE THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, BUT IT IS TRANSPARENCY. IT IS A HEADS UP, HEY, THIS IS THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING. THIS IS A PHONE CALL WE GOT. THIS IS THE AMERICAN AIRLINES WANTED TO COME POTENTIALLY USE THE AIRPORT. AND YEAH, WE WE'VE GOT, WE WANT TO PUT HANGARS OVER HERE, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE ACTUALLY PUT A SHOVEL IN THE GROUND. GIVE GIVE US AGAIN, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING WE'RE NOT WE WE KNOW WE'RE NOT APPROVING, BUT WE'RE WE'D LIKE TO WE'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING. THAT'S EXACTLY THE SORT OF COMMENTS BACK THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. AND BECAUSE I WILL TELL YOU THIS, I'LL TAKE IT ONE STEP FURTHER, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT CONSTITUENTS OUT THERE THAT WILL ASK US, WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU'RE ALLOWING A COMMERCIAL AIRLINE TO SHOW UP? LET ME GO. WHAT I DON'T WHERE DID YOU SEE THAT? I WAS IN THE NAPLES DAILY NEWS TODAY, AND WE'RE COMPLETELY CAUGHT OFF GUARD WITH THE UNDERSTANDING WE CAN'T STOP IT ANYWAY, BUT AT LEAST WE WOULD HAVE IT IF WE HAD THE HEADS UP. WE COULD. WE COULD HAVE A A LOGICAL AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION WITH THAT CONSTITUENT WHO MIGHT HAVE AN ISSUE WITH AMERICAN AIRLINES. WE CAN SAY, LOOK, THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. HERE'S HOW IT WORKS. BUT YES, THEY ARE THINKING ABOUT DOING THREE FLIGHTS A DAY. YOU KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE HAD THAT INFORMATION. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL. COUNCILMAN BARTON, JUST TO CONFIRM, AND I KNOW YOU RECEIVE A LOT OF EMAILS, A LOT OF INFORMATION. I BELIEVE WE DO SHARE OUR AGENDAS WITH YOU. RIGHT. CONFIRM I'LL CONFIRM THAT. HELPFUL BECAUSE THAT THAT WAS THAT'S NOT HELPFUL FOR THAT WAS FOR PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION IN OUR MAY AGENDA. SO IS THERE WHAT WOULD BE ANOTHER MECHANISM SENDING THE LETTER BEFORE NAPLES DAILY NEWS GETS. IT WOULD BE A BETTER SENDING. WHAT LETTER? THE THE AMERICAN AIRLINES LETTER THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER. YOU SAID YOU HAD. THEY SUBMITTED TO US A LETTER. YOU SAID YOU HAD CONVERSATIONS IN FEBRUARY, MAYBE NOTIFYING THE COUNCIL OF THESE CONVERSATIONS. SO WE'RE NOT CAUGHT OFF GUARD IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR 164 PROCESS. SO WE WE HAD A FIRST DISCUSSION IN MAY. IT'S A THE LETTER OF INTENT IS WITH THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY AS THE SPONSOR AND OPERATOR OF THE AIRPORT, I. I'LL TELL YOU, IT CUTS TO THE CORE. OF COURSE, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT. WHAT WE CAN DO IS WHEN WE COME BACK TO YOU WITH SOME DRAFT SUGGESTIONS THAT OUR ATTORNEY WILL MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE CONCISE RECOMMENDATIONS OR REQUESTS THAT WOULD BE ON HOW WE COULD BE. BECAUSE I DON'T OFF TOP OF MY HEAD, I DON'T KNOW. I'D LOVE TO, BUT RIGHT NOW I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. SOME THOUGHT TO IT. I BET WE COULD COME UP WITH SOME REALLY GOOD IDEAS ABOUT HOW YOU GUYS COULD COULD KEEP US IN THE LOOP, MAYBE AHEAD OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THAT'S THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. IS THERE SOME IS THERE SOME LEGAL PRECEDENT THAT PREVENTS YOU FROM CONTACTING US BEFORE THE AGENDAS SET? BUT WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE? WE HAVE WE HAVE A DOZEN JUST ASKING US ON A TYPICAL AGENDA. AND I GUESS IF WE WERE TO DO THAT, I GUESS WE WOULD GO TO THE COUNTY ALSO. YEAH, MAYBE I'M JUST ASKING YOU A QUESTION. LIKE IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT LEGALLY WOULD PREVENT YOU. AND THE FACT IS, I THINK THERE'S SOME THIS IS THIS IS LOW HANGING FRUIT, BUT THIS IS COMMERCIAL AIR BACK AT NAPLES AIRPORT. THAT'S THAT'S AN EASY ONE TO ME. AND YOU'RE RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE LINE IS DRAWN ALL THE TIME. I WILL SAY THAT AND MAYBE WE CAN COME UP WITH THAT. BUT IN TERMS OF JUST BUILDING TRUST, I THINK THOSE THAT SORT OF THING, AND IT'S RARE, THAT SORT OF THING IS RARE IS EASY. AND I ALSO THINK IN TERMS OF BUILDING, TRUST US, SEEING, LIKE WE SAID, WHAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT, WHERE AND WHEN IS EASY, WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN REGULATE IT OR NOT. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ, ON OUR SIDE, WE'RE CAUGHT UP IN THE NUMBER OF MEETINGS AND THE AGENDAS THAT ARE VERY FULL. I, FOR ONE, WILL MOVE THAT. WE ADD ONE MORE MEETING, JUST MAKE ANOTHER MEETING TO CATCH ALL THE STUFF THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING DONE IN THOSE LAST TWO SCHEDULED MEETINGS THAT WE HAVE REMAINING. AND JUST ADD ANOTHER ONE TO IT AND POST IT PROPERLY. OF COURSE, WITH ALL THE THE REGS THAT GO WITH THAT AND THE POSTING OF A MEETING, WHY DON'T WE JUST ADD ONE MORE MEETING SO WE CAN GET OUR DUCKS IN A ROW AS WELL? MR. YOUNG, DO YOU HAVE A OPINION, GARY? EXCITED ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY. WHATEVER YOU NEED, WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO. I MEAN, WHEN WE TRIED TO CONVENE CERTAIN MEETINGS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE WERE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL THAT ARE GOING OUT OF TOWN, OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, SO SO THE POINT BEING IS, IS WE I'M OPEN TO WHATEVER THIS COUNCIL WANTS TO DO. WE JUST NEED TO COMMUNICATE. YOU KNOW, BY THIS TIME TOMORROW, AVAILABILITY SCHEDULES TO ME AND CHRISTINA. AND THEN WE CAN, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ESTABLISH THAT MEETING ON THE 15TH, AND IT WOULD PROBABLY BE A RELATIVELY SHORT MEETING IF THAT'S THE ONLY ITEM ON IT. AND MY GUESS IS THAT THOSE OF US THAT MAY NOT BE HERE COULD ZOOM IN POTENTIALLY. I'M SIMPLY TRYING TO BREAK THE LOGJAM HERE. NO, I'M WITH YOU. NO, I'M I'M TRYING TO SAY YES, I THAT'S I MEAN, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING I'M WILLING TO ENTERTAIN IT. 
          I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN IT. SO I'M ALL FOR MEETINGS, BUT I'M ALSO WONDERING. AND MATTHEWS BE UP TO YOU. IT'S YOUR WORKLOAD. IT'S YOUR JUST GETTING CRUSHED AGAIN. IT'S ALL GOOD. IS IT POSSIBLE YOU COULD SEND US A DRAFT INDIVIDUALLY? HONESTLY, MY OPINION, IF YOU'RE REALLY ASKING IT, IS I HAVE NOT GOTTEN ENOUGH CLEAR DIRECTION FROM YOU ALL TO EVEN DRAFT SOMETHING, SO I WOULD ACTUALLY PREFER A MEETING. OKAY, WHERE WE CAN DIGEST THIS AND I CAN AT LEAST 
          [02:10:02]
GET YOU ANSWERS ON THE FAA QUESTIONS. AND THEN YOU GUYS CAN GIVE DIRECTION AS TO. 
          WHETHER IT'S AN UNDERSTANDING OR NOT, WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT TO PUT IN YOUR CODE OR IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN. I MEAN, WE'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED A CONCURRENT PROCESS THAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH WITH THE LEASE. YOU ASKED A VERY POINTED QUESTION ON COULD YOUR RESOLUTION BE ADDRESSED IN THE LANGUAGE IN THE LEASE? THE ANSWER WAS POTENTIALLY, WHY DON'T WE JUST EMBARK ON THAT, HAVE THEM PROPOSE LANGUAGE THAT MAYBE GIVES THEM MORE CLARITY AS TO WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, AND SEE IF WE CAN HAVE A GLOBAL RESOLUTION ON JULY 6TH. THAT'S MY INITIAL THOUGHT, MADAM MAYOR. I'M SORRY, MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I? YES, YES, I JUST REGARDING YOUR SCHEDULE, IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, YOU DO HAVE A CRA MEETING ON THE 11TH. THE PROBLEM IS, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ENOUGH TIME FOR YOU TO HAVE GAINED ANY MOMENTUM TO PIGGYBACK THAT MEETING, TO ACTUALLY HAVE A DISCUSSION FOR AN HOUR OR TWO. SO I THROW THAT OUT THERE BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD GET SCHEDULED AT THIS POINT. AND, AND I SAY THAT WITH ALL SINCERITY IS, IS, BUT YOU'RE ALREADY GOING TO BE CONVENED ON THE 11TH. SO BUT TO FOR THE TWO DAYS YOU ASKED. MAYOR. I WAS JUST PROVIDING THAT DATE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. OKAY. I WANT TO WRAP THIS UP, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE. REMEMBER, ARNOLD, I DID HAVE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION FOR US. WE'RE IN. THIS IS OUR 164 PROCESS. DON'T WE HAVE SIMILAR TIMELINES WITH REGARD TO THE TIME FOR MEDIATION AND EVERYTHING ELSE? AND SO HOW DOES ALL OF THAT FIT? WELL, I WAS GOING TO ASK, YOU KNOW, NEXT STEPS. SO I THINK WHAT I HEARD FOR FIRST NEXT STEP IS CITY COUNCIL AND OUR BOARD, I GUESS I THINK WE CONFIRMED IF WE DID AND WE SHOULD, WOULD SEEK INITIAL REVISIONS AND WORK WITH CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY STAFF TOWARDS A PROPOSED REVISED ORDINANCE. AND THEN IT'S, I GUESS, A QUESTION WHETHER WE WANT TO FOLLOW THE CURRENT MEDIATION PROCESS, WHICH, BY THE WAY, IS THE SAME TIMELINE, BECAUSE OUR JOINT MEETING TODAY IS NOT THE SAME DAY. SO THE SAME 28 DAYS THAT WE DISCUSS IS IN PLAY. IF WE FOLLOW THE STATUTE, UNLESS AN EXTENSION IS IS CONSIDERED, I WILL SHARE WITH EVERYONE THAT WE HAD A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND THERE MIGHT BE SOME BENEFIT AND COST SAVINGS IF IF, YOU KNOW, WE DID AGREE TO AN EXTENSION OF TIME FRAME FOR THE INITIAL MEDIATION DISCUSSION, WE WOULD I WOULD CERTAINLY RECOMMEND THAT WE CONSIDER THE SAME. SO THAT IT WOULD OPEN UP THE POSSIBILITY OF COST EFFECTIVENESS OF. MAYBE IF WE FIND THE RIGHT MEDIATOR, THAT COULD HELP US MEDIATE ALL THE THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING IN YOUR 164 AND OUR. 164 SO BUT THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT UP. I THINK WE NEED TO DECIDE THAT AS PART OF POTENTIAL NEXT STEPS. WELL, AND MAY I REAL QUICK. YEAH, I'M NOT IN CHARGE. OH NO. I WAS LOOKING AT CHURCH. NO NO NO, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. OKAY. SO WE NEED TO DISCUSS THAT NOW. YES WE CAN, BUT I'M HAPPY TO IF YOU RECOGNIZE THEM. WELL, I THINK MISS MEMBER ARNOLD HAS HAS A GOOD QUESTION BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, DURING HOURS WE'VE ALREADY FILED SUIT. WE'RE A MOTION TO ABATE. I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS. WE HAVEN'T DENIED A PERMIT. SO WHAT, ARE YOU ACTUALLY GOING TO SUE US OVER? LIKE, LIKE AT THE END OF THIS, LET'S SAY WE GO THROUGH MEDIATION AND NOTHING CHANGES. 
          WHAT DO YOU SUE THE CITY OVER? WHAT'S YOUR CAUSE OF ACTION? WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PUBLIC SECTOR. I THINK IT'S A FAIR. I MEAN, DON'T YOU THINK THE CITY SHOULD UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY SUE US OVER? LIKE, WHAT IS THE CONFLICT AGAIN, AS APPLIED? WE HAVE NOT DENIED ANY PERMIT. SO WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO PREVENT THERE? THE PURPOSE HERE IS TO DISCUSS WHAT WE BELIEVE IS A DISPUTE CONCERNING YOUR LAND USE AUTHORITY. IF THIS PROCESS IS NOT SUCCESSFUL, THEN STATE LAW ALLOWS US TO FILE LITIGATION. BUT THIS IS NOT THE PURPOSE. THIS IS NOT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DISCUSS OUR LITIGATION STRATEGY OR TIMING WITH YOU. WE BELIEVE THERE'S A DISPUTE PRESENTLY AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 164, AND WHETHER OR WHEN WE FILE SUIT WILL BE A MATTER FOR THE FOR THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE AND NOT TO DISCUSS IN A PUBLIC SESSION. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO AGAIN, WE GIVE US SOME TIMELINE. WELL, I WOULD SAY AT A MINIMUM, I, FOR ONE, SUPPORT THE IDEA OF, AGAIN, A COST EFFECTIVE PROCESS FROM THAT STANDPOINT. SO I DON'T I WOULD SAY AT A MINIMUM, I'M NOT CERTAIN BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD A DISCUSSION YET, BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO AGREE ON A MEDIATOR THAT WE BOTH BELIEVE WOULD HAVE THE EXPERIENCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES ON THE TABLE, BUT I'D LIKE TO KEEP THAT OPPORTUNITY OPEN. SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT ALL OF YOU CONSIDER APPROVING, AND THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO DO THE SAME. AN EXTENSION, A MUTUALLY AGREED UPON EXTENSION OF OUR MEDIATION 
          [02:15:01]
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SAME 45 DAY PERIOD THAT WAS AGREED TO THIS MORNING. SO AGAIN, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY, WE WOULD HAVE THE DISCRETION TO WORK WITH CITY STAFF AND CITY ATTORNEY TO TO TRY TO AGREE UPON A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE MEDIATOR AND SCHEDULE THAT THAT A CONSENSUS OR A MOTION. FROM OUR STANDPOINT, A CONSENSUS. YEAH. BUT BEFORE YOU TAKE A CONSENSUS, IF I MAY, I THINK THE DEADLINE IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FOR YOURS THAN OURS. RESPECTFULLY, I MADE IT CLEAR OUR POSITION SINCE WE ALREADY FILED SUIT 45 DAYS. I MEAN, I WOULD SAY UNLESS THERE'S A HUGE URGENCY HERE THAT WE KICK YOURS LIKE 60, 65, UNLESS YOU ENVISION THIS CONVERSATION BEING PART OF THE CONCURRENT PASS THAT WE'VE ALREADY AGREED TO, IT IS I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE REALLY FOCUSED THE NEXT 45 DAYS ON WHAT WE JUST. I, I APPRECIATE YOUR URGENCY AND YOUR PERCEPTION OF LACK OF URGENCY ON OUR PART, BUT I THINK IT IS AT LEAST UNLIKELY AND MAYBE UNREALISTIC THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO REACH A RESOLUTION ON THE LEASE ISSUES IF THIS ISSUE IS STILL STANDING OUT THERE. SO WE COULD START TALKING ABOUT THE LEASE AND THEN TALK ABOUT THIS LATER. BUT IF WE DON'T EXPEDITE CONVERSATION OF THIS, IT IS GOING TO SLOW DOWN ANY ULTIMATE RESOLUTION. AND IF THAT'S WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS SEEKING, THEN WE DO THINK THERE'S VALUE IN DOING THESE TOGETHER. AND I, FOR ONE MEMBER AGREE WITH THAT. OKAY. SO WE'RE DOING THEM TOGETHER. WELL, I THINK IF I'D ASKED FOR A CONSENSUS FROM MY BOARD WHETHER YOU'D AGREE TO THE SAME 45 DAY MUTUALLY ASSUME IT'S ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY EXTENSION OF THE MEDIATION DEADLINE SO THAT THE MEDIATION WOULD HAVE TO TAKE PLACE, SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS AGREED UPON THIS MORNING. WITHIN 45 DAYS OF TODAY. THAT'S THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, YES, YES, YES. THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL. YES, YES. SO WE HAVE A CONSENSUS. 
          BUT IN ORDER FOR THIS TO ACTUALLY COME TO FRUITION, WE WOULD NEED YOUR MUTUAL CONSENT. 
          SO. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD. I ASKED TO COMBINE BOTH OF THESE PROCESSES RIGHT WHEN WE GOT OUR INITIAL LETTER. I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO MEDIATIONS ON THE SAME DAY. WE HAVE TWO JOINT MEETINGS. IT JUST IS A LOT OF NOTICES FOR NO REASON. MY POSITION IS AND REMAINS. WE COULD HAVE COMBINED THESE, BUT YOU ALL DECIDE WHAT YOU NEED TO. I THINK I PERSONALLY NEED A MEETING WITHOUT THEM, WITH JUST YOU, BETWEEN NOW AND WHENEVER YOU EXPECT THESE DRAFTS UPDATED. SO I'M HERE AT YOUR AT YOUR PLEASURE. DOES THE QUESTION TO MAKE SURE WE MOVE THIS FORWARD. ARE YOU TWO GENTLEMEN COMFORTABLE THAT YOU HAVE THE RESOURCES NEEDED TO MEET THE TIMELINES THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING? I'M NOT, BUT IT'S NOT MY DECISION. YEAH. NO, I'M DEFINITELY NOT. I'M NOT. YOU'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE TIMELINE THAT'S PROVIDED OUR ATTORNEY. I'M OKAY WITH THE TIMELINE, BUT I AGAIN AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT ME TO DRAFT. NO, NO, I GET THAT. THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE. THAT'S US MEETING. LET ME CAN I JUST STATE THE OBVIOUS THAT MAYBE WE'VE OVERLOOKED IS IF THERE'S NOT A MUTUAL AGREEMENT TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE, THEN WE'RE ACTUALLY SUBJECT TO A SHORTER DEADLINE. CORRECT. SO IT WOULD CREATE MORE WORK SOONER, RIGHT. YEAH. UNDERSTOOD. I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE BOTH SHOULD BE EXTENDED IN THAT CASE. SO WE ALREADY EXTENDED HOURS. YEAH. 
          AND THEY WANT TO EXTEND THEIRS TO MATCH OURS. CORRECT. BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS THEY'RE EXPECTING A REWRITE AN UPDATE COMMENT ON AN ACTUAL ORDINANCE. OUR DEADLINE IS REALLY JUST I DON'T I DON'T KNOW AGAIN I'M OPEN. IT'S JUST ME NEXT WEEK AND FIGURE THIS OUT. BUT YES, WE SHOULD AGREE ON THE DEADLINE. IF NOT, WE HAVE 28 DAYS TO MEET. YES. I WAS JUST HOPING THAT WE WOULD GET A LITTLE BIT EXTRA, BUT THAT'S FINE. YES, IN THAT CASE, I AGREE WITH EXTENDING THAT DEADLINE. I AGREE, I AGREE WITH EXTENDING IT. IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY WITH HAVING A 30 TO 45 MINUTE DISCUSSION ON THIS, EITHER MONDAY OR WEDNESDAY NEXT WEEK? THOSE MEETINGS I DON'T I HAVEN'T SEEN THE WEDNESDAY AGENDA EITHER. BUT THE AGENDA ITEM FOR MONDAY. SO WE COULD HAVE THAT GIVE YOU THAT FEEDBACK THEN THAT YOU WANT. SURE. IF IT'S BETTER THAN THE 11TH, IT'S A FEW MORE DAYS. CORRECT. AND I DO THINK YOU HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY IN THAT DAY OF ANY OF THE TWO. THE 17TH, YOU CANNOT ADD THIS ITEM TO STAY AWAY FROM THAT. YES. 
          THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. 15 ALL RIGHT. I'M OKAY WITH THAT. SO WE'LL JUST ADD THIS DISCUSSION AND ADD IT TO MONDAY. SO WE CAN GIVE YOU THE, THE, THE DIRECTION THAT YOU NEED IN 
          [02:20:02]
ORDER TO, TO MATCH THEIR, ALLOW THEIR MATCH, THEIR DEADLINE TO MATCH OUR. AND THAT'LL GIVE ME UNTIL THEN TO JUST CONFIRM THAT THE DEFINITIONS ARE IN FACT. YEAH. FAA, WHICH I'M SURE THEY ARE. I'M SURE THEY ARE JUST UNCLEAR. WE'RE LEAVING HERE THEN WITH WITH YOU'RE GOING TO WORK ON A CONSENSUS. WE DON'T HAVE A CONSENSUS TODAY. YOU HAVE A CONSENSUS. WE NEED A CONSENSUS TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE. YES. SO EVERYONE SHOULD SAY YES BECAUSE 45 DAYS IS BETTER THAN 28. AGREED. SO WE RUN IN TANDEM. YES. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTARY FROM EITHER SIDE? I APPRECIATE THAT. I GUESS WE WOULD GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. IS ANY. I GUESS. AND AGAIN, CORRESPONDING COMMENTS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. ANY FROM PUBLIC COMMENT. I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. HELLO EVERYONE. I'M LINDA NELSON. JUST ONE SECOND. ONE SECOND. OKAY. LINDA NELSON. OKAY. HI, EVERYONE. I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AND BEING HERE. I JUST THOUGHT I MIGHT AS WELL GET UP AND SAY SOMETHING. SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE ALL DAY AND KIND OF QUIET. I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR TRYING TO WORK OUT ALL THIS STUFF THAT. AND I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE IT IS ABOUT A BALANCE. I DON'T THINK REALLY ANYONE GETS THEIR OWN WAY. IT'S A COMBINATION OF EVERYBODY GETTING A LITTLE BIT. I LIVE ON THE GROUND HERE FOR ABOUT 35 YEARS. I HOPE TO STAY IN MY HOME OVER 10,000 FLIGHTS A YEAR. WHEN I CAME ALONG AND THERE WAS COMMERCIAL AIRLINE SERVICE, THEN I KNEW THERE WOULD BE TWO A DAY IN AND OUT, AND I'D KNOW WHEN THEY'D BE. SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TURNOVER ON THE REAL ESTATE OVER THE YEARS. I'M A LONG HAULER, AND I JUST HOPE THAT WE CAN FIND A BALANCE AND THAT THERE'S EQUITY IN WHO CAN USE THIS AIRPORT. IT SEEMS A LITTLE BIASED TO ME, BUT THE FAA. THEY SAY WE ALL HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY FOR REDUCING NOISE AND THEY ENCOURAGE THAT. 
          SO THAT'S A PART OF THE FAA GUIDELINE. AND JUST A JOKE TO LIGHTEN THINGS UP AS I FINISH. 
          WHEN I STARTED READING FAA DATA YEARS AGO, THE NUMBER ONE THING I READ WAS A BALLOON HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU RANDY. APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY. ANY OTHER. QUESTION? YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? YOU'RE GOOD. NO CHANCE. OKAY, GOOD. I'M ENJOYING. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR WATCHING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR EFFORT AND THE HARD WORK WE'VE DONE HERE, BOTH INTELLECTUALLY AND EMOTIONALLY. I APPRECIATE IT AS A CITIZEN, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO MORE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.