Jun 09, 2026 Naples City Council & Naples Airport Authority Joint Meeting

[1) CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL]

[00:00:07]

WELCOME TO THIS NAPLES CITY COUNCIL. NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY JOINT MEETING. THIS BEAUTIFUL JUNE 9TH, 2026. IF YOU'LL PLEASE STAND FOR THE INVOCATION LED BY THE VICE MAYOR AND THEN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU'VE BLESSED US WITH.

SUCH A PRIVILEGE AND A BLESSING. TO GET TO THE POLLS AND LET COLLIER, FLORIDA, THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, BLESSED ONE OF US HERE, HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO USE THOSE BLESSINGS FOR HUMANITY. PLEASE BLESS EACH PERSON HERE AND HELP US TO HAVE A CLIMATE THAT IS A DISCUSSION. RESPECTFUL. AND CONSIDER THE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES FOR SOME TIME TO COME TO WISE DECISIONS AND WISE CHOICES FOR THE TREATMENT OF OUR. AMEN. AMEN. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. MISTER YOUNG SETTING THE AGENDA.

[2) SET AGENDA (add or remove items)]

SECOND, HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN.

ALL IN FAVOR? SIGNED BY I, I, I OPPOSED. THANK YOU. THAT TAKES US TO PUBLIC COMMENT. AND TODAY

[3) PUBLIC COMMENTS]

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR. MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND CHAIR CAVANAUGH. MY NAME IS MARY, REGISTERED NURSE, 40 YEAR RESIDENT OF NAPLES AND FOUNDER OF QUIET FLORIDA. OUR FAMILY LIVES UNDER FLIGHT PATH 523, OUR FOREVER HOME THAT WE HAVE LIVED IN FOR 25 YEARS, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY SIX MILES FROM THE AIRPORT. AS THE CROW FLIES AND ABOUT A 40 MINUTE 25 MINUTE CAR RIDE. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY. I WANT TO OFFER A PERSPECTIVE THAT IS GROUNDED IN COLLABORATION, RESPECT, AND SHARED COMMITMENT TO THE WELL-BEING OF OUR COMMUNITY. MY GOAL IS NOT TO CRITICIZE, BUT TO ENCOURAGE CLARITY, PARTNERSHIP, AND LEADERSHIP AT A MOMENT WHERE RESIDENTS TRULY NEED IT. RESIDENTS ACROSS NAPLES ARE DEEPLY CONFUSED BY THIS ENTIRE SITUATION, AND UNDERSTANDABLY SO. THEY SEE THE CITY OWNING THE LAND, THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OPERATING THE LAND, AND A STATE BILL SUDDENLY CHANGING BOARD COMPOSITION, POSSIBLE LITIGATION AND FLIGHT PATHS REMAINING CONCENTRATED OVER THE SAME NEIGHBORHOODS WITH NO EXPLANATION TO THE AVERAGE RESIDENTS. NONE OF THIS ADDS UP. THEY DON'T KNOW WHO'S IN CHARGE, WHO IS NEGOTIATING, OR WHO IS ADVOCATING FOR THEIR HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE. WHAT THEY DO KNOW IS THAT THE PEOPLE MOST AFFECTED BY THE AIRPORT OPERATIONS ARE BEING LEFT IN THE DARK, AND THAT SILENCE FROM LEADERSHIP HAS ONLY INTENSIFIED THE SENSE OF UNCERTAINTY AND MISTRUST. THE NAA BOARD IS NOT A PASSIVE BOARD. YOU ARE A GOVERNING AUTHORITY THAT YOU OVERSEE A CITY OWNED ASSET LAND THAT THE CITY LEASES TO THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY. THAT OWNERSHIP IS NOT SYMBOLIC. IS IT A FOUNDATION OF HOME RULE, LOCAL AUTHORITY, AND DECADES OF PRECEDENT? AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THE CITY HAS ALWAYS HELD APPOINTMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE NAA BOARD. THIS IS WHY HB 4005 RAISED SO MANY CONCERNS. IT ATTEMPTED TO ALTER COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD OVERSEEING AN AIRPORT THAT SITS ENTIRELY ON CITY LAND. MANY RESIDENTS DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THIS LEGISLATION WAS BROUGHT FORWARD, OR WHAT PROBLEM IT WAS INTENDED TO RESOLVE. AND WHEN GOVERNANCE

[00:05:07]

THE SAME NEIGHBORHOODS, DAY AFTER DAY, ARE EXPERIENCING REAL DOCUMENTED HEALTH IMPACTS.

THESE ARE NOT ABSTRACTS. THESE ARE DAILY REALITIES. MEDICAL RESEARCH HAS SHOWN CHRONIC AIRCRAFT NOISE IS ASSOCIATED WITH ELEVATED BLOOD PRESSURE, HYPERTENSION, AND CARDIOVASCULAR STRAIN. RESIDENTS IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE ARE REPORTING INTERRUPTED SLEEP, HEIGHTENED STRESS, WORSENING RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS, AND A REDUCED QUALITY OF LIFE. AND IMPORTANTLY, THESE THESE IMPACTS ARE NOT SHARED EQUALLY ACROSS NAPLES. THE SAME NEIGHBORHOODS BEAR THE BURDEN OF CONCENTRATED FLIGHT PATHS, WHILE OTHERS EXPERIENCE LITTLE OR NO IMPACT. THAT INEQUITY IS THE CENTER OF RESIDENTS CONCERNS. WHEN THE AIRPORT AND CITY ARE NOT ALIGNED, WHEN COMMUNICATION BREAKS DOWN, WHEN GOVERNANCE BECOMES UNCERTAIN, RESIDENTS PAY THE PRICE WITH THEIR HEALTH. THAT IS WHY NAA BOARDS VOICE IS SO IMPORTANT TODAY. THE COMMUNITY NEEDS TO HEAR DIRECTLY FROM THE NAA BOARD. DO YOU WANT A COOPERATIVE, TRANSPARENT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY? DO YOU SUPPORT THE CITY RETAINING APPOINTMENT AUTHORITY CONSISTENT WITH LAND OWNERSHIP AND HOME RULE? DO YOU SEE VALUE IN FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL NOW ON THE TABLE? ARE YOU COMMITTED TO ADDRESSING HEALTH AND FAIRNESS IMPACTS OF CONCENTRATED FLIGHT PATHS? THIS IS NOT TAKING SIDES. THIS IS ABOUT DEMONSTRATING LEADERSHIP, CLARITY AND A SHARED COMMITMENT TO THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE.

SILENCE IS NOT NEUTRALITY. SILENCE LEAVES A VACUUM THAT GETS FILLED WITH FEAR, SPECULATION AND FRUSTRATION, AND SILENCE PREVENTS THE CITY AND AIRPORT AUTHORITY FROM MOVING FORWARD TOGETHER. AND TODAY, THE COMMUNITY IS ASKING RESPECTFULLY FROM THE BOARD. WE ALL. AND TODAY, I'M SORRY. AND TODAY THE COMMUNITY IS ASKING RESPECTFULLY FOR THE BOARD TO SPEAK. WE ALL WANT THE SAME THING A STABLE, FUNCTIONAL, LONG TERM RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, A RELATIONSHIP BUILT ON TRUST, TRANSPARENCY AND SHARED RESPONSIBILITY. A RELATIONSHIP THAT PROTECTS HOME RULE, RESPECTS CITY OWNERSHIP AND PRIORITIZES THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF RESIDENTS. THIS IS A MOMENT OF PARTNERSHIP.

THIS IS A MOMENT FOR CLARITY. AND THIS IS A MOMENT FOR LEADERSHIP. I URGE THE BOARD TO SPEAK UP, TO ENGAGE AND HELP BUILD THE COLLABORATIVE PATH FORWARD THAT THIS COMMUNITY DESERVES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, I THINK THAT MISS TATTINGER IS ACCUSTOMED TO YOUR FIVE MINUTE TIME FRAME. YES, WE'RE AT THREE, SO THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T INTERRUPT HER. I JUST ASSUMED THAT YOU WERE RIGHT. OKAY. RIGHT. YEAH. SO WE'LL BE FAIR TO ALL. WITH THAT FIVE MINUTE. THANK YOU. THANKS A LOT. OKAY. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JOSE CABRERA. GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU. QUITE THE SETUP THIS MORNING. SO AS YOU SAID, JOSE CABRERA SPEAKING TODAY ON BEHALF OF RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT NAPLES, REPRESENTING WHAT A CLEAR MAJORITY THAT WAS EVIDENCED THROUGH SURVEYS AND PETITIONS THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY GATHERED WITH THOUSANDS OF SIGNATURES AND COLLABORATIONS.

TODAY'S MEETING REPRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITY, AN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE PAST EMOTIONAL REACTIONS AND RESPONSES. AN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TOWARDS A FEASIBLE, BETTER FUTURE FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. WHAT SERVES THE BEST INTEREST OF NAPLES RESIDENTS GOING FORWARD? HOUSE BILL 405 WAS DISCUSSED LOCALLY THROUGH LOCAL REPRESENTATION, WHERE EVERYBODY WAS ENCOURAGED TO PUBLICLY ATTEND. IT WAS DEBATED BY LEGISLATOR, LEGISLATOR PASSED BY BOTH CHAMBERS, SIGNED INTO LAW. WHETHER INDIVIDUALS SUPPORTED OR OPPOSED IT. IT IS NOW THE LAW. AT SOME POINT, THE CITY MUST DECIDE WHETHER CONTINUING THIS CONFLICT IS A PRODUCTIVE USE OF TAXPAYERS RESOURCES. THE FEELING WITHIN THE COMMUNITY IS THAT IT IS MOST DEFINITELY NOT. THE PROPOSAL BEING DISCUSSED APPEARS TO REQUIRE NUMEROUS LEGAL, LEGISLATIVE, REGULATORY

[00:10:01]

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC ENTITIES CONTINUES TO DETERIORATE, NOT BETTER. THE NAPLES AIRPORT IS AN ECONOMIC ENGINE. YOU'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE A TRANSPORTATION ASSET, A COMMUNITY RESOURCE THAT SUPPORTS JOBS, EMERGENCY SERVICES, EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND LOCAL BUSINESSES, AN ORGANIZATION AND AN ENTITY THAT YOU, MADAM MAYOR, SAID YOU SUPPORT AND THAT THIS COUNCIL SUPPORTS. WELL, AS MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE AIRPORT SAID, REPRESENTATIVE FRIENDS OF NAPLES DURING THE LAST MEETING. ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.

THE FOCUS TODAY SHOULD NOT BE ON RELITIGATING A LAW THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ENACTED. THE FOCUS SHOULD BE ON FINDING PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS, RESTORING COOPERATION AND ENSURING THE LONG TERM SUCCESS OF THE AIRPORT AND THE COMMUNITY IT SERVES. WE RESPECTFULLY ENCOURAGE THE CITY TO MOVE BEYOND THE DISPUTE, ENGAGE IN GOOD FAITH DISCUSSIONS WITH THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY HERE, AND FOCUS ON ACHIEVABLE OUTCOMES RATHER THAN PROLONGED CONFLICT.

THE RESIDENTS OF NAPLES DESERVE SOLUTIONS, NOT ANOTHER CHAPTER IN AN IN AN EXPENSIVE DISAGREEMENT, WE SPENT ENOUGH MONEY ALREADY, BOTH TAXPAYERS AND THE AIRPORT'S MONEY THAT THE STAKEHOLDERS HAVE ACTUALLY PUT FORWARD BECAUSE OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S REQUEST. SO WITH ALL THAT, I APPRECIATE YOU YOUR TIME TODAY ON BOTH ENTITIES AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JENNIFER HOLLANDER. GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JENNIFER HOLLANDER AND I REPRESENT THE FRIENDS OF THE OF THE NAPLES AIRPORT. OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS, I'VE HEARD CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND PUBLIC SPEAKERS REFER TO THE AIRPORT AS AN ASSET OF THE CITY OF NAPLES. AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE ON. BUT ASSETS DO NOT PROTECT THEMSELVES, AND THEY DO NOT GENERATE VALUE WHEN THEIR GOVERNANCE IS THROWN INTO CHAOS. THE AIRPORT BRINGS IMMENSE REVENUE AND ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THIS COMMUNITY BECAUSE IT FUNCTIONS SAFELY, EFFECTIVELY AND CONSISTENTLY. TERMINATING THE LAND LEASE WOULD DO THE OPPOSITE. IT INVITES DISRUPTION, UNCERTAINTY AND LITIGATION THAT COULD COST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BEFORE IT'S OVER. THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE MADE A POLICY DECISION THROUGH HOUSE BILL 405 TO GIVE BOTH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY A MORE MEANINGFUL ROLE IN WHO OVERSEES THE AIRPORT'S FUTURE. THAT DECISION SHOULD BE RESPECTED. IF THE ANSWER TO HOUSE BILL 405 IS TO RECREATE THE SAME GOVERNANCE MODEL AS BEFORE, THROUGH AN INDEPENDENT, THROUGH A DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT, THEN THE MESSAGE IS CLEAR. IF THE CITY DOESN'T LIKE A DECISION THAT'S MADE IN TALLAHASSEE, IT WILL SEARCH FOR A WORKAROUND RATHER THAN ACCEPT THE OUTCOME. FRIENDS OF THE NAPLES AIRPORT HAS BEEN WATCHING THIS CLOSELY. WE ARE WELL RESOURCED AND PREPARED FOR LITIGATION IF THAT'S WHERE THIS IS HEADING. WE URGE YOU INSTEAD TO REJECT THIS PROPOSAL.

PRESERVE THE EXISTING LAND LEASE, RESPECT HOUSE BILL 4005 AND STOP TREATING A PUBLIC ASSET LIKE A POLITICAL TROPHY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CRYSTAL JOHNSON.

MADAM CLERK, DO I HAVE ANY FURTHER SLIPS? THAT WAS MY LAST ONE. THANK YOU. HI. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS CRYSTAL JOHNSON. I'VE BEEN AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE FRIENDS OF NAPLES AIRPORT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. AND I'M HERE JUST PERSONALLY TO SPEAK ON ALL THE BUSINESSES THAT COME FROM OUR AIRPORT. AND, AND ONE THING ABOUT NAPLES IS LIKE, WE'RE ONE OF THE BEST CITIES IN FLORIDA. WE KNOW THAT. AND WHY WOULDN'T WE HAVE THE BEST RUN AIRPORT? WE DO. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF PEOPLE RECOGNIZE ALL THE AWARDS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN, THE SAFETY, THE MONEY THAT GOES INTO THAT, THAT WE'VE GOTTEN FROM GRANTS TO MAKE IT A SAFE PLACE TO MAKE IT A BEAUTIFUL PLACE. THAT'S NAPLES. THE THING IS, IS WHY DO WE NEED TO FIX SOMETHING WHEN IT'S THE BEST AIRPORT AROUND? WE'VE THE LAST YEAR WE HAVE SEEN DESTRUCTION FROM OUR BOARD REJECTING GRANTS. WHY WOULD WE WANT THE CITY TO HAVE ANY PART OF THE AIRPORT THAT'S RUN SO WELL? WHEN THEY ENCOURAGED GRANTS TO BE REJECTED LAST YEAR AND THEY WERE. DO WE WANT TO KEEP IT SAFE? DO WE WANT TO KEEP IT WORKING? I REALIZE THAT MANY MEMBERS WANT TO LESSEN THE AIR TRAFFIC. OKAY. AND WE'VE GONE OVER ALL THE RULES AND THE AND THE FAA RULES AND THIS DISCRIMINATION. THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP THAT AREN'T EVEN LEGAL. SO

[00:15:03]

WE HAVE BUSINESSES THERE. WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT WORK THERE THAT LOVE TO WORK THERE, THAT HAVE THEIR ABILITY TO HAVE THEIR AIRPLANES THAT THEY NEED FOR THEIR BUSINESSES. I HAVE THREE GENTLEMEN THAT HAVE LARGE COMPANIES IN TOWN, AND THEY NEED A GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEY HAVE GOVERNMENT BUSINESS AND THEY CAN'T THEY NEED THIS AIRPORT WITH THEIR OWN PLANE. ONE OF THOSE MEN HAS 500 EMPLOYEES. YOU WANT TO TRY TO TAKE HIS FLIGHT AWAY. AND WHAT OTHER AIRPORT HAS A VOLUNTARY CURFEW? BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW IT CAN'T BE MANDATORY. THAT JUST NEEDS TO BE SHUT DOWN RIGHT NOW. IT GOES AGAINST THE LAWS OF ANCA. WE HAVE 98% PEOPLE HERE THAT ARE COMPLYING WITH THAT. THAT'S A GREAT STATEMENT TO OUR PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE TO DO IT. SO JUST BECAUSE THERE'S A FEW PEOPLE IN ORGANIZATIONAL GROUPS THAT ARE BEING BOTHERED BY SOME OF THE AIR TRAFFIC, THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS AND THE COUNTY, AND A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE ARE IN THE COUNTY, AND THEY DO NEED TO GET TO VOTE, BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH RUNNING OUR AIRPORT, BECAUSE EVERY STEP WE'VE SEEN FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS HAS BEEN DESTRUCTIVE. PLEASE PRESERVE OUR AIRPORT, OUR BUSINESSES, OUR JOBS, AND LET IT CONTINUE TO BE THE SAFEST, WELL-RUN AIRPORT IN THE UNITED STATES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC

[4.A) Documents Pertaining to the Conflict. ]

SO ON APRIL 6TH OF THIS YEAR, HB 4005 WAS SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR AND BECAME EFFECTIVE INTO LAW. WE ALL UNDERSTAND THE SPECIFICS OF HB 4005, BUT THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IS IT'S CHANGED THE NA FROM AN APPOINTED BODY APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL TO AN ELECTED BODY ELECTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF COLLIER COUNTY, WITH THREE OF THEM BEING CITY RESIDENTS AND TWO OF THEM BEING COUNTY RESIDENTS. SO IN RESPONSE TO THAT, CITY COUNCIL PASSED A RESOLUTION RELATED TO THE CHAPTER FLORIDA STATUTE, CHAPTER 164 PROCESS ON APRIL 15TH, LAYING OUT ISSUES THAT WE BELIEVE HB 4005 PRESENTED WITH OUR CURRENT LEASE. THE MAIN ONE BEING THAT THE CHANGE OF COMPOSITION FROM A DEPENDENT TO AN INDEPENDENT DISTRICT FRUSTRATES THE PURPOSE OF THE LEASE. THEREFORE, IT IS OUR POSITION THAT THE LEASE HAS BEEN BREACHED. BASED ON THAT, WE SENT A CERTIFIED MAIL OF THE CERTIFIED RESOLUTION AND A LETTER TO MR. ROZANSKI PURSUANT TO 164.1052 SUBPARAGRAPH ONE, WHICH INITIATED THE PROCESS. ONCE THE RESOLUTION WAS PASSED, THAT LETTER WAS RECEIVED ON 420, AND THAT 420 DATE IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE ALL THE TIMELINES OF CHAPTER 164 ARE RELATED TO THE DATE THE LETTER WAS RECEIVED. SO WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THAT, PURSUANT TO 164.1053, THE STATUTE CONTEMPLATES WHAT'S REFERRED TO AS A CONFLICT ASSESSMENT MEETING BETWEEN THE CHIEF OPERATOR, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, CITY MANAGER MR. ROZANSKI, AND LEGAL COUNSEL. THAT MEETING OCCURRED IN THE SECOND FLOOR OF A CONFERENCE ROOM OF CITY HALL ON 511, WHICH IS WELL WITHIN THE 30 DAY REQUIREMENT PURSUANT TO STATUTE, AND THEN WITHIN 50 DAYS OF APRIL 20TH, THERE SHOULD BE A JOINT MEETING IF THERE'S BEEN NO RESOLUTION REACHED, AND THAT 50 DAYS FROM 420 IS IN FACT TODAY, JUNE 9TH, WHICH IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY.

SO THAT MEETING WENT PRETTY WELL. IT WAS A COUPLE HOURS, I THINK I CIRCULATED THE TRANSCRIPT, BUT ULTIMATELY THERE WAS NO RESOLUTION REACHED. THERE WAS MORE QUESTIONS ASKED.

BUT THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS JOINT MEETING TODAY, PURSUANT TO 164.1055, IS TO CONSIDER

[00:20:01]

IF. IF BOTH BOARDS FEEL LIKE THEY CAN SEEK TO CONTINUE A RESOLUTION TO OUR ISSUE WITH WHAT I PRESENTED TODAY. SO WITH THAT BIG PICTURE UNDERSTANDING, I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO JUST AT A HIGH LEVEL, EXPLAIN THE CITY'S PROPOSAL. OBVIOUSLY, THIS WAS INFORMATION THAT WAS FACILITATED BY YOU ALL TO ME, WHICH. AND MR. YOUNG PRESENTED AT THE 511 MEETING. BUT ULTIMATELY, THE CITY'S POSITION IS WE JUST WANT TO GO STEP BACK INTO THE SAME SHOES THAT WE WERE PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF 4005. THAT BEING SAID, TIMES CHANGED. A LOT HAS CHANGED SINCE 69, AND ONE THING THAT WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED OR EFFECTIVE AT THAT POINT WAS A FLORIDA STATUTE CHAPTER, REFERRED TO AS CHAPTER 189. WHAT THAT ALLOWS CITIES TO DO SINCE THE 80S IS CREATE DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS ON ITS OWN. WE DON'T NEED TO REQUEST IT OF THE STATE. SO FAST FORWARD, IF WE WERE CREATING THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY TODAY, WE WOULD NOT ASK THE STATE TO DO IT. WE WOULD JUST DO IT OURSELVES VIA TWO READINGS OF AN ORDINANCE. AND THE PROTECTION THAT WOULD GIVE US IS THE STATE COULDN'T COME IN AND JUST AUTOMATICALLY CHANGE IT TO AN INDEPENDENT DISTRICT WITHOUT OUR CONSENT, WHICH IS WHAT OCCURRED DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE REQUESTED THIS PRIOR TO CHAPTER 189 BEING EFFECTIVE. AND I DO WANT TO CLARIFY, AND OBVIOUSLY COUNCIL IS HERE TO CLARIFY THE POSITION AS WELL. BUT I JUST WANT TO FACILITATE WHAT I DID AT 511. THIS IS NOT ABOUT CONTROL OF THE AIRPORT. THIS IS ABOUT CONTINUED OVERSIGHT AND COORDINATION. AGAIN, STEPPING BACK INTO THE SHOES THAT WE DID PRIOR TO APRIL 6TH. AND THAT'S THE MESSAGE THAT WE'VE ARTICULATED TO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NA. AND THAT MESSAGE IS ARTICULATED ALL THROUGHOUT THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE MEETINGS THAT OCCURRED, BUT ULTIMATELY, CREATING A DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT IS, IN OUR OPINION, THE BEST WAY TO CREATE THE LEAST DAMAGE, IF YOU WOULD, BASED ON SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD, BECAUSE THE ONLY THING CHANGING IS THE NAME OF THESE DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT. THE PROPOSAL CONTEMPLATES ALL FIVE MEMBERS CONTINUING THEIR TERM, ADDING A POTENTIAL TWO ADDITIONAL TERMS OR TWO ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO THAT BOARD. BUT AGAIN, ENSURING OPERATIONS CONTINUE TO OCCUR. YOU KNOW, TAKING OVER GRANT ASSURANCES IF NEEDED. THE IDEA IS NOT TO TERMINATE THE LEASE AND THEN HAVE THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY WITH NO CONTROL OVER ANYTHING PRIOR TO ALL OF THIS BEING DONE. THE IDEA IS FOR ALL OF THIS TO BE COMPANION TO EACH OTHER TO ENSURE A SAFE OPERATION OF THE AIRPORT MOVING FORWARD. IF THE PROPOSAL IN CONCEPT WAS AGREED TO. SO I CAN GET INTO THE SPECIFICS, BUT I DID THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT TO AT LEAST GIVE A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL, AND THEN REALLY SET THE STAGE AS TO WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. BECAUSE THE BIGGEST AND MOST IMPORTANT THING IS TO TRY TO SEEK AN AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO STATUTE. THANK YOU. YES, MR. COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. MCCONNELL. IF THIS WERE TO HAPPEN AND IT WAS A NEW DEPENDENT DISTRICT, DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT. DEPENDENT. SPECIAL DISTRICT. WOULD WE BE ABLE TO STILL COLLECT? CURRENTLY, IT'S $1 A YEAR RENT REVENUE. IF IT WAS A DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT AS OPPOSED TO AN ENTERPRISE FUND, THEN HYPOTHETICALLY, YES, YOU COULD STILL ENTER INTO A LEASE SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU DID IN THE 60S. AND AT THAT POINT, YOU WOULD CREATE A NEW LEASE, RIGHT, WITH A NEW ENTITY. BUT YES, THERE COULD BE RENT PAYMENT. THANKS. I WAS JUST ASKING THAT QUESTION FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU. BECAUSE AN ENTERPRISE FUND IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT, BUT IF WE WENT THE ROUTE OF DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT, WHICH ESSENTIALLY THE NA WAS PRIOR TO APRIL 6TH, IT COULD HAVE A VERY SIMILAR FEEL. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION. THE DISTINCTION FOR THOSE THAT MAY BE WATCHING OR THAT ARE INTERESTED, THAT ARE ASSUMING THAT THE CITY COULD JUST TAKE IT OVER, AND THEN WE RUN THE AIRPORT AND MAKE A BUNCH OF MONEY, WHICH THAT WOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED BY THE FAA. THANK YOU SIR. NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU, MR. MCCONNELL. IS THERE ANYONE, MR. ROZANSKI, THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS AT THE BEGINNING? NO, I BELIEVE THE SUMMARY CITY ATTORNEY PROVIDED CONCISE AND WELL STATED OF WHAT'S HAPPENED LEADING UP TO THIS POINT. I'LL JUST SAY FOR OUR SIDE, WE DID SEND A LETTER BACK, I BELIEVE, ON MAY 21ST ASKING SOME VERY IMPORTANT SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. AND WE'VE HAD INTERNALLY SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THOSE QUESTIONS, BUT WE DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE RECEIVED CLEAR, DIRECT RESPONSES TO THOSE QUESTIONS. AND SO THOSE QUESTIONS FOR US REMAIN VERY IMPORTANT IN CRITICAL PATH TO

[00:25:07]

COMMISSIONER CAVANAUGH, DO YOU HAVE RESPONSE TO WHAT THE CITY HAS PROPOSED? NO. I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR RECOGNIZING THE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND HIS CAPABILITIES AND HIS LEADERSHIP, WHICH IS A BIT DIFFERENT THAN PRIOR COMMENTS YOU'VE MADE FROM

[00:30:01]

SO I GUESS WE'VE BEEN WE PROVIDE WE PROVIDED A PROPOSAL TO YOU IN TERMS OF RESPONSE TO YOUR YOUR PROPOSAL. SO WE WERE RESPONSIVE TO THAT. WE HAVE YET TO I DON'T THINK WE'VE NOT HEARD ANYTHING BACK FROM THAT PROPOSAL. AND AGAIN, WE I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR AT LEAST FOR MYSELF, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR MY FELLOW MEMBERS OF THE AUTHORITY THAT WE NEED TO HAVE CLARITY AROUND THE QUESTIONS WE PRESENTED IN THAT LETTER BEFORE WE CAN ACT. SO YOUR MEETINGS HAVE BEEN TRANSPARENT, AND WE'VE ALL, I'M SURE, WATCHED THEM. THERE'S NOT BEEN ANY DISCUSSION. TO MY KNOWLEDGE. IF I MISS SOMETHING ABOUT OUR PROPOSAL, THAT IS CORRECT, BECAUSE AGAIN, WE ARE WAITING FOR A RESPONSE TO THE LETTER. COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER. I GUESS I GUESS THE QUESTION I COULD ASK YOU IS, IS THAT IN I GUESS YOUR COLLECTIVE POSITION IS THAT REQUEST TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN WRITING INAPPROPRIATE? WELL, I I'LL LET COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER GO, BUT I'LL JUST SAY, GO AHEAD, COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER. WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE MAYBE I WILL AS I GET THROUGH WHAT I WANT TO SAY. OKAY. FIRST OF ALL, GOOD NEWS IS WE'RE HERE. I'M FIRED UP THAT WE CAN ALL BE HERE TOGETHER BECAUSE NOW WE CAN GET SOME STUFF DONE. AND THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF MESS THAT LED TO THIS, THAT IN THE END, I THINK IS GOING TO BE WORTH IT. LIKE, MAN, THAT WAS TOUGH DELIVERY.

BUT BABIES BEAUTIFUL IS WHAT I'M HOPING WE'RE SAYING HERE. TWO ISSUES THAT I SEE. THE FIRST IS 4005. AND THESE THESE THESE ISSUES COEXIST AND INTERACT, BUT THEY CAN BE STILL KEPT IN DIFFERENT SILOS. 4005 IS SHODDILY WRITTEN. IT'S BAD LEGISLATION. WHEN I TALK TO MY FRIENDS AT OUR STATE REPS, I WAS LIKE, HEY, DID YOU GIVE US A TRAP DOOR ON PURPOSE? BECAUSE THIS IS RIDICULOUSLY BAD. AND THEY WERE LIKE, WELL, WE CAN FIX IT LATER. IF IT'S A PROBLEM.

WELL, IT'S A PROBLEM NOW. SO BECAUSE OF THAT. 4005 CHANGES, A DEPENDENT DISTRICT TO AN INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT. THAT'S A BIG DEAL. IT'S A BIG DEAL WHEN YOU'RE THE LANDLORD.

IF WE DID NOT RESPOND, WE WOULD SHOULD ALL BE FIRED. WE HAVE NO JOY. WE NOBODY HERE WANTS TO SUE THE N A. THE PROBLEM IS THE NEXT PART IS CHAPTER 164, WHICH LAYS OUT A PROCESS WHEREIN IF A MUNICIPALITY HAS A BEEF WITH THE LAW, THEY HAVE TO DO CERTAIN STUFF. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THEY HAVE TO DO, AND THIS IS FOR OUR PREVIOUS SPEAKER AND ANYBODY WATCHING THIS, SAYS I. AND BY THE WAY, YOU CAN JUST CHATGPT IT, IT GIVES LIKE 12 BULLET POINTS AND SUMS UP ALL THIS. CHAPTER 154 SAYS WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS, AND PART OF THAT PROCESS IS GOING TO GET US TO A MEDIATION. BUT THE BAD PART OF THE PROCESS, IN OUR VIEW, IS WE GOT TO SUE SOMEBODY AND THEY DON'T LET YOU SUE. WE CAN'T SUE THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE RIGHT NOW. IT HAS TO BE KIND OF LIKE THE NEXT LEVEL UP OR, OR LATERALLY ON THE FOOD CHAIN.

AND THAT'S THE NA WHO WE LOVE, WHO WE APPOINTED. AND SO WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DO. THE GOOD NEWS IS. WE CAN AT LEAST GET TO MEDIATION AND HOPEFULLY NOT EVEN GO THAT FAR TOGETHER. WE CAN. WE'RE IN THIS POSITION NOW. IT ALLOWED US TO GET TO HERE, SO THAT'S GREAT. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY, BECAUSE I'VE HAD A HANDFUL OF LETTERS FROM PEOPLE SAYING YOU ABOVE, LIKE THE HIGHEST PRIORITY IS FIGHTING BACK AGAINST 4005, BECAUSE THAT IS OUR CONTROL. THAT GIVES US LOCAL CONTROL. AND I'M GOING TO SUBMIT TO WHOEVER YOU ARE. I KNOW YOU'RE WATCHING. I DON'T WANT TO SAY NAMES. THAT'S A COMPLETE ILLUSION. IF I'LL JUST POINT TO TWO THINGS. IN JUNE OF 2025, THE NAA. DECIDED NOT TO APPLY FOR GRANTS, IN EFFECT REFUSING $9 MILLION, WHICH WOULD HAVE HELPED FIX MAINTENANCE ISSUES.

VERY COMMON THINGS. THE REASON THEY DID THAT, I THINK HAS BEEN SAID IS AND IF CHATGPT SAYS THIS TOO, IS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT WAS THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL, AND I WOULD SAY IT WAS VERY DIVIDED AT THE TIME. AND, AND PEOPLE UP HERE WOULD SAY THAT WAS NEVER OUR WILL. WE

[00:35:03]

WE'VE PROPOSED A SOLUTION TO THE PEOPLE WE APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD, AND THEY ARE UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSED TO IT. WHERE'S YOUR LOCAL CONTROL? IT'S AN ILLUSION. SO MAYBE IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW THE BOARD EXISTS. NOW, I'LL BE HONEST. IF I WAS ONE OF Y'ALL, I'D BE FIRED UP BECAUSE SOMEBODY'S GOING TO GET KICKED OUT OF THEIR JOB FOR NO GOOD REASON HERE PRETTY QUICK.

BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRAINTS THAT ARE PUT ON THE ELECTION. HAVING SAID ALL THAT, HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS AND WHY I'M SO GLAD WE'RE HERE. THE CRUX OF BOTH THESE ISSUES, TO ME IS THE LEASE.

WHETHER WE CREATE A NEW INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT. IF WE DO THAT, WE MUST HAVE A NEW LEASE. WE CAN KILL THIS LEASE, VOID IT, AND START ANEW. THE OTHER OPTION IS WE DON'T DO THAT, BUT WE AMEND THIS LEASE IN A WAY THAT CURES A WHOLE BUNCH OF PROBLEMS. FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU'VE READ THE CURRENT LEASE, I'M CERTAIN EVERYBODY HERE HAS EVERYBODY HERE, NOT EVERYBODY OUT THERE. IT WOULDN'T TAKE LONG BECAUSE IT'S A SILLY LITTLE LEASE. OUR RENTAL PROPERTY HAS A MORE COMPLEX LEASE AND WE HAVE THE BASIC THING. YOU GET OFF THE OFF ONLINE. A NEW LEASE OR AMENDED LEASE. IT'S ALL THE SAME, IN MY VIEW, IF YOU'RE WILLING TO DO THIS. AND BY THE WAY, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF YOU'RE WILLING TO DO THIS. I'M DISAPPOINTED IN THE RESPONSE BECAUSE YOU ASKED A WHOLE BUNCH OF QUESTIONS. ALL WE WANTED WAS, HI, WE'RE WANTING HIGH LEVEL. DO YOU SEE A SOLUTION? DO YOU SEE A PATH FORWARD? THAT'S MY QUESTION. LIKE, DO YOU SEE A REMEDY? IN MY VIEW, EITHER WHATEVER THE REMEDY IS, A NEW LEASE CURES A WHOLE BUNCH OF ILLS AND OR AN. ADMITTEDLY, I DON'T CARE, BUT I THINK WE COULD COME TOGETHER ON THAT. AND I MEAN, MR. ROSANSKY, WHO'S THE BEST IN THE BUSINESS AND A HIGH ACHIEVER. I MEAN, NO MEDIOCRITY AROUND THIS GUY. IT'S WHY WE'RE BEST IN CLASS, HE SAID. WE NEED CLARITY IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. I'VE SAID WE'VE SAID UP HERE, THAT'S A GREAT I DON'T WANT TO SEE CLIP ART ON A PLANNING DOCUMENT. SO IN THAT CASE, I'M SURE THAT THERE'S ENOUGH SMART PEOPLE HERE THAT WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO CURE THAT. AS FAR AS I CAN TELL. AND I THINK EVERYBODY'S AGREED WE DON'T HAVE MUCH TO OFFER YOU IN THE WAY OF AT LEAST THE FAA REQUIRES WE GIVE YOU SOMETHING. THE ONLY THING WE CAN GIVE YOU IS MORE TIME.

I'M ALL FOR IT. I'M ALL. LET'S FIGURE OUT THE LEASE TERMS. AND WHILE IT IS COMPLICATED, PEOPLE HAVE COMPLICATED IT. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR EITHER ATTORNEY OR BOTH. IF WE WERE TO PURSUE A NEW LEASE, VOID THIS ONE AND START A NEW LEASE, HOW MANY FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES WOULD HAVE TO CHECK OFF ON IT? AND BEFORE YOU ANSWER THAT, I JUST WANT TO GET A CLARIFICATION FROM YOU. COUNCILMEMBER, YOU SAID THAT WE OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL YOU PRESENTED. I'M SORRY. I THINK I WANT TO MAKE SURE IN YOUR COMMENTARY, YOU SAID WE OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL THAT YOU PRESENTED TO US. YEAH, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE, ISN'T IT? WHO'S WHO, INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY? WHO IS I WOULD SAY COLLECTIVELY, BECAUSE WHERE IS THAT IN PUBLIC RECORD. VERY WELL. HAVE YOU APPROVED IT? NO, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE STILL WE'RE STILL IN A FACT FINDING. AS IT GOES BACK TO IT, WE NEED TO HAVE FACTS BEFORE I CAN HAVE AN OPINION AND MAKE A DECISION. AT A HIGH LEVEL. HAVE YOU APPROVED IT? I CAN'T, THERE'S TOO MANY QUESTIONS. I CAN'T I'M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE. THAT'S A DANGEROUS AND INAPPROPRIATE THING IN TERMS OF GOVERNANCE. SO I NEED TO HAVE FACTS AND CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS GOING TO TRANSPIRE. BEFORE I CAN HAVE AN OPINION AND HAVE A VOTE, I WON'T.

THAT'S JUST THAT'S JUST ME. SO I'LL LET MY OTHER FELLOW. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I WOULD TELL YOU IN READING YOUR QUESTIONS, I THOUGHT IT WAS DELAY TACTICS. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. I THOUGHT THIS IS JUST DELAY. YOU WANT A SPECIFIC TIMELINE? WELL, OKAY, SO I JUST SO I THINK THERE'S A NUMBER OF YOUR QUESTIONS THAT WILL BE ANSWERED IF WE, IF WE JUST SAY, YEAH, WE WANT TO WORK TOGETHER TO. I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I WANT TO CLARIFY A POINT THERE. SO MY PROPOSITION I, FOR ONE, HAVE NOT OPPOSED THIS PROPOSAL.

WE'RE STILL IN A FACT FINDING MISSION. FROM MY STANDPOINT, I'LL LET MY FELLOW MEMBERS OF THE AUTHORITY SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO HAVE THAT ANSWER IN TERMS OF WHAT THE LAWYERS WOULD RESPOND TO A SIMPLE QUESTION WHAT DO YOU THINK? IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH. I DON'T IF YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH THAT, I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FACTS IN TERMS OF THESE QUESTIONS. SO YOU NEED A TIMELINE TO THINK THAT IN GENERAL, THIS IS A GOOD

[00:40:04]

THANK YOU. MAYOR, I THINK THAT PART OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE HAVING IS THERE ARE SOME UNKNOWNS. ONE OF THE UNKNOWNS IS. IF WE CREATE FOR THE COUNCIL CREATES A DEPENDENT DISTRICT SEPARATE FROM WHAT 405 IS MANDATED. HOW DOES THAT WORK? YES. CHAPTER 189 ALLOWS OR ALLOWS CITIES TO CREATE INDEPENDENT OR DEPENDENT DISTRICTS SEPARATE FROM THE STATE. BUT THE STATE HAS TAKEN ACTION AND THERE IS THIS LAW OUT THERE. HOW DO WE IGNORE THAT LAW AND CREATE A SEPARATE DISTRICT? IS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I PRETEND TO PARTICULARLY HAVE. I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN IGNORE THE STATE LAW AND DO SOMETHING SEPARATE.

THAT'S THAT'S ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE. I THINK THAT THE LEASE, AS YOU POINTED OUT, IS ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH. BUT THE ENTITY THAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH IS NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED. SO ARE YOU NEGOTIATING A NEW OR MANDATED LEASE WITH THE CURRENT BOARD THAT, AS YOU POINTED OUT, POTENTIALLY OR WILL BE REPLACED IN NOVEMBER OR REPLACED WITH THE CITY'S DEPENDENT DISTRICT IF IT IF IT GETS CREATED, THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT ENTITIES THAT MAYBE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS, THAT I THINK THAT IT'S DIFFICULT FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD UNLESS UNTIL WE RESOLVE THOSE QUESTIONS. WELL, LET ME FINISH WITH THIS, AND I'LL BE. SO MY CONTENTION IS THIS BECAUSE OF ALL THOSE COMPLICATIONS YOU MENTIONED, AND I AGREE WITH ALL OF THEM, THE EASIEST THING WE CAN DO IS AMEND THE LEASE, WE CAN AMEND THE LEASE, AND WHEN WE DO, THEN WE CAN CREATE A COVENANT WHEREIN THE PLANNING PART OF IT, WE AGREE ON WHATEVER IS IMPORTANT TO EVERYBODY AND THE LEASE. THAT'S CORRECT. AND TRY TO DO IT. WE NEED TO DO IT BEFORE THE ELECTION SO THAT WHEN PEOPLE GET ELECTED UP HERE WHO ARE CRAZY, WHICH SOME MAY SAY THAT'S ME, OR PEOPLE ARE ON THIS BOARD WHO ARE CRAZY, WHICH SOME MAY SAY THAT'S YOU, IT'LL BE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE THE COVENANT IN THE LEASE ITSELF. AND SO THAT OPERATIONS WILL CONTINUE REGARDLESS OF THE POLITICAL WINDS. SO FOR ME, THE EASIEST WAY TO CUT TO THE CHASE AND IT ELIMINATES ALL UNCOMPLICATED THINGS VERY QUICKLY, VERY QUICKLY, IS TO AMEND THE LEASE WITH THIS BODY AND CREATE THIS NEW COVENANT THAT ALLOWS THE AIRPORT TO THRIVE WITHIN FAA RULES AND REGULATIONS, OF COURSE. AND AS MR. ZELENSKY SAID, AND GIVES CLARITY ON THE PLANNING PROCESS IN A MANNER THAT WOULDN'T ARBITRARILY HOLD UP PERMITS, ETC. BY SOME, A GROUP OF UP HERE THAT SOMEHOW SAYS WE WANT

[00:45:02]

YOU DON'T NEED A LAWSUIT TO DO THAT. YOU JUST NEED GOOD GOVERNANCE TO COME TO US.

YOU'RE THE AGGRIEVED PARTY. AND AGAIN, I THINK THE MINDS COULD COME TOGETHER AS TWO PARTIES AND AGREE WITH WHAT'S THE RIGHT QUID PRO QUO AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE FROM THAT STANDPOINT.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE NOW IN A MUDDY WATERS HERE WITH THE 164. AND YOU ARE NOW LITIGANTS BASED UPON YOUR LAWSUIT. AND THAT, I THINK, MAKES IT DIFFICULT NOW FOR ME TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THEM, AND AT LEAST THAT I WAS VERY ANXIOUS TO DO SIX MONTHS AGO. WELL, I WOULD TELL YOU, I NEVER HEARD THAT YOU WERE ANXIOUS TO DO THAT. I WOULD HAVE BEEN HAPPY TO JUMP ALL OVER THAT. AND I WISH YOUR FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD FORGIVE ME FOR YOU. AND YOU CAN REFER MY COMMENTS TO THE PRIOR YEAR. FORGIVE ME FOR THAT IGNORANCE, BUT I WOULD SAY IF WE CAN MUDDY THE WATERS VERY QUICKLY THROUGH AN AMENDED LEASE AMENDMENT PROCESS, BECAUSE THEN EVERYTHING ELSE CAN JUST GO AWAY, EVERYTHING ELSE BECOMES IRRELEVANT. AND THE FACT IS, IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT, WE GOT TO REDO THE LEASE ANYWAY. SO THAT'S THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE FOR ME. I APPRECIATE YOUR. YOU AND I ARE SIMPATICO. LIKE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. AND I THINK IT WOULD AGAIN, CREATE CLARITY, CONSISTENCY AND GET RID OF A WHOLE BUNCH OF WASTED TIME, EFFORT AND MONEY. IF WE COULD DO THAT. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. THANKS. COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. COMMISSIONER. CHRIS. THANK YOU MA'AM. GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY.

WELL, OBVIOUSLY, I'M VERY GLAD THAT WE'RE ALL HERE FINALLY TALKING, TALKING TOGETHER. AND YES, I THINK RELATIONS BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE AIRPORT ARE BECOMING BECAME PAST TENSE.

EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY STRAINED. AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN TODAY BRING THINGS BACK TOWARDS THE MIDDLE. UNFORTUNATELY, THE NA IS COLLATERAL DAMAGE HERE. WE WE FIND OURSELVES BEING BEING SUED. THE 164 PROCESS HAS TIGHT DEADLINES, SO I DO FEEL IT IS. AND THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX PROCESS THAT IS BEING PROPOSED HERE. AND I CERTAINLY ECHO THE CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS THAT A LETTER WENT FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO THE CITY MANAGER ON MAY 22ND WITH FIVE QUESTIONS. I, FOR ONE, DO NOT BELIEVE THIS WAS A DELAYING TACTIC AT ALL. I THINK THESE ARE ALL VERY VALID QUESTIONS. A RESPONSE REALLY WOULD HAVE BEEN COURTEOUS, FRANKLY, WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY USEFUL AS WELL, EVEN IF IT WAS JUST HIGH LEVEL IDEAS, BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY, VERY COMPLEX BASIS IN TERMS OF EXTENDING THE LEASE, I CONFIRM. YES, THIS BOARD DID DISCUSS THIS A COUPLE OF COUPLE OR THREE BOARD MEETINGS AGO FROM THE PERSPECTIVE THAT THE TENANTS, PEOPLE WHO OWN HANGARS DON'T WANT THE UNCERTAINTY OF WHAT HAPPENS IF THE LEASE DOES EXPIRE. SO YES, WE HAVE WE HAVE RAISED THIS AND THIS WAS SOMETHING ON THE. AND THEN UNFORTUNATELY, THIS. HOUSE BILL POPPED UP. SO. AND ALSO, I JUST WANT TO SAY FROM A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE THAT I LOVE BEING ON THIS BOARD. I WANT TO DO EVERYTHING TO STAY ON THIS BOARD. AND AS. COACH KRAMER, COUNSELOR, COACH KRAMER, I GUESS THIS ACC BASICALLY BASICALLY SAID THAT I AM ONE WHO UNDER THE CURRENT REGIME IN IS INELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR THE THE NEW BOARD. THAT'S MY ALL I HAVE TO SAY AT THE MOMENT. MAYOR, CAN I MAKE ONE COMMENT? YES. JUST WHEN IT COMES TO TO ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT KEEPS COMING UP. SO THE CITY DID RESPOND AT YOUR CONFLICT ASSESSMENT MEETING AT THE END OF THAT TRANSCRIPT, WHICH I'M SURE YOU'VE ALL SEEN. I ACTUALLY WENT LINE BY LINE AND ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS IN THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, BASED ON THE FACT THAT ASKING FOR A A PRECISE TIMELINE IS SOMETHING THAT'S JUST NOT REALISTIC. I ALSO RESPONDED TO CHRIS ROZANSKI ON FRIDAY, KIND OF IDENTIFYING THAT ALL TIMELINE RELATED QUESTIONS WOULD BE AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IN ORDER TO APPROACH THESE AGENCIES, WE'D HAVE TO DO IT TOGETHER BECAUSE WE ARE NOT THE SPONSOR. SO THE FAA WILL NOT DISCUSS THIS WITH US WITHOUT A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE SPONSOR ON THE PHONE CALL. AND THEN WHEN IT CAME TO FOUR, WHICH IS THE LEGAL AUTHORITY OF THE CURRENT BOARD, I MADE IT CLEAR THAT IF THERE'S A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT

[00:50:01]

AS SOME OF THE PUBLIC SPEAKERS POINT OUT, IT'S BEEN DOING THAT WAY, BEEN OPERATING THAT WAY AND BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL FOR THE LAST 50 PLUS YEARS, LARGELY UNDER THE ARRANGEMENT THAT WE HAVE, WHERE HOPEFULLY THE CITY COUNCIL IS VETTING HIGHLY QUALIFIED, EXPERIENCED BOARD MEMBERS WHO BRING A VARIETY OF PERSPECTIVES ABOUT VARIETY OF BACKGROUNDS AND A VARIETY OF EXPERTISE TO RUN THE AIRPORT. AND THE CITY COUNCIL DOESN'T, I DON'T THINK WANTS TO RUN THE AIRPORT. WE WANT GOOD PEOPLE TO RUN THE AIRPORT. THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE, AND I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE, IS THIS NEW LAW TAKES EVERYTHING OUT OF THE CITY'S HANDS FOR A CITY ASSET AND TRANSFERS IT TO COUNTY VOTERS. SO THE CITY HAS MAYBE 14,000 VOTERS OUT OF 20,000 RESIDENTS. THE COUNTY PROBABLY HAS 250 TO 300,000 VOTERS OUT OF 400,000 RESIDENTS, AND THAT LARGELY AREN'T AS IMPACTED BY THE AIRPORT AND LARGELY DON'T BENEFIT FROM THE AIRPORT THE WAY THAT CITY RESIDENTS DO. SO WHILE I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE LEASE IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE TO ME, IT'S NOT THE ONLY ISSUE. TO ME, THE BIG ISSUE IS HOW DO WE CONTINUE TO WORK TOGETHER, HOW DO WE CONTINUE TO COLLABORATE AND MAKE SURE THAT THE AIRPORT IS RUN IN THE SAFEST, MOST EFFICIENT WAY POSSIBLE? SO WE CAME UP WITH THIS PROPOSAL, AN OUTLINE OF A PROPOSAL AS A WAY TO DO THAT. A LOT OF IT WAS LEFT OPEN ON PURPOSE, BECAUSE WE HOPED YOU ALL WOULD RESPOND TO THE INVITATION TO COLLABORATE ON HOW TO SET UP THIS MODEL. WE DIDN'T WANT TO DICTATE TERMS. WE DIDN'T WANT TO BE THE ONE SAYING, YOU GOT TO DO IT THIS WAY. WE WERE HOPING THAT WE COULD COME TOGETHER AND APPROACH THE FAA TOGETHER ON THIS AS A WAY THAT WE THINK WE CAN WORK IT OUT. AND I, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY SAY THAT THE FAA WILL COMMIT TO ANY CERTAIN TIMELINES EVER. I'VE ALWAYS HEARD THAT IT'S OPEN ENDED BECAUSE THEIR CONCERN IS SAFETY AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE RUSHED. THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE THEIR TIME TO REVIEW SOMETHING. SO WHILE WE CAN COME UP WITH A TIMELINE TOGETHER, I HOPE ON HOW THIS

[00:55:05]

SO PERSONALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US FORM A SMALL JOINT TASK FORCE TO FLESH THIS PROPOSAL OUT IN A WAY THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY. THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THE COMMUNITY, FOR THE AIRPORT, THE AIRPORT'S USERS, AND FOR THE COUNTY RESIDENTS. YES, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THERE ARE A LOT OF COUNTY PEOPLE WHO USE THE AIRPORT, TOO. IT'S NOT SOLELY CITY RESIDENTS, ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE CITY RESIDENTS ARE THE PRIMARY BENEFICIARIES OF THE AIRPORT. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US APPOINT SOME SORT OF SMALL JOINT TASK FORCE TO WORK THIS OUT OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS OR A FEW WEEKS, BECAUSE TIME IS SHORT. AND AS YOU MAY KNOW, WE'RE GOING ON RECESS NEXT WEEK FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS. I'M NOT SURE YOUR SCHEDULE, BUT IF WE COULD AGREE THAT, HEY, THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULDN'T JUST DROP, WE SHOULD CONSIDER IT AND COME BACK TO THE JOINT TEAM LIKE THIS. WE HAVE ANSWERS WITH DETAILS, WITH THINGS FLESHED OUT, SAY IN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO WITH OUR ATTORNEYS AND HOPEFULLY WITH MEETINGS WITH FAA, GET INPUT FROM THEM. AND MAYBE THEY CAN'T GIVE US ANSWERS, BUT UNTIL WE TALK TO THEM, WE WON'T KNOW. BUT I'D LIKE FOR US TO TALK TO THEM TOGETHER AND GO WITH A JOINT APPROACH ON HOW WE THINK, HOW THE AIRPORT HAS OPERATED SAFELY AND EFFECTIVELY THE LAST 50 PLUS YEARS, AND HOW WE COULD SEE IT OPERATING SAFELY AND EFFICIENTLY FOR THE NEXT HUNDRED YEARS PLUS, AND HOW WE CAN WORK ON, ON THESE THINGS TOGETHER. I THINK THE LEASE IS ONLY ONE ELEMENT OF THAT. I THINK THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE IS JUST AS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE THAT WILL DEFINE HOW WE WORK TOGETHER ON JOINT ISSUES AND JOINT MATTERS OVER THE COMING YEARS, TO TRY TO OPERATE IN A SMOOTH AND EFFECTIVE, COLLABORATIVE, COLLABORATIVE, TRANSPARENT MEASURE. AND IF WE CAN WORK OUT THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE, I THINK THE LEASE WILL BE EASY. I THINK WE ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THERE'S VALUE TO EXTENDING THE LEASE. ONCE WE HAVE A SOLID GOVERNANCE PROCESS IN PLACE, THAT THAT GIVES CERTAINTY FOR MANY, MANY YEARS TO COME. FOR USERS OF THE AIRPORT, FOR TENANTS, FOR RESIDENTS OF THE CITY, FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE THINKING ABOUT MOVING TO THE CITY, WHO ARE FLYING IN ON A DAILY BASIS TO CHECK OUT THE NEW CONDOS BEING BUILT AND TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO WANT TO LIVE HERE OR NOT. IF WE CAN WORK OUT THESE THINGS, IT GIVES PEOPLE CERTAINTY AROUND THEIR DECISION MAKING PROCESS. THE IT GIVES THE TENANTS, THE USERS, THE PILOTS, A LOT OF CERTAINTY AROUND HOW WE CAN OPERATE TOGETHER GOING FORWARD. SO TO ME, THAT'S ONE OF THE GOALS OF TODAY. IF IF YOU ALL ARE OPEN TO IT, TO TRY TO APPOINT A SMALL GROUP TO WORK ON THIS OVER THE NEXT MONTH OR SO, TO TRY TO COME BACK TO US ALL WITH MORE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE OR QUESTIONS THAT ANYBODY ELSE HAS ON HOW THIS MIGHT WORK. OKAY, VICE MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBER KRAMER HAS A QUESTION, BUT. I LIKE EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. EXCEPT FOR I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT TODAY'S PURPOSE WAS, THAT WE WOULD SIT AS THIS GOVERNING BODY AND THAT GOVERNING BODY AND COME UP WITH A DISCUSSION THAT LEADS US TO THOSE RESULTS. THAT WOULD BE AWESOME IF WE CAN. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS A LOT OF THE CONCERN WAS ABOUT OTHER PARTIES, LIKE THE FAA OR THE STATE OR WHOMEVER, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN ANSWER THOSE TODAY, BUT TO THE OTHER QUESTIONS, IF WE CAN ANSWER THEM TODAY, THAT'S FABULOUS. WELL, TO THAT POINT, THE FIRST FOUR POINTS THAT WERE IN OUR PROPOSAL MUST BE MET OR DISCUSSED IN ORDER FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE NEXT STEPS.

IN MY OPINION, COUNCILMEMBER KRAMER, I JUST WANT TO PIGGYBACK ON THAT BECAUSE I MAY BE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE AND LET'S JUST SHUT ME DOWN IF THAT'S THE CASE. SO THIS IS FOR THE LAWYERS IN THE ROOM. CAN WE HE TALKED ABOUT GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE, HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS THROUGH AN AMENDED LEASE, CAN WE CREATE A GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE THAT WOULD MEET, IN THEORY, MEET WHATEVER NEEDS WERE REQUIRED? CAN WE DO THAT THROUGH A LEASE AMENDMENT? ANY GUYS, ANY OF YOU? IS THAT WOULD MAKE SOME CHANGES? SURE. I'D LIKE ALL I'D LIKE EACH OF EACH

[01:00:05]

BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BOARD SIMILAR TO THE NA BEFORE YOU, THEN NO, YOU WOULDN'T CREATE THAT IN A LEASE. BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME KIND OF ANCILLARY ADVISORY BOARD THAT WE CREATE, THEN WE COULD IDENTIFY ONE IN A LEASE AND CREATE ONE VIA CODE. BUT WHEN YOU THINK OF GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE, I'M THINKING OF A DECISION MAKER, WHICH WOULD BE A NEW SPECIAL DEPENDENT DISTRICT WHICH WOULD NOT BE INCORPORATED INTO AN AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE. OKAY. SO WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IN GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE IS NOT THAT IT IS THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF HOW THE REPORTING IS DONE. AND OH YES, MY OPINION AND I'LL DEFAULT TO TO THEIR OPINION. MY OPINION IS YES, YOU COULD INCLUDE TERMS IN THE LEASE BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE VICE MAYOR CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. I DON'T THINK HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE WE WANT THIS BOARD. SO WOULD YOU CAN I HAVE THOUGHTS ON THAT? I WOULD JUST SAY, AS WITH A LOT THAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS TODAY, THAT THE DEVIL WOULD BE IN THE DETAILS. SO WHAT IS MEANT BY GOVERNANCE AND WHAT YOU WANT TO IMPLEMENT IS GOING TO BE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. IN OUR OPINION. THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES, WHICH IS WHY WE ASK THE QUESTION. DEFINITELY NOT AS A DELAY TACTIC, BUT SIMILAR TO YOUR QUESTION, THERE'S ONE OF THE ISSUES OF STATE LAW PREEMPTION. SO IF YOU CANNOT DO BY CONTRACT WHAT'S PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW. SO IF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN A CONTRACT OR A LEASE AMENDMENT. INTRUDES WITH EXISTING STATE LAW OR TRIES TO OPERATE IN THE FIELD THAT'S BEEN GRANTED BY THE LEGISLATURE, THEN THAT WOULD BE PREEMPTED AND NOT ENFORCEABLE. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS. WE'D HAVE TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR AS FAR AS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS. UNDERSTOOD. AND SO THAT BEING A GIVEN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TRY TO PREEMPT STATE LAW OR FAA LAW, THEN THEORETICALLY, COULD WE GET THE DETAILS WORKED OUT THROUGH A LEASE? YEAH. MY ONLY COMMENT IS, SURE, THERE'S DEFINITELY THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE BY CONTRACT THAT ARE ENFORCEABLE, BUT THERE'S ALSO GUARDRAILS FOR FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS WOULD WOULD PUT IN PLACE. UNDERSTOOD. SO FOR MY PART, JUST TO BE CLEAR, I WOULD NEVER ASSUME WE COULD SUPERSEDE ANY FAA REGULATIONS OR STATE LAWS. I AM THAT THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE. AND I WASN'T IMPLYING THAT. SO THE ASSUMPTION WOULD BE THAT WITHIN THE AN AMENDED LEASE THAT THOSE THINGS. AND WE WANT TO HAVE AN AD HOC. THAT'S FINE. BUT IT GOES BACK TO TO THE PLANNING PORTION OF IT, THE HOW HOW THOSE REPORTS WOULD BE DELIVERED. THERE'S GOING TO BE ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS OR ONCE A YEAR, WHATEVER, ALL THAT, ALL THOSE LITTLE THE MINUTIA. I DON'T THINK IT'S COMPLICATED. I MEAN, WE HAVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE'VE HAD WE HAVE A SYSTEM FOR A VERY LONG TIME THAT'S WORKED. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S COMPLICATED. OKAY. SO THAT BEING THE CASE, THEN I WOULD ASK IF WE WERE TO AND I THIS QUESTION DIDN'T GET ANSWERED. SO I'M GOING TO ASK IT. IF WE WERE TO VOID THIS LEASE AND CREATE A NEW ONE, HOW MANY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES WOULD HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON THAT? THAT NEVER I NEVER GOT THOSE ANSWERS THAT ANSWER. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA? I'M JUST WONDERING. I'M ASSUMING FAA MAYBE. AT THE VERY LEAST, YOU WOULD NEED THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND THE FAA SIGN OFF. AT THE VERY LEAST. AND YOU MIGHT ALSO NEED F DOT F DOT OKAY. AND THAT'S PROBABLY A STATE LEGISLATURE. FAA ARE THE TWO KEY ONES. I'M SORRY. BACKGROUND MUSIC. YEAH. SORRY.

OKAY, SO AT LEAST THREE. AND IS THERE COULD THERE BE A FOURTH? IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THE CONTENT. YEAH. BECAUSE THE CONTENT MAY IMPLICATE OTHER AGENCIES AS WELL DEPENDING ON WHAT, WHAT WHAT'S SAID IN SUCH AND SUCH AMENDMENT. OKAY. AM I DOING I THOUGHT THERE COULD BE 3 OR 4. AND SO THEN IF WE WERE TO AMEND THE LEASE INSTEAD, HOW MANY FOLKS WOULD HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON THAT ONE? I WOULD JUST SAY, DEPENDING ON THE DETAILS, BUT ASSUMING WE STAY WITHIN THOSE GUARDRAILS I MENTIONED, I THINK CONTRACTUALLY THE CURRENT BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS AND AND DEAL WITH OUR EXISTING LEASE, YOU KNOW, CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING LAW. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I THINK TOO. I THINK IT CAN COMPLICATE THINGS IN A HURRY.

BUT AND SO THANKS FOR ANSWERING THOSE QUESTIONS AGAIN. I, I SEE IT, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMENDING THE LEASE AND A NEW LEASE WITH A NEW ENTITY, RIGHT? IF YOU AMEND THE LEASE WITH THE CURRENT ENTITY, IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW. 405 AND DO A

[01:05:07]

WHAT I MEAN IS, IN CASE YOU GET WHAT EVERYBODY FEARS IS SOMEBODY'S OFF THE RAILS ON THIS DAIS OR OVER THERE, THAT IT CONSTRAINS THAT THAT, THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL WAY THAT IT WORKS CAN'T BE ALTERED FOR THE NEXT HOWEVER LONG, UNLESS THE TWO GET TOGETHER AND WANT TO DO THAT, THAT'D BE PART OF THE AMENDED LEASE. AND ALL THESE QUESTIONS THAT ARE COMING UP ABOUT INDEMNIFICATION AND WHATEVER, ALL THOSE GO AWAY. AND IF THE FOCUS IS AT LEAST I THINK WE CAN GET DONE EVERYTHING YOU WANT TO GET DONE THROUGH AN AMENDED LEASE. AND STILL, IF THIS IF WE AND I AGREE THAT IT'S CRAP 4005, THEN WE STILL GET AFTER THAT. BUT MY POINT IS WE'RE ALL HERE NOW. WE CAN DO GOOD WORK AND, AND CREATE A SCENARIO WHEREIN IF WE WEREN'T SUCCESSFUL, THERE ARE STILL THE RELATIONSHIPS ARE ARE STRENGTHENED. THE THE AIRPORT IS MONETIZED, LIKE A LOT OF THINGS THAT A LOT OF FOLKS WANT TO GET DONE, GET DONE, REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THAT LITIGATION. THAT'S, THAT'S MY CONTENTION. AND IT HAS TO GET DONE ANYWAY. HOW ARE WE DOING? WE GOT TO TALK ABOUT THE LEASE. IF YOU'RE GOING TO END IT AND START ANEW, IT'S STILL THE SAME. CONVERSATION HAS TO BE HAD. SO THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY MEMBERS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PROPOSAL THAT THE CITY GAVE YOU, ARE YOU WILLING TO WORK THROUGH ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR? I'LL START OFF I AM NOT PREPARED TO DO THAT UNTIL YOU TELL ME RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION FOUR AND FIVE IN TERMS OF WHAT LEGAL AUTHORITY WE CURRENTLY HAVE, BASED UPON YOUR REQUEST, AND ALSO ON. FIVE IN TERMS OF, AGAIN, WHAT IS OUR FIDUCIARY AND OPERATIONAL OBLIGATIONS, I NEED CLARITY FROM YOU AS OUR PARTNER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU THINK OUR ROLE CAN BE IN THAT. SO THAT MAY BE YOU MAY THINK THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE OR AVOIDING THE ISSUE. BUT FOR ME, THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. AND I NEED TO HAVE

[01:10:01]

AND IF WE WANTED TO, WE. THE COLLECTIVE, WE ON THE LEASE QUESTION, POTENTIALLY HIRE EVALUATION FIRM OR APPRAISER TO SAY WHAT SHOULD THE LEASE TERM AND PRICE BE? AND THAT COULD BE BROUGHT FORWARD AS PART OF THAT MEDIATION ONCE THE PARTIES GET TOGETHER, BECAUSE I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE TIME FRAME. IF WE WAIT UNTIL THE MEDIATION HAPPENS AND THEN THEY GO AWAY TO GET THE LEASE DATA, WE'VE LOST TIME VERSUS IF, AS COACH SAID, YOU KNOW, THE AND A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID THE LEASE IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THIS WHOLE THING. HOW CAN WE GET THE INFORMATION AND SEPARATELY, DOES IT NEED TO BE EACH EACH PARTY HAS TO HAVE AN APPRAISER OR EVALUATION FIRM, OR CAN WE JOINTLY HIRE ONE TO COME BACK WITH AN OPINION ON WHAT KIND OF LEASE TERM JUSTIFIES WHAT KIND OF LEASE PAYMENT? I THINK DEPENDING ON WHAT THE BOARD WANTS TO DO, AND I THINK WE COULD DO ALL OF THOSE OPTIONS, I THINK WE COULD HIRE OUR OWN APPRAISAL. I THINK APPRAISER, I THINK THEY COULD HIRE THEIR OWN APPRAISER. I THINK WE COULD USE ONE JOINTLY TO SAVE COSTS. I THINK THOSE ARE ALL CITY COUNCIL AND A BOARD DECISIONS THAT CAN BE MADE IN ADDITION TO CAUSE US TO WORRY ABOUT TIME. YOU KNOW, HOW CAN WE MOVE THIS FORWARD PRETTY QUICKLY? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. GETTING DATA WOULD HELP. YES. YEAH. WELL, BUT FIRST, THE QUESTION HAS TO BE ANSWERED ON WHETHER THIS BOARD IS WILLING TO WORK WITH THIS BOARD IN THE GOVERNANCE OF MOVING FORWARD, TO OPEN UP OR TO. LOOK AT A NEW LEASE.

COUNCIL MEMBER ALBERTO, DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS? YES, I DO. COUNCIL MEMBER SORRY. I FEEL THAT MY JOB IS TO MAINTAIN THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF GOVERNANCE FOR THE AIRPORT. AND TO DO THAT, I REALLY WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES OR THE RISK ARE FOR EITHER PATH WE'RE GOING ON. THEY'RE BOTH FRAUGHT WITH PERIL. WE GO FORWARD 005, WE'RE ALL OFF THE BOARD. I'M A VOLUNTEER. THAT'S NOT A BIG DEAL. IT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT GOES. OH, WE GET SOME NEW MEMBERS. THEY'RE SELECTED BY THE POPULATION, MUCH LIKE YOU GUYS ARE. SO I DON'T SEE THAT AS A HIGH RISK. THE SUBSEQUENT ACTION IS IF YOU TERMINATE THE LEASE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN BREACHED, BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T GET TO ELECT OR APPOINT THOSE OFFICIALS, IT BECOMES VERY COMPLICATED. ON THE OTHER HAND, YOUR PROPOSAL TO BECOME A SPECIAL DISTRICT HAS A LOT OF QUESTIONS, AND EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM IS IS A BIG QUESTION MARK IN MY MIND. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT COMES ABOUT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT CAN HAPPEN.

SO I SEE THAT ALTERNATIVE, THAT ALTERNATIVE PATH TO HAVE MORE RISK THAN GOING IN THE 4005 TO MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE THAT RISK. I'D CERTAINLY LIKE TO HAVE CLARITY ON THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED WITH A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS HAPPENS AND WHETHER IT CAN HAPPEN. THEN I CAN SAY, WELL, IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE AIRPORT AND GOOD GOVERNANCE,

[01:15:01]

IT'S BEEN A GOOD PARTNERSHIP AND IT WOULD BEHOOVE ME FOR THIS COMMUNITY THAT WE CONTINUE TO WORK IN THAT MANNER. BUT I THINK THAT'S A YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WAY THEY'VE WORKED AND WE'VE WORKED IN THE PAST, AND I THINK WE MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO THAT WE HAVE 14 DAYS TO SELECT A MEDIATOR AND THEN 14 DAYS TO HAVE MEDIATION SESSION, AND I THINK THAT PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS FOLLOW UP CONVERSATION IN MORE DETAIL. CHRIS, 14 DAYS IS THE LIMIT, RIGHT? WE COULD AGREE TO MOVE FASTER, PERHAPS. HYPOTHETICALLY, YES. BUT THE REALITY OF THAT OCCURRING, I THINK, IS VERY SLIM. YOU GOT TO FIND ONE, YOU GOT TO UPDATE THEM. THEY'RE GOING TO WANT MEDIATION SUMMARIES ON THE FACTS. I MEAN IT'S 28 DAYS. IS IS A VERY QUICK TIMELINE IN ITSELF. IF YOU WANT IT TO BE PRODUCTIVE, ESSENTIALLY. CHRIS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD? YES, I DO. I'D LIKE TO SEE US WORK TOGETHER. I'VE BEEN VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE. FACTIONS SCHISM THAT HAS DEVELOPED BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE AIRPORT. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, I'VE MENTIONED THIS IN ANY BOARD MEETINGS. SO YES, I WOULD LIKE US TO WORK TOGETHER. YOU KNOW, WE ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THE AIRPORT'S NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. IT IS AN ECONOMIC DRIVER. A LOT OF PEOPLE USE IT, AS I'M SURE YOU'RE PROBABLY AWARE, WE RECENTLY HAD AN APPROACH FROM ONE OF THE COMMERCIAL CARRIERS TO OPERATE A SERVICE THAT WOULD DEMOCRATIZE THE AIRPORT USING AIRCRAFT LARGER THAN AIRCRAFT THAT ARE CURRENTLY OPERATING, AND PROBABLY QUIETER THAN SOME. BUT WHAT WE HAVE ON THE TABLE AT THE MOMENT, I WOULD SAY, IS A VERY HIGH LEVEL CONCEPTUAL IDEA. AND. I'M NOT GOING TO THERE'S NO WAY I'M GOING TO POINT FINGERS AT WHO SHOULD HAVE DONE WHAT. BUT I, FOR ONE, WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE MEAT ON THE BONES VERY, VERY QUICKLY BECAUSE TIME IS OF THE ISSUE, AS THE CITY ATTORNEYS JUST SAID, 14 DAYS PLUS 14 DAYS. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF WORK TO DO. I, FOR ONE, AM JUMPING ON A PLANE IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS AT LEAST. I HOPE I AM, AND THE LEGAL ISSUES HERE CONFOUND ME. AND THIS IS REALLY WHERE WE DO NEED THE ATTORNEYS TO BE WORKING TOGETHER. THE AVIATION ATTORNEYS AND THE BOARD ATTORNEYS AND THE CITY ATTORNEYS, BECAUSE THIS THIS IS I, I FEEL WE ARE WALKING BLIND INTO A MINEFIELD HERE. AND I LIKE MY LIMBS. SO. I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF THE SPECIAL INDEPENDENT DISTRICT. I LIKE THE IDEA OF NO CHANGE. FRANKLY, I THINK, AS WE'VE ALL AGREED, THE AIRPORT HAS BEEN PHENOMENALLY WELL RUN UNDER THE

[01:20:04]

GOVERNANCES OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD DISRUPT THAT PROGRESS. WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO MOVE IN THE, THE, THE, THE DIRECTION THAT WE HAVE BEEN OPERATING UNDER. AND I THINK I, I, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ALL MY BOARD FELLOW MEMBERS, BUT I DO WANT TO WORK WITH CITY COUNCIL. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE WORK TOGETHER. THE ONLY WAY THAT THE CITY IN GENERAL IS GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL IS IF WE COOPERATE AND COLLABORATE ON EVERY DECISION, AND WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE CITY AT LARGE IS BENEFICIAL. THE COUNTY AT LARGE IS BENEFICIAL OF OF THESE DECISIONS. WE CAN'T LIMIT IT TO ANY SPECIAL INTERESTS. MEMBER. BURNS, I GOT YOUR OFFICE. FIRST OF ALL, PLEASE RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE FIVE PEOPLE SITTING UP HERE NEXT TO ME BEFORE AND MYSELF HAVE DISCUSSED THIS TOPIC. WE HAVE HAD NO OTHER OPPORTUNITY. SO I'M HEARING SOME THEIR THEIR OPINIONS FOR THE FIRST TIME. I'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO RENEGOTIATE THE LEASE. SO. I'M I'M WITH YOU, COUNCILMAN KRAMER. I'M READY FOR THAT. MY CONCERN IS FOR 005. I DO NOT LIKE THE CHANGE IN THE WAY MEMBERS OR COMMISSIONERS ARE CHOSEN FOR THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY. I EXPRESSED THAT OPINION BACK IN. WHEN THE LEGISLATION WAS INTRODUCED LAST YEAR, AND I WAS THE ONLY MEMBER OF THE DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT THAT EXPRESSED AN OPINION ON THAT. AND I THINK IT'S. FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE AS OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE AIRPORT SITS, I THINK THE. IT'S 4005 IS AFFECTING YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS.

I THINK IT'S A PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE. THEY'RE TAKING A A THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS TAKEN AWAY YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS. AND I THINK THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE. AND WE ARE VERY STRONG PROPERTY RIGHTS STATE. THE FIVE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN. PREPARED BY OUR LEGAL COUNSEL AND WE AS A BOARD ADOPTED TO SEND ON TO YOU. THAT WAS THEIR WORK. THAT'S WHAT THEY ASKED US

[01:25:08]

AT LEAST SOME OF THEM COULD BE ASKED RIGHT NOW ON 4005, WHICH CHANGED THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY FROM A DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT TO AN INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT. I HAVEN'T SEEN A LETTER FROM THE FAA APPROVING THAT. ALL I'VE SEEN IS THE STATE LEGISLATURE APPROVING IT UNDER THIS SPECIAL PROVISION PROCESS THAT THEY HAVE FOR LOCAL RULES. AND I DON'T THINK FDOT HAS APPROVED IT EITHER. SO I DON'T WANT THOSE FIVE QUESTIONS TO BE A STUMBLING BLOCK. I'M. I'D LIKE TO SEE US START TO RENEGOTIATE THE LEASE. I THINK WE NEED TO DO IT IN A TIMELY MANNER. I DON'T THINK I'VE BEEN THROUGH MEDIATIONS. WE COULD DO THAT AND END UP IN THE SAME PLACE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. I THINK THE CITY COUNCIL HAS TO MAKE A DECISION OF WHERE YOU WANT THIS TO GO. I THINK YOU HAVE BIGGER ISSUES THAN THAN WE DO. WE DO. WE HAVE ISSUES TO RUN THE AIRPORT, WHICH I HAVE DONE FAITHFULLY FOR YOU FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS.

AND MY TERM UNDER THAT APPOINTMENT WAS EXPIRES ON SEPTEMBER 19TH. SO I'M A LAME DUCK. NO YOU'RE NOT. I DON'T MIND THAT. SO YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF, WHAT ARE YOUR PRIORITIES? AND THE LEASE CAN ALWAYS BE RENEGOTIATED NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN THE PROCESS. YOU MAY HAVE IN YOUR MINDS AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. YOU MAY HAVE A BIGGER FIGHT TO DEAL WITH THAN RENEGOTIATING THE LEASE. I CAN SEE GETTING INTO THAT WILL BE I'VE HAD IDEAS ON IT AND SO. I, I'M NOT. I'M READY FOR THAT. BUT ARE YOU REALLY READY FOR IT? AND. THAT'S WHAT WE HOPE TODAY WAS GOING TO BE. SO THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER CARL. YES, I THINK TODAY IF WE COULD ACCOMPLISH ONE THING IS STRUCTURE BECAUSE THE LEASE.

YEAH. THAT'S THAT COULD GO BACK AND FORTH. THAT COULD BE THAT'S NOT A BIG ISSUE IN MY OPINION, BUT IT'S HOW IT'S STRUCTURED. IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE. AND, YOU KNOW, HEARING MEMBER BURNS ABOUT 4005, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS THAT AIRPORT IN EXISTENCE THAT OPERATES THAT WAY OUT OF AREA. PEOPLE CAN RUN FOR ELECTION AND REPRESENT THE AIRPORT. I THINK IT'S A COME BITE THE AIRPORT. I REALLY DO. I REALLY THINK SOME PEOPLE THERE MAY BE SEEING. I THINK IT'S GREAT FOR YOU GUYS, BUT I THINK IT'S GOING TO COME AROUND AND REALLY BITE YOU. I THINK THE WAY WE STRUCTURE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND IF WE CAN GET SOME KIND OF CONSENSUS TODAY ON THAT STRUCTURE, I THINK WE CAN MAKE SOME REAL PROGRESS AND THE REST WILL FILL IN. I DO BELIEVE A NEW INDEPENDENT DISTRICT IS THE WAY TO GO. PERSONAL FEELING. I THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO REALLY STRUCTURE IT WHERE YOU GUYS CAN HAVE. AND I WANT TO GET RID OF ONE BIG MISPERCEPTION. I HEAR IT FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND ALL THAT. THE AIRPORT IS AN ANCHOR OF OUR COMMUNITY. I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY UP HERE THAT'S AGAINST THE AIRPORT. WE LOVE THE AIRPORT. WE WANT THE AIRPORT. WE SUPPORT THE AIRPORT. AND THE SECOND MISPERCEPTION, YOU HEAR A LOT THE AUTONOMY. WE DON'T WANT TO RUN THE AIRPORT. MR. ROZANSKI IS DOING A FANTASTIC

[01:30:05]

WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO DO THAT. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY CHANGES THE ENTIRE DIRECTION OF WHAT WE ARE GOING TO ATTEMPT TO DO. BUT AGAIN, WE CAN'T GET THOSE ANSWERS FROM THOSE GOVERNING BODIES WITHOUT YOU HELPING US FROM A STANDPOINT OF BEING A PARTICIPANT IN THIS PROCESS. SO WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW FROM YOU GUYS HERE TODAY IS IF YOU ARE A WILLING

[01:35:01]

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I'M ON THE, I'M A TRACK GUY. I USED TO RUN HURDLES. SO YOU HAVE TO JUMP STILL HOLDS SCHOOL RECORD NAPLES. I JUST TOSS IT OUT THERE FOR THE FOR THE PUBLIC.

THAT'S GOOD. SO I UNDERSTAND YOU GOT TO GET OVER SOME HURDLES BEFORE YOU HIT THAT TAPE. RIGHT. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'VE GOT SOME SOME QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED. YOU HAVE SOME CONCERNS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. BUT WHAT I'M HEARING, AGAIN, FROM A HIGH LEVEL IS FROM A NEGOTIATION STANDPOINT, THE LEASE IS ON THE TABLE. AND AND AGAIN, WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS I HEARD THAT FROM ALL ALL MEMBERS. AND AGAIN, YOU GUYS, AND I UNDERSTAND SOME OF YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME HURDLES THAT NEED TO BE JUMPED, BUT YOU STILL ARE WILLING TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS. AND THEN WHAT I ALSO SAW HERE TODAY, AND MY PERCEPTION WAS FROM YOUR COMMENTS, IS THAT THE MAJORITY SEEM TO BE A WILLING PARTICIPANT ON DISCUSSIONS PERTAINING TO CREATING A DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT. AND THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW HERE TODAY, BECAUSE THOSE STEPS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN ARE GOING TO THEN BE HANDED OFF TO OUR ATTORNEYS, BECAUSE OUR ATTORNEYS ARE GOING TO BE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING, HAVING THESE DISCUSSIONS WITH. AND MR. ROZANSKI AND OUR, IN OUR IN OUR CITY MANAGER ARE GOING TO BE HAVING THESE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE FAA, WITH FDOT AND THOSE PEOPLE TO MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER THIS IS EVEN WORTH SOMETHING TO DISCUSS, IT MAY BE A MOOT POINT. THEY MAY SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. WE ARE NOT GOING TO. HERE IS WHY YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT, IN WHICH CASE WE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PIVOT AND CHANGE DIRECTIONS ANYWAY. BUT RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE NEED TO DO, WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS WE NEED TO DO THE LEGWORK TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER WE CAN DO THAT. AND WE CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT YOUR HELP AND PARTICIPATION AS, AS A PARTNERSHIP ON THIS PROCESS.

NOW I'M COMPLETE. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON BURNS, YOU HAD A RESPONSE TO. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I DID HAVE A DIRECT RESPONSE TO COUNCILMAN BARTON. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I AM ON BOARD WITH THE CITY CREATING A DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN. THANK YOU, SIR. I APPRECIATE YOU STEPPING UP AND MAKING THAT PERFECTLY CLEAR FOR THE FOR THE FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ. THANK YOU. WELCOME TO THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT WITH YOU FOLKS HERE. SOME OF YOU, I'VE KNOWN YOU FOR A WHILE AND SOME I HAVE NOT. YOU'RE ALL NEW FRIENDS, BUT WE'RE WE'RE ALL HITTING THE OARS THE SAME WAY IN SOME PERSPECTIVES IN MY HISTORY. IN NEGOTIATIONS, YOU TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE. WHERE DO YOU AGREE? WHAT AREAS ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT ON BEFORE YOU CAN GET TO THE OTHER ISSUES? IF YOU CAN WORK OFF A POSITIVE AND FIGURE OUT WHERE DO WE AGREE? AND IT SEEMS AT THIS POINT IN TIME THERE MIGHT BE CONSENSUS ON A RENEGOTIATION OF THE LEASE. SO PERHAPS WE SHOULD START WITH WHERE WE AGREE BEFORE WE GET INTO ALL THE THE MUCK OF WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY. THERE'S ONLY THE TWO FACTS RIGHT NOW THAT THAT EXIST FOR 005 AND LITIGATION. AND WE DON'T LIKE FOR 005, NOBODY SEEMS TO LIKE IT. BUT THE FOLKS WHO DID IT ARE ELECTED BY THE SAME FOLKS THAT ELECTED US. NOW, WE DON'T LIKE THE OUTCOME OF WHAT THEY DID. FAIR ENOUGH. BUT IT DOESN'T DIMINISH THE FACT THAT IT IS A LAW. AND TO TRY TO OVERTURN THAT IS GOING TO BE VERY ARDUOUS AND EXPENSIVE. AND IT INVOLVES ANOTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT WHO MAY COME UP WITH A TOTALLY DIFFERENT KIND OF

[01:40:02]

ONE THIRD THE CITY OF NAPLES AND THE RESIDENTS OF CITY OF NAPLES WHO OWN THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S REAL. SO IF WE LOOK AT IT FROM THE WORLD, THAT IS NOT THE WORLD. WE WANT TO SEE IT.

WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH WHAT IS AND WHAT CAN BE DONE. AND IF WE'RE ABLE TO SOME WAY FIND OUR WAY THROUGH JUST A SHORT PORTION OF THIS, THE OTHER PIECES COULD FALL IN PLACE VERY NICELY. IF WE CAN GET OURSELVES TOGETHER ENOUGH TO BE UNEMOTIONAL ON BOTH SIDES AND ACCEPT THE FACT THAT BIG BROTHER CAME IN AND SAID, WE DON'T LIKE THE WAY YOU'RE DOING THINGS. WE'RE DOING THIS. AND THERE WAS LITTLE CONSULTATION, IF ANY. AND THAT IS UNFORTUNATE, BUT THEY DID IT AND NOBODY HAS DONE IT YET. WE TRIED TO GO TO THE GOVERNOR, HE HAVING NONE OF IT. I MEAN, THE VOTES WERE NOT NOT CLOSE. 112 TO 1 IN ONE VOTE WAS THE GUY WHO MADE A MISTAKE PRESSING THE BUTTON FROM ORLANDO AND THE SENATE WAS 38. LOVE. I MEAN, THOSE THOSE AREN'T CLOSE SCORES. SO TO ASK THE GOVERNOR TO COME TRY TO BAIL US OUT AND VETO THE BILL, I WELL, WE TRIED I DIDN'T THINK WE WERE GOING TO HAVE MUCH LUCK WITH THAT. AND THAT'S ACCURATE.

BUT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PREMISE OF WHERE I'M GOING IS, IS WORKING FROM WHERE WE CAN FIND ANY SHRED OF AGREEMENT, WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE LEAST. AND THEN IF WE CAN COME TO SOME BROAD STROKES AND LET YOUR COUNCIL, OUR COUNCIL, FLESH OUT SOME THINGS TO PRESENT TO US TOGETHER, IN MY JUDGMENT, THAT'S THE MOST LOGICAL WAY TO PROCEED. WE LIVE TOGETHER, WE DIE TOGETHER. AND ONE WAY OR ANOTHER THE CLOCK IS TICKING AND I, FOR ONE, AM WILLING TO SAY, I'LL SACRIFICE PART OF MY BREAK THAT WERE RECESS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE GOING ON.

I'LL SACRIFICE SOME OF MY TIME TO WORK ON THIS WITH YOU FOLKS. AND IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE, COUNCILMAN CRAMER, YOU KNOW WE MUST FIND A WAY TO BRIDGE THIS GAP. AND IT'S A GAP THAT, AGAIN, NEITHER OF US CREATED. BUT LET'S FIND A WAY TO DO IT IN A MANNER THAT IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTABLE SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE BIG BROTHER COMING IN AND SWAT US AROUND AND SAY, WE'RE GOING TO CLEAN YOUR HOUSE UP FOR YOU IF YOU DON'T. SO THOSE THOSE ARE THE THOUGHTS THAT I HAVE. IT'S GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE FOR US. IT'S GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE FOR YOU. THAT'S

[01:45:02]

BEFORE COUNCIL, I MEAN, MR. ROZANSKI. MAYOR, THANK YOU VERY BRIEFLY AND CERTAINLY APPRECIATE ALL THE LAUDATORY COMMENTS. I'D BE REMISS TO SAY TO NOT SAY THAT WE HAVE A REALLY INCREDIBLE TEAM SUPPORTED AND UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF OUR BOARD, WHICH WE SINCERELY APPRECIATE, OUR FOCUS HAS AND ALWAYS HAS, IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN RUNNING A SAFE AND EFFICIENT AIRPORT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY. AND SO I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE MANY OF YOUR COMMENTS. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT GOES TO THE CREDIT OF THE OUTSTANDING, DEDICATED PROFESSIONALS WE HAVE AND ITS SAFETY AND SERVICE WITH A SMILE AND EXCELLENCE IN EVERYTHING THAT WE DO. AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WE'VE DISCUSSED INTERNALLY THROUGHOUT THIS CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS THAT THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO KEEP OUR, OUR EYE EYES ON. AND AS EVIDENCED BY OUR, OUR CLEAN FAA INSPECTION THIS WEEK, WHICH WE HAVE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. SO WE'RE ALL VERY PROUD OF THAT. I WOULD ASK IN COMING BACK TO OUR DISCUSSION TODAY, I THINK WE'VE HEARD FROM MOST OF YOU. I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST THAT, YOU KNOW, COUNCILWOMAN PENNIMAN HASN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK YET. I'D LOVE TO HEAR HER THOUGHTS ON THIS. WE'VE HEARD, I THINK, FROM THE REST OF YOU. AND THEN TO YOUR POINT, MAYOR, I THINK THAT'D BE A GREAT TIME FOR US TO MAYBE HAVE A BREAK AND A BRIEF RECESS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. AND I ASSURE YOU, WE AGREE THAT YOU HAVE A GREAT TEAM. BEHIND EVERY GOOD LEADER. THERE'S A GREAT TEAM, THERE'S AN AA BOARD, AND THERE'S STAFF AND OTHER ENTITIES THAT FALL BEHIND YOU. SO THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING THEM. COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN.

WELL, CERTAINLY THIS IS AN ASSET THAT NONE OF US WANTS TO LOSE. THIS YOUNG MAN HAS DONE A TERRIFIC JOB WITH THIS AIRPORT, IN MY OPINION. AND, YOU KNOW, WE ARE WHAT WE ARE. WE'RE A WEALTHY COMMUNITY. OTHER PEOPLE HAVE DECIDED THAT, YOU KNOW, THE BEST WAY TO GET FROM POINT A TO POINT B IS GOING TO BE AN AIRPLANE. SO THERE ARE A LOT OF USERS, A LOT MORE USERS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT COMING. IT'S TOO BAD WE DIDN'T. SO I THINK AT THIS POINT, I'M NOT GOING TO TALK FOREVER. I THINK AT THIS POINT SOMEONE HAS COME UP WITH A GOOD PLAN, WHICH IS

[01:50:06]

LIABILITIES, GRANT ASSURANCES, LEASES, EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS TO BE ASSUMED AS MANY MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE NEW ENTERPRISE FUND OR DEPENDENT DISTRICT COMPONENT UNIT TO OPERATE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AIRPORT, THE PARTIES WOULD WORK TOGETHER TO ASSIST EITHER THE CITY OR THE NEW DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT IN OBTAINING AN FAA FEEDBACK AND APPROVAL TO BECOME THE AIRPORT SPONSOR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. IF A NEW SPECIAL DEPENDENT DISTRICT IS CREATED, A NEW LEASE WOULD BE ENTERED INTO WITH THE CITY AND THE DISTRICT THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE NAA BOARD IN GOOD FAITH THAT WE WOULD NEGOTIATE AND WORK TOGETHER IN CONTINUING A PARTNERSHIP FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE AIRPORT AND THIS COMMUNITY. SO WITH THAT, WE ARE GOING, YOU MISSED THE WORD OR BETWEEN ENTERPRISE FUND AND THANK YOU AND DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT. SO ENTERPRISE FUND HAS BEEN TAKEN OFF THE TABLE AS FAR AS I THINK WE'RE CONCERNED. IT'S IS THAT FAIR TO SAY? YES. OKAY. SO WE DON'T WANT TO JUST SCRATCH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. SO NO ENTERPRISE FUND OKAY. OKAY. E BACK FROM OUR SHORT BREAK. YEAH. WE DON'T USE IT. VERY BENEFICIAL. OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ, COMMENTARY AROUND THE LEASE NEGOTIATION. AND I THINK YOU'VE HEARD FROM US, I THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD IS IN FAVOR OF THAT CLARIFICATION IN TERMS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THERE'S A MAJORITY THAT SUPPORTS THAT. WELL, THE ONE THING THAT'S MISSING, I THINK, FROM THIS CITY COUNCIL, FROM OUR PROPOSAL, IS WHETHER THE BOARD IS WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WORKING TOGETHER ON A SPECIAL, DEPENDENT DISTRICT TO SEPARATE THE TWO FROM THE STANDPOINT, BECAUSE WE I THINK IT GOES BACK TO MY POINT. WE HAVE, I THINK, HAVE THE AUTHORITY AND THE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO RENEGOTIATE THE LEASE AS AN INDEPENDENT STATE AUTHORITY CURRENTLY. SO WE'RE VERY I THINK I'M PERSONALLY VERY COMFORTABLE DOING THAT. I AM NOT COMFORTABLE IN TERMS OF THIS IDEA OF CREATING A NEW DEPENDENT DISTRICT THAT HAS UNSPECIFIED POWERS AND CAPABILITY WITH REGARDS TO HOW IT WOULD RESPOND TO BEING A DUPLICATE, TO WHAT CURRENTLY STANDS AS A LEGAL AUTHORITY BASED UPON THE STATE LAW WHICH WAS PASSED. THANK YOU. BUT THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE, IS TO THAT'S WHAT THE 164 IS ABOUT. THAT WAS OUR PROPOSAL THAT WE WORK WITH YOU TO CREATE A SPECIAL DEPENDENT DISTRICT. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I NEED TO KNOW FROM YOUR BOARD. WE ALL I THINK THERE'S UNANIMOUS THAT YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OPENING THE LEASE, BUT WE COULD HAVE

[01:55:01]

OF COURSE. AND DOES IT ALSO INCLUDE LITIGATION IS IN ABEYANCE? YES. I MEAN, IF THERE IS A DISPUTE AND OBVIOUSLY LITIGATION CONSTITUTES A DISPUTE AND IT'S A DISPUTE OVER GOVERNANCE OF A SPONSOR. NOW, AFTER THIS IS ALL OVER, COULD WE ASK THE FAA? ABSOLUTELY. WE COULD ASK THE FAA AND THE FAA WILL HAVE DEFINITIVE OPINIONS ON THAT SUBJECT. NO DOUBT. ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS, OF COURSE THEY'LL ASK IS, WHAT DOES STATE LAW SAY ON THE SUBJECT? AND BECAUSE STATE LAW HAS CREATED ALREADY HAS CREATED THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY AS AN INDEPENDENT DISTRICT, IT EXISTS TODAY. THE FAA IS. FIRST QUESTION IS WHY IS THE DEPENDENT DISTRICT BETTER FOR THE AIRPORT THAN THE INDEPENDENT DISTRICT THAT NOW EXISTS UNDER STATE LAW? I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE THE SORT OF QUESTION THEY WOULD ASK. AND THE LAW SETS OUT A WHOLE SET OF CRITERIA FOR THE FAA TO APPROVE A CHANGE IN SPONSORSHIP. AMONG THOSE CRITERIA ARE THE FINANCIAL CAPABILITY OF THE PROPOSED NEW SPONSOR. IN OTHER WORDS, THE FAA WOULD NEED TO KNOW THAT A SPECIAL DISTRICT TO REPLACE THE INDEPENDENT DISTRICT THAT EXISTS TODAY HAS THE FINANCIAL CAPABILITY TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE THE AIRPORT AND SO ON. SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS. THERE ARE PROBABLY 25 QUESTIONS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN THE FAA REGULATIONS AS TO HOW THEY REVIEW A QUESTION OF SPONSORSHIP WHEN THEY ARE ALLOWED TO REVIEW IT. AND DOES THAT REQUEST DETERMINE OR MATTER WHO ASKED THE QUESTION? CAN YOU, AS THE FAA ATTORNEY, GO TO. ANYBODY COULD ASK THE

[02:00:03]

THE CHALLENGE WE HAVE HERE, OF COURSE, IS THAT SO LONG AS THE INDEPENDENT DISTRICT EXISTS UNDER STATE LAW, THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ASK THAT QUESTION. UNDER UNDER FLORIDA LAW, YOU CAN ASK THAT QUESTION, BUT WE CAN'T BECAUSE WE ARE OBLIGATED UNDER STATE LAW TO OPERATE THE INDEPENDENT DISTRICT. WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE COMPROMISING TO THE INDEPENDENT DISTRICT. SO, YES, THE CITY COULD ASK THE FAA WHEN WHEN THE LITIGATION IS OVER, THE CITY COULD ASK THE FAA. SO, MAYOR, QUICK QUESTION.

YES, MR. MCDONNELL, SO, MR. KIRSCH, YOU SAID THE FAA PASSED A LAW. IF THERE'S LITIGATION RELATED TO. AND YOU WERE VERY SPECIFIC, THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OF THE SPONSOR, THEY WON'T TALK TO YOU. YEAH. THE FAA DIDN'T PASS CONGRESS. CONGRESS. BUT BUT YOU SAID IT WAS SPECIFIC TO LITIGATION RELATED TO THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OF THE SPONSOR. LET ME GET YOU THE EXACT LANGUAGE. IT HAS TO DO WITH GOVERNANCE AS ONE OF THE CRITERIA. AND IT'S NOT LITIGATION FOR THE DISPUTE OVER OVER GOVERNANCE, OKAY. BECAUSE BECAUSE OUR COMPLAINT IS NOT A DISPUTE OVER GOVERNANCE. IT'S A CONTRACTUAL ISSUE AND A STATUTORY ISSUE WITH THE CREATION OF AN INDEPENDENT DISTRICT. SO IF THE FAA IS WILLING, I'D STILL LIKE TO TRY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE FAA AND HEAR IT DIRECTLY FROM THE SOURCE.

THAT'S THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I CAN GIVE AN OPINION ON. THAT'S UP TO THE FAA AND THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY WOULD CARE. AND I WOULD JUST POINT OUT, I JUST DID A QUICK SEARCH OF YOUR COMPLAINT, AND IT REFERENCES THE TERM GOVERNANCE.

I THINK NINE TIMES I. RECOGNIZED DISADVANTAGE, NOT AN AVIATION ATTORNEY. SO I GUESS I'M A LITTLE SURPRISED. I THOUGHT THIS SESSION IN TERMS OF TRYING TO HAVE A ROBUST DISCUSSION HERE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE YOUR AVIATION ATTORNEY IN THE ROOM TO HELP US THROUGH SOME OF THESE ISSUES AND HELP EDUCATE. ALL OF US ARE NOT AVAILABLE. GOOD QUESTION. THE REALITY IS, IS MY PROPOSITION IS TO BE ON A PHONE CALL WITH YOUR COUNSEL AND CALL THE FAA TOGETHER AND HEAR IT DIRECTLY FROM THEM. I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. THE FAA HAS THE POSITION THAT YOUR COUNSEL STATES. THEN THEY'LL JUST REITERATE IT, AND I'LL COME BACK TO COUNSEL AND I'LL TELL THEM, GUESS WHAT? MR. CURTIS WAS RIGHT. THIS IS FAA POSITION.

IT'S A VERY SIMPLE REQUEST. I JUST WANT TO BE ON THE PHONE CALL AND HEAR IT DIRECTLY FROM THE SOURCE. THERE'S A LOT OF AVIATION QUESTIONS BROUGHT UP LAST COUPLE OF HOURS. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE SOME RESOURCES. UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN, THAT'S THE ONLY FAA QUESTION THAT'S COME UP THE LAST COUPLE HOURS. THIS IS ALL I WOULD AGREE WITH THE ATTORNEY.

I GUESS. COUNSEL. EXCUSE ME, MR. KRAMER. YEAH, I'M COMFORTABLE. AND I SAID I, I DON'T SEE ANY ATTORNEY SINCE I'VE BEEN ON YOUR SIDE OR OUR SIDE THAT HAS DONE ANYTHING TO SOLVE PROBLEMS. THEY'VE GIVEN ENTRENCHED PEOPLE, THEY HAVE ANSWERED QUESTIONS AND BUT NEVER GIVEN A WAY FORWARD, WHICH IS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR, WHICH IS WHY I DON'T THINK WE I'D PREFER ATTORNEY NOT OR ANY ATTORNEYS TO BE HERE. I MEAN, I SEE THE VALUE OF IT, BUT I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE PROBLEM SOLVING MORE THAN. AND I THINK THAT'S PRETTY VALID.

WHAT MR. MCCONNELL JUST SAID. CAN WE JUST CALL THEM? THEY CAN SAY, NO, WE CAN'T DO THAT. OKAY.

BUT IT'S WORTH THE CALL, I THINK, FOR ALL OF US. HAVING SAID ALL THAT. MR. SEVERAL TIMES YOU SAID INDEPENDENT DISTRICT, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN THE NEW ONE IS ELECTED. SO ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE CURRENT NA HAS NO AUTHORITY TO. THAT'S CORRECT. SO THEY'RE CURRENTLY THE. AS I READ 405, IT IS CURRENTLY AN INDEPENDENT DISTRICT. THE NEW MEMBERS OF THE DISTRICT HAVE NOT YET BEEN ELECTED. BUT WHEN 405 TOOK EFFECT, THIS BECAME AN INDEPENDENT DISTRICT AND MR. MR. OWENS IS COUNSEL TO THE AUTHORITY. HE CAN CERTAINLY ANSWER NO. AND I AGREE WITH THAT. OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. SO HERE'S MY SITUATION. I WANT TO DEAL WITH THIS. THESE PEOPLE, THIS CURRENT INDEPENDENT DISTRICT UNDER UNDER STATE LAW, THIS DISTRICT, THIS INDEPENDENT DISTRICT IS IN EXISTENCE. THE CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF THIS DISTRICT WILL SERVE UNTIL THE NEW MEMBERS ARE SEATED. SO SO THE CURRENT MEMBERS ARE GOING TO BE HERE UNTIL WHAT, SOMETIME IN NOVEMBER? THE CERTIFICATION OF THE ELECTION? YEP. SO I WANT TO DEAL WITH THESE BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE WE KNOW AND TRUST.

HAVING SAID THAT, SO A QUESTION, I GUESS, FOR MR. KIRSCH. WELL, FIRST LET ME ASK OUR ATTORNEY.

IS THERE ANYTHING IN PROHIBITS US FROM DOING THAT FACT FINDING WITH THE FAA DOING WHATEVER ELSE WE DECIDE TO DO. AND AS MY COLLEAGUE SAID, WE AREN'T THE SPONSORS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO.

[02:05:07]

THANKS FOR THAT. BUT ALSO, WOULD YOU WITH WHATEVER ELSE WE DECIDE WE'RE GOING TO DO HERE TODAY, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD ALSO WORK ON WHATEVER THE NEW LEASE AMENDMENT, NEW LEASE, WHATEVER, JUST THE SCAFFOLDING, THE FRAMEWORK? AT LEAST START ON THAT BECAUSE WE'RE KIND OF ON A SHOT CLOCK BEFORE NOVEMBER BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE NEW PEOPLE HERE. IS THAT JUST DOABLE? IS MY QUESTION LEGALLY? IS IT PERMISSIBLE? IS THAT DOABLE? YES. OKAY. AND THEN SO THEN QUICK QUESTION ON ON THE TIMELINE THOUGH, BECAUSE I HEARD MEMBER BYRNE SAY THAT HIS TERM EXPIRES IN SEPTEMBER. THAT'S CORRECT. MINE AND MR. CAVANAUGH'S. SO ARE YOU ARE YOU PLANNING ON JUST OPERATING WITH THE THREE MEMBER BOARD UNTIL THE ELECTION? NO, I BELIEVE I BELIEVE THE STATUTE ADDRESSES IT. OKAY. SO STILL REMAIN UNTIL THE NEW MEMBER GOT IT. THAT'S GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD THE TIMELINE BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THOSE TERMS WERE EXTENDED UNTIL THE NEW ELECTION. IS THAT. YEAH. OKAY.

SO SO THEN MY NEXT QUESTION AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS FOR THE COUNCIL. IF THROUGH A LEASE AMENDMENT, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICTS THAT EXIST, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE, DO YOU THINK WE COULD, THROUGH A LEASE AMENDMENT, RESOLVE THOSE CONFLICTS WITHOUT CREATING A NEW ON YOUR END, WITHOUT CREATING A NEW. INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT? THERE. THERE ARE CERTAINLY ISSUES. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU SAY. THE CURRENT CONFLICT, WHAT'S ON THAT, THAT MENU, IF YOU WILL, BUT THERE ARE CERTAINLY ISSUES THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED CONTRACTUALLY THROUGH A LEASE, NO QUESTION. THERE ARE ALSO ISSUES THAT CAN'T BE CONTRACTUALLY ADDRESSED. YOU CAN'T CHANGE STATE OR STATE LAW OR FEDERAL LAW. SO IF WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT'S ALLOWED UNDER STATE LAW AND FEDERAL LAW BY CONTRACT, THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF NAPLES CAN ENTER INTO A CONTRACT. WE CAN CALL THAT A LEASE THAT PROVIDES HOW CERTAIN THINGS WILL TAKE PLACE. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. OKAY, WELL, AND JUST FOR SO I'LL SAY IT AGAIN. THE DEFAULT IS WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW STATE AND FEDERAL LAW AS WE ALWAYS HAVE. OKAY. MY NEXT QUESTION IS TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT. WE'RE ABOUT TO LEAVE HERE AND GO TO ANOTHER MEETING WITH YOUR CHAPTER 164. COULD WE, THROUGH AN AMENDED LEASE, CURE THOSE CONFLICTS AS WELL? BROKEN RECORD HERE, BUT DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS. I THINK WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS THAT WE BELIEVE IN. OUR POSITION IS IS PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW. AND SO THROUGH CONTRACT YOU STILL CAN'T OVERCOME FEDERAL PREEMPTION. BUT BUT I KNOW AS YOU STATED, AS LONG AS WE'RE OPERATING WITHIN THOSE GUARDRAILS, CERTAINLY BY CONTRACT, THE NEA CAN AGREE TO LAWFUL TERMS. OKAY. THE ONLY QUESTION I'VE GOT, MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR MR. MCCONNELL. I DON'T KNOW, UNDER FLORIDA LAND USE LAW, WHETHER YOU CAN ADDRESS ZONING IN A CONTRACT IN MANY STATES, YOU CANNOT. BUT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT FLORIDA LAW.

CAN I DEFER TO MR. MCCONNELL AS WELL? BUT I BELIEVE THERE'S PROVISIONS IN FLORIDA LAW THAT ALLOW FOR WHAT THE TERM IS DEVELOPMENT. WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE DETAILS, IF YOU'RE ASKING A HIGH LEVEL QUESTION, WHICH WE'VE ASKED SINCE THE BEGINNING, THEN I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES. THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING. I THINK PUTTING THE PARAMETERS TOGETHER, UNDERSTANDING THE LEGALITY OF WHAT THE TERMS ARE, OBVIOUSLY BOTH BOARDS AGREEING TO IT, BUT I THINK YOU'RE HEARING THAT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT AN AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE COULD RESOLVE THEIR CONFLICT AS WELL. WELL, THAT BEING THE CASE, THEN I WOULD DEFER TO MY COLLEAGUE, MR. KAVANAGH. HE ASKED IF WE'RE WILLING TO DO THAT, CAN WE WORK ON MANY OF THE LEASE, AND THERE MAY BE SOME UP HERE WHO WANT TO AND SOME WHO DO NOT, BUT I THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE TO SEE IF WE CAN GET A CONSENSUS FROM OUR SIDE TO SEE IF WE CAN MOVE FORWARD IN THAT DIRECTION. AND I, FOR ONE, THINK THAT'S THE CLEANEST WAY TO MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU, I AM COMPLETE. SO WHEN YOU SAY CONTRACT. WHAT SPECIFICALLY CONTRACT IS THAT THE LEASE? YEAH, I WAS REFERRING TO IT AS FAR AS I WAS CONCERNED GENERICALLY. SO A LEASE IS A CONTRACT. SO THROUGH A LEASE OR A SEPARATE CONTRACT I THINK THE THE HOW YOU APPROACH IT DOESN'T MATTER AS

[02:10:02]

DON'T SAY, IN MY OPINION, DON'T SAY WE WANT TO DO THIS, YES OR NO. SAY WE HAVE A GOAL. WE WOULD LIKE TO DO THESE THINGS. WE'RE THINKING THIS. WHAT DO YOU THINK? AND IF YOU DON'T GET A POSITIVE RESPONSE, THEN YOU ASK, WELL, IS THERE ANOTHER WAY? YOU KNOW WHAT? WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO IF IF THESE GOALS ARE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU AND WORK, YOU KNOW, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE LAWS, WHAT WOULD WE NEED TO DO TO MAKE IT HAPPEN? SO I WOULD ASK I'M SURE YOU ALREADY THOUGHT THAT, BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR, ASK OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS TO TRY TO GET AS MUCH INPUT AS POSSIBLE, PARTICULARLY IF THEY SAY, OH, THE NEW LAW SAYS WE CAN'T SAY ANYTHING.

WHAT CAN YOU SAY? IF I CAN, VICE MAYOR, YOU EARLIER SAID YOU'RE NOT A LAWYER, BUT WE'LL MAKE YOU AN HONORARY LAWYER TODAY FOR ASKING THAT QUESTION. BECAUSE HOW YOU POSE THE QUESTION IS CRITICAL. AND HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS. THE STATUTE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THE FEDERAL LAW SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES A BASIS FOR ASKING THOSE OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS TO THE FAA. IN OTHER WORDS, THE STATUTE SAYS THAT IF AN AGENCY IS CONSIDERING A CHANGE IN SPONSORSHIP, THE. THE FAA ENCOURAGES THE AFFECTED PARTIES TO COME TO THE FAA TO SEEK TECHNICAL ADVICE ON HOW TO ACCOMPLISH THE CHANGE. AND SO IF THE QUESTION IS, HYPOTHETICALLY, HOW CAN WE CHANGE THE SPONSORSHIP OF THE NAPLES AIRPORT THAT WILL ELICIT

[02:15:04]

SO WE CAN CERTAINLY GO TO THEM WITH A SIMILAR TYPE OF CONVERSATION OF WHAT IFS, YOU KNOW, HYPOTHETICALS. WHAT IF WE DO THIS? WHAT IF WE DO THAT? WHAT DO YOU THINK? WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE NEW GOVERNOR WILL BE. THAT ONE'S A LITTLE BIT HARDER BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY CANDIDATES RUNNING, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE NEW ONE WILL BE. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE WILL BE A NEW GOVERNOR AT THE TIME THAT THE ELECTION HAPPENS IN NOVEMBER, SO WE WON'T KNOW THAT. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY LEAN HEAVILY ON THE LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES, LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE AND LOCAL SENATOR AS TO THEIR OPINION. SO TO THE EXTENT WE CAN TALK TO THE CURRENT ONES AND WE THINK THE NEW PEOPLE WILL BE THE NEW SENATOR, WE CAN GET THAT INPUT AND THAT WILL INFORM THE WHOLE PROCESS ON WHAT THEIR OPINIONS ARE AND HOW HOW THIS MIGHT BE SHAPED GOING FORWARD. YEAH, I'M CERTAINLY WILLING. I THINK OTHERS ARE WILLING. I THINK SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEM SO WE CAN GET THEIR OPINIONS AND ADD TO THE DISCUSSION. CAN I CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF OUR COUNCIL JUST BECAUSE. AGAIN, TO ME, THIS RENEGOTIATION OF THE LEASE IS THE MOST LIKELY ACTION THAT COULD BE DONE WITHIN A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, AS OPPOSED TO ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE ON THIS LIST THAT WOULD GO BEYOND NOVEMBER AND YOU'LL BE DEALING WITH, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY NEW MEMBERS FROM THAT STANDPOINT. SO I GUESS, AM I RIGHT IN ASSUMING THE TIMELINE AGAIN, JUST TO GIVE US A BROAD BRUSH APPROACH TO THAT, THAT ALL THE THINGS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT AND PUTTING THE PEOPLE ON THERE WILL GO WELL BEYOND NOVEMBER. I WOULD SAY PERSONALLY, I FEEL THE LEASE AMENDMENT WITH THE EXISTING NA APPROACH HAS MANY LESS HURDLES. AND EXCEPT FOR COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON, IT'D BE VERY DIFFICULT TO OVERCOME BEFORE BEFORE NOVEMBER. BUT WE HAVE TWO PATHS, RIGHT? I'M NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T

[02:20:13]

BUT I MEAN, BY DEFINITION AND NOW I MEAN, THEY'RE SAYING WE'RE AN INDEPENDENT DISTRICT.

WE. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY SAID THE DEFAULT IS WE CAN'T HELP YOU WITH THIS, WITH GETTING RID OF US. AND US WOULD BE A NEW INDEPENDENT DISTRICT. SO THAT BEING THE CASE, THIS AGAIN, THIS CONTROL IS AN ILLUSION. NOW THE NOW THE GUARDRAILS FOR OUR CITIZENS, FOR OUR PROPERTY.

AND I WANT TO JUST GET THIS REAFFIRMED BY BOTH LEGAL COUNCILS. THOSE GUARDRAILS REGARDING LAND PLANNING. AND WHATEVER DETAILS WOULD EXIST CAN BE PUT IN PLACE UNDER

[02:25:12]

THAT'S A GENERAL STATEMENT. THAT'S OKAY. BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING MORE SPECIFIC LIKE THIS IS THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR PERMITS, I WOULDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE PUTTING THAT IN A LEASE. NO, IT WOULD JUST DEFER TO WHAT OUR. CORRECT. YEAH. BUT BUT HOPEFULLY THAT DIFFERENCE IN TERMINOLOGY LIKE REGISTERS BECAUSE I THINK YOU CAN PUT A LOT THERE THAT WOULD ASSURE BOTH BOARDS OF OVERSIGHT, COORDINATION AND EFFICIENCY. SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHAT MATTERS TO EVERYBODY. YOU CAN PUT A LOT THERE THAT ASSURES OVERSIGHT, COORDINATION AND EFFICIENCY FROM BOTH BOARDS FOR BOTH BOARDS. BECAUSE I THINK FROM THE POSITION, IT'S EFFICIENT PERMITTING, ENSURING THAT THEY CAN JUST OPERATE A SAFE AND HEALTHY AIRPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL'S POSITION. MY FEELING IS MAINTAINING OVERSIGHT AND COORDINATION WHEN IT COMES TO OUR LARGEST CITY OWNED ASSET, SO I'D ASK IF THEIR COUNCIL AGREES WITH THAT, THAT THROUGH LEASE AMENDMENT WE COULD ACHIEVE THOSE THINGS. YES, I'LL STAND BY MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT THAT IT CAN, SUBJECT TO BOTH SIDES, AGREEING TO THE SPECIFIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE COORDINATION AND EFFICIENCY AND OVERSIGHT. AND IT MAY COME AND PASS EVENTUALLY AT SOME POINT, LIKE THAT'S JUST NEGOTIATIONS ON OCCASION THAT CAN OCCUR. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT'S THE MOST REASONABLE WAY TO GO. AND AGAIN, IT'S STILL LAYING ON THE FLOOR AND MY COLLEAGUES HAVEN'T PICKED IT UP AT ALL. THAT THAT WOULD BE THE MOST REASONABLE WAY TO GO IS WITH A LEASE AMENDMENT. AND I THINK YOU'LL YOU'LL, WHEN YOU REVIEW OUR 164 PAPERWORK, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S A MAJOR ISSUE THERE THAT WE'LL DISCUSS THIS AFTERNOON FROM THAT STANDPOINT. WELL, I'M WONDERING IF WE CAN. I SAID THAT BEFORE, CAN WE, THROUGH A LEASE AMENDMENT, RESOLVE THIS, RESOLVE YOUR 164 ISSUES. I'D ASK THAT THE VERY FIRST THING WE CAME BACK FROM BREAK, I THOUGHT THE ANSWER WAS YES. CAN WE RESOLVE ONE ISSUE, WHATEVER ISSUES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT YEAR 164 ADDRESSES, WHY DON'T WE TALK ABOUT THIS AFTERNOON WHEN WE HAVE OUR SESSION? RIGHT? I SAID IT WHEN WE CAME BACK, I SAID WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THIS SESSION AND CAN WE THROUGH A LEASE AMENDMENT, CAN WE RESOLVE THOSE ISSUES? WELL, AND THE ANSWER WAS YES. THE ANSWER WAS POTENTIALLY BASED ON YEAH, IF WE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS, RIGHT. BUT IF WE FOLLOW STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, IS IT IS IT DOABLE? THE ANSWER IS YES. AND THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS AND IT'S THE SAME THING WITHIN STATE LAW, BUT EVEN BY CONTRACT TO WILLING CONTRACTING PARTIES, CAN'T, YOU KNOW, BIND THEMSELVES TO SOMETHING THAT'S PREEMPTED. SO. RIGHT. OF COURSE, THERE'S LIMITATIONS ON WHAT WE CAN DO, BUT THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT WE CAN DO, I BELIEVE, AND I DON'T THINK ANYONE SITTING UP HERE EVER WANTED TO ENFORCE ANYTHING THAT'S PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

NOT THAT, NOT THAT I KNOW OF. THAT'S NOT WHAT YOUR STATE LAW. BUT BUT WE NEED TO BE VERY CLEAR HERE. THE APPROVAL OF SOMETHING MAY BE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW, BUT PROCESSING SOMETHING AND IDENTIFYING THINGS THAT YOU'RE DOING ON CITY PROPERTY IS NOT PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW. THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. BUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. APPROVAL IS DIFFERENT THAN COORDINATION OVERSIGHT, ENSURING THAT THE CITY IS AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON ON ITS PROPERTY. YEP. THANK YOU. YOU MAKE A GOOD CASE. BUT I WILL JUST SAY TO ANSWER YOU, DETAILS MATTER. THE CITIZENS OVERSIGHT IN THE PROCESSING OF THE CITY LAW IS IT MATTERS. AND HAVING AN ENTITY THAT IS NOT CITY MANAGE CITY PROPERTY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THIS COMMUNITY.

AND I THINK OPENING A LEASE WITHOUT GETTING PAST THE THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, WE ASKED OF THE NAA. THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY BOARD WAS TO CONSIDER THIS DEPENDENT. AND IT

[02:30:04]

WE RECEIVE FROM THEM AN ANNUAL OPERATING LICENSE. AND IN OUR CASE, BECAUSE WE HAVE A CERTIFICATED AIRPORT, THE DOT ACCEPTS THE RESULTS OF THE FAA ANNUAL INSPECTION, USING THAT AS A BASIS TO ISSUE THEIR LICENSE. BUT THEY ALSO DO HAVE AN OVERSIGHT ROLE. BUT WOULD ANYTHING THAT WE PROPOSE TO YOU INTERFERE WITH THAT INSPECTION OR LICENSE? IT'S I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN OPINE ON THAT ENTIRELY. IT'S MORE A FUNCTION OF. ARE YOU MEETING THESE? THE INSPECTION IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO. ARE YOU MEETING THESE STANDARDS TO OPERATE A SAFE AND EFFICIENT AIRPORT? I DON'T KNOW THAT. YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF SPONSORSHIP, YOU KNOW, THE ASSURANCES THAT THEY HAVE INCLUDED IN A LOT OF THEIR GRANT AGREEMENTS ARE VERY SIMILAR, NOT IDENTICAL TO FAA, BUT SIMILAR TO THE FAA GRANT ASSURANCES. OKAY. SO I DON'T SEE A CONFLICT THAT WE'RE CREATING FOR THEM BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TRYING TO OVERRIDE THE FAA RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES. UNLESS I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY. I WOULD ASK PETER, BUT AT ITS THRESHOLD, I WOULD SAY IF YOU CREATE A NEW DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT, IT'S A NEW ENTITY THAT WOULD REQUIRE A SEPARATE NEW LICENSE FROM FDOT, FROM FAA. NEW APPROVALS POSSIBLY REQUIRE NEW INSPECTIONS AND OVERSIGHT. SO I THINK THAT AT ITS, YOU KNOW, MINIMUM, YOU KNOW, WOULD WOULD TRIGGER THAT KIND OF REQUIREMENT FOR APPROVAL. I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT IF YOU SATISFY THE FAA, IT'S PRETTY LIKELY THAT YOU'LL SATISFY FDOT. THE ONLY CAVEAT I HAVE TO THAT IS THIS EXISTENCE OF A STATE LAW. AND FDOT MAY HAVE STRONG VIEWS BECAUSE THEY'RE REQUIRED BY LAW TO HAVE STRONG VIEWS ON 405. SO THE FAA MAY SAY THAT STATE LAW. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DEAL WITH IT, OR THEY MAY HAVE A STRONG VIEWS, FDOT LIKE THAT, STRONG VIEWS. SO I'M WE'RE ALL SPECULATING HERE, BUT YES, BUT I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THAT MEMBER ARNOLD IS RIGHT, THAT FDOT WILL HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY HERE, WHETHER THAT WILL BE A PERFUNCTORY ROLE OR A SIGNIFICANT ROLE REMAINS TO BE SEEN. WELL, I WAS I WILL SAY I WAS HOPING THAT WE WOULD HAVE DISCUSSIONS THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY COME TO A RESOLUTION, BUT IT APPEARS THAT WE'RE REALLY AT A STANDSTILL.

CAN I CAN I ASK THE QUESTION, HOW DOES THE REST OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEEL ABOUT PURSUING AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AND AND DOING THAT? I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH AMENDING THE LEASE, BUT NOT BASED ON THE POSITION THAT WE'VE ASKED, THAT WE LOOK AT A DEPENDENT ENTITY. YES.

BARTON. I'LL COMMENT ON THAT. AND BREAKFAST TO LEASE AND ALSO THE POTENTIAL OF CREATING A DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN OR CANNOT DO, THE LEASE NEEDS TO BE AMENDED. I THINK WE ALL CAN AGREE WITH THAT. AND I THINK ALL OF US ARE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT PROCESS. SO AND WE'VE ASKED BOTH COUNCILS IF IF THE PROCESS OF DETERMINING WHETHER A DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT CAN BE CREATED OR NOT, AND THE LEASE NEGOTIATIONS CAN HAPPEN

[02:35:02]

WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POWERS THAT BE, YOU SPECIFICALLY REFERENCE FLORIDA STATE LEGISLATURE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, FAAFDOT. SO WE. IF WE HAVE TO GIVE ANSWERS FROM ALL OF THOSE INDEPENDENT AGENCIES AS TO WHETHER THIS IS A POSSIBILITY OR NOT, THEN WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS HAVE US AGAIN, AS THE COLLECTIVE WE. I WOULD LIKE US TO GIVE COUNCIL PERMISSION TO GO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS AGAIN. WE CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT YOU BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE THE SPONSOR. SO IT HAS TO BE A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT TO GET THOSE ANSWERS TO BEGIN WITH.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT THERE'S SOME CONCERN ON YOUR SIDE ABOUT, OKAY, THIS THIS LAW IS PASSED AND IT'S NOW AN INDEPENDENT DISTRICT. AND YOU CAN'T NECESSARILY SAY, HEY, WE'RE ALL FOR THIS CREATION OF A DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WE CAN'T EVEN GO GET THE QUESTIONS ANSWERED WITHOUT YOU AT LEAST BEING IN THE ROOM AND SAYING, THESE ARE QUESTIONS WE WE WOULD LIKE, WE WOULD ALL LIKE TO HAVE ANSWERS TO. YOU CAN ASK THOSE QUESTIONS WITHOUT SAYING THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO DO. BUT AGAIN, WE CAN'T EVEN GET THESE ANSWERS FROM THESE AGENCIES WITHOUT YOUR COLLABORATIVE EFFORT WITH US.

SO AGAIN, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST AND WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU IS I AM ALL FOR RENEGOTIATING THE LEASE. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN IN A PERFECT WORLD FOR COUNCILMAN BARTON, IS THAT WE CREATE A DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT, AND WE AND WE RENEGOTIATE THE LEASE. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CAN HAPPEN. THE ONLY WAY WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHETHER THAT CAN HAPPEN IS FOR US TO, TO GIVE DIRECTION TO OUR COUNCIL, TO GO TALK TO THESE INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, THESE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, AND FIND OUT IF WE CAN DO THIS OR NOT.

THEY MAY COME BACK AND SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE OF XYZ OR A, B, C, OKAY, WE HAVE NOT WASTED ANY TIME IN THIS IN THAT SCENARIO BECAUSE WE ARE ALSO NEGOTIATING A LEASE SIMULTANEOUSLY. SO I'D LOVE TO SEE A INDEPENDENT SPECIAL, A DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT CREATED. AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE OUR OUR LEASE NEGOTIATED, RENEGOTIATED. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. KAVANAGH, AM I OPEN TO LEASE NEGOTIATION? RENEGOTIATION? ABSOLUTELY. 100%.

IS THAT THE ONLY THING I'M OPEN TO? ONLY IF ONLY IF IT TURNS OUT THAT THE CREATION OF DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT IS NOT AN OPTION ON THE TABLE, AND WE JUST DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IF THAT'S A TRUE STATEMENT OR NOT. SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US DO COLLABORATIVELY IS FIND OUT IF DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO. AND IF IT'S NOT, THEN WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS WE NEED TO SWITCH GEARS. WE NEED TO FOCUS ON ACCEPTING 40005, WHICH I DON'T LIKE AND I DON'T WANT. BUT WE NEED TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THAT MAY BE A REALITY. AND IF THAT IS A REALITY, WE ALSO NEED TO HAVE A NEW RENEGOTIATED LEASE AS A PART OF THIS PROCESS.

MR. BARTON, IF I MAY JUST CLARIFY HERE, THERE'S NOTHING TODAY THAT WOULD PREVENT THE CITY FROM APPROACHING ANY OF THESE PARTIES ABOUT A SPECIAL DISTRICT, A SPECIAL DEPENDENT DISTRICT. YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO THAT. IT PLACES US IN AN AWKWARD PLACE TO BE IN THAT ROOM. AND SO A PATH MAY BE TO GO BACK TO THIS TWO, TWO SIMULTANEOUS PATHS NEGOTIATION WITH THE AUTHORITY OVER AN AMENDED LEASE WHILE THE CITY YOU CAN TELL US YOU'RE DOING THIS. THE CITY IS ADVOCATING FOR CREATION OF A NEW SPECIAL DISTRICT. BUT WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT BEING IN THE ROOM. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I'LL LEAVE IT TO OUR OUR BOARD MEMBERS TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY WANT TO BE IN THE ROOM OR NOT. BUT IT DOES PLACE US IN AN AWKWARD PLACE. AND SO PERHAPS THERE'S A PATH WHEREBY THE CITY PURSUES ITS ITS MISSION WITH THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE OR PURSUES CREATING A SPECIAL DISTRICT IN LIEU OF THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY, WITHOUT OUR TAKING A POSITION ON THAT. IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US, AS WE'VE DONE IN THE LITIGATION THUS FAR, NOT THAT WE DON'T TAKE A POSITION ON THAT LEASE.

OF COURSE, WE HAVE A LOT OF POSITIONS ON THAT, AND WE'RE HAPPY, AS I THINK I'M SPEAKING FOR THE THE BOARD HERE TO SIT DOWN AND TALK ABOUT NEGOTIATION OF THE LEASE. MATTHEW, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION IN REFERENCE TO OUR PROCESS FOR TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER A DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT IS, IS AN AVENUE THAT IS THAT IS OPEN TO TO US OR NOT THE ONLY AGENCY I THINK I COULD RUN INTO ISSUE WITH WITH COMMUNICATING WITH IS THE FAA. I CAN CALL DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE MY PERSONAL OPINION. I DON'T SEE THEIR THEM BEING A RELEVANT AGENCY IN THIS, BUT I'LL CALL THEM FDOT. I AGREE WITH FLORIDA STATE LEGISLATOR. I MEAN, GOVERNOR IS NOT SOMEONE YOU CAN JUST PICK UP AND CALL, BUT WE'LL DO OUR BEST. BUT I DO THINK THE FAA, CONSIDERING THEY'RE THE SPONSOR, IS THE ONE THING THAT AS LONG AS THEY'RE WILLING TO GET ME IN THE DOOR, SO TO SPEAK, THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE ON THE CALL. IF FAA IS WILLING TO DO THAT, THEN AND I

[02:40:03]

GET TO GET CLARITY ON THAT. AND I, I DO HAVE AND I'M FRUSTRATED THAT YOU'RE ENOUGH OF A REASON FOR US NOT TO DO THIS, NOT TO CONTINUE TO PURSUE THE DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT AND TO FOCUS SIMPLY ON, ON THE LEASE NEGOTIATION. AGAIN, I CAN'T MAKE THAT DECISION AT THIS POINT TIME BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION TO DO SO. SO AGAIN, MY IN MY PERFECT WORLD WOULD BE A DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT AND RENEGOTIATED LEASE THAT THAT MAY NOT BE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE. LET'S FIND OUT IF IT IS. WELL, BARTON SPEAKS UP AGAIN. THANK YOU. I JUST ONE QUICK BEFORE WE EVEN GO DOWN THAT PATH. WE HEARD FROM TWO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ABOUT THE SPECIAL DISTRICT CONCEPT. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE OTHERS ABOUT THAT. SUBJECT TO APPROVAL. IF THEY'RE JUST NEGATIVE OR, OR KIND OF POSITIVE OR OPEN TO IT OR NOT OPEN TO IT, THAT THAT TYPE OF THING. AND OBVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO IT BEING LEGAL AND ALL THAT. WELL, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH SAYING THAT I AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT. MY ATTORNEYS ADVISE THAT WE'RE NOT TO TAKE A POSITION. I'M NOT TAKING A POSITION UNTIL WE GET THAT ANSWER. WE'RE NOT ASKING ABOUT TABLE. JUST IF IT WAS LEGAL, WOULD IT BE SOMETHING THAT IS JUST OPEN DISCUSSION, OPEN OR CLOSED ON IT? YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS LEGAL, THEN THE CITY HAS ALL THE AUTHORITY TO DO CREATE A SPECIAL DISTRICT. THAT THERE'S SO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS. THIS PATH IS VERY

[02:45:01]

[02:50:06]

PEOPLE MAY CHANGE PLACES AND. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE VICE MAYOR. DID YOU DID YOU GET A TIMELINE? BECAUSE I SPOKE TO HIM TOO, AND I DID GET A TIMELINE. YEAH, IT WOULD BE NEXT YEAR, THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION, BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZE THERE'S NO OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO INTRODUCE A NEW LOCAL BILL UNTIL NEXT SESSION, WHICH I THINK IS IN MARCH. AND SO I HAD THE SAME CONVERSATION. AND ALSO OUR REPRESENTATIVE WHO INTRODUCED THIS BILL. I WON'T QUOTE HIM, BUT IT'S NOT GOING AWAY ON HIS END. LIKE HE'S NOT UNDOING ANYTHING. THE OTHERS, THOUGH, THIS CAN BE CURED, IT CAN BE FIXED AND IT'LL TAKE THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION. SO FOR EXPECTATIONS, THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST SEE THE LEASE SUBMITTED BEFORE THIS TAKES EFFECT. AND YOU AND THIS BOARD IS DISSOLVED. SO SORRY. THAT'S A THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL, COUNCILMAN. THE WHAT'S NOT GOING AWAY? THE INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT 4005 WITH HELP FROM OUR LEGISLATORS. IT'S NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. AS VICE MAYOR JUST CONFIRMED TO ME UNTIL THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION. THAT'S THE ONLY TIME THEY COULD THEY WOULD THEY'D OFFER TO CURE IT. WHATEVER ILLS THAT IT PRESENTS, THEY WILL CURE IT. AT THAT TIME, A COURT COULD INTERVENE. COURT COULD. BUT THE LEGISLATURE HAS NO SCHEDULED SESSIONS BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT WINTER. THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH, THAT'S FOR SURE. SO SO SO I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT. I THINK THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO GET THE TIME FRAME. SO BUT THERE WAS AN EXPRESSION OF INTEREST IN GOING BACK TO A DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT. THE CASE WAS WE DON'T LIKE IT. WE HATE IT. IT'S BAD. AND THE ANSWER WAS, WELL, IF THAT'S THE CASE, WE CAN FIX IT. NEXT TIME WE'LL REVIEW IT. IT'S GOING TO GO INTO EFFECT. THERE'S I MEAN, BARRING A JUDGE STOPPING IT, IT'LL GO INTO EFFECT, AND THEN IT WILL BE REVISITED AT THE NEXT SESSION AND ASSESSED AT THAT TIME. AND AGAIN, NO ONE HAS HAD A CONVERSATION. MR. ROZANSKI, ON THIS SPECIFIC PROPOSAL, WHICH I THINK IS CREATIVE IN NATURE, AND THERE'S NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT US CREATING A SPECIAL DISTRICT. THERE'S NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. SO I THINK THE CONVERSATION, REGARDLESS OF WHAT OCCURRED PRIOR TO TODAY, IS PROBABLY A LOT DIFFERENT THAN THE CONVERSATION I WILL HAVE MOVING FORWARD AND PERSONALLY, WHICH MAY RESULT IN A DIFFERENT ANSWER. I DIDN'T WANT TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE PEOPLE I TALKED TO UNTIL I HAD SOME SENSE OF WHAT YOU GUYS THOUGHT, AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY FAIR FOR MY COLLEAGUES UP HERE. WE WANTED TO KNOW WHAT YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THIS. IF YOU THOUGHT IT WAS TERRIBLE, IF YOU THOUGHT IT WAS POSSIBLE, IF YOU THOUGHT WE COULD WORK WITH IT, IF WE COULD MAKE THINGS BETTER. AS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR WAS SOME FEEDBACK BEFORE WE HAVE THOSE TYPES OF CONVERSATIONS, MR. YOUNG, SO I'M GOING TO TRY YOUR YOU KNOW, WE LISTENED TO A LOT. AND I THINK THE PARALLEL PATH HAS TO OCCUR BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO START COUNTING SOMETHING OFF. IF WE DON'T BEGIN THE PROCESS OF SAYING THIS CAN HAPPEN, WHAT IS THE TIMELINE? AND IF WE MARCH, EVEN TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN HAVE ATTORNEYS IN THE ROOM TO SAY, THIS IS OUR OPENING SALVO, IS THERE A PATH? IF THE ANSWER IS NO, THEN WE HAD THE CONVERSATION AND WE CAN SAY IN GOOD FAITH, WE EACH BROACHED THAT SUBJECT WITH ONE ANOTHER. THE NEXT PART OF IT IS WE HAVE TO BEGIN IN EARNEST ON A LEASE THAT EXTENDS IT TO GIVE THE AIRPORT OPERATIONAL CONTROL AND CONSISTENCY TO PROTECT THE ASSET WE HAVE. SO THAT NEEDS TO BEGIN TOMORROW. AND AS MR. MCCONNELL HAD SAID, WHETHER IT IS INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS, WE'RE GOING TO COME TOGETHER AND IT'S ONE. BUT THAT NEEDS TO BEGIN TOMORROW AS WELL.

AND EVEN IF YOU BEGIN TOMORROW, YOU MAY BE FINALIZE SOMETHING IN OCTOBER. YOU MAY BE FINALIZING SOMETHING IN NOVEMBER. BUT IF THE LEGISLATURE MEETS MEETING UNTIL MARCH, YOU'RE NOT GETTING IT DONE BEFORE THOSE GET SEATED IN NOVEMBER EITHER WAY. SO REGARDLESS OF THE CHANGES NEXT MARCH, WE NEED TO BE, NO PUN INTENDED, MARCHING TOWARDS A

[02:55:07]

I'M NOT A POLITICAL NOVICE, BUT I THINK WE CAN TELL IN PRETTY SHORT ORDER WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS ANY LEGS WHATSOEVER OR WE'RE GOING TO BE FINALIZING A NEGOTIATION WITH THIS BOARD ON A LEASE, WHETHER IT'S THE NEXT ONE IN NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER, OR YOU'RE GOING TO SAY, WE'RE GOING TO HOLD FIRM ON NO LEASE UNTIL WE SEE WHAT THEY DO NEXT MARCH. BUT EITHER WAY, WE NEED TO MARCH EXPEDITIOUSLY TO GIVE SOME STABILITY TO BOTH PARTIES ON OUR LAND TO MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT SITTING HERE FACED WITH, HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THE NEXT PROJECT THAT COMES ALONG? BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS QUANDARY WE NEED TO BE MOVING TOWARDS, BECAUSE EVERY DAY IS GOING TO MATTER, EVEN IN THESE 164. SO WE'RE GOING TO WAIT 15 DAYS. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MEDIATOR. ARE WE GOING TO SAY, WELL, WE CAN PICK ONE, BUT WE WANT TO MARCH DOWN THE LEASE PATH THAT MAKES TIME IS OF AN ESSENCE. AND WE BOTH HAVE INSTITUTIONS TO RUN. AND SO I SAY THAT SO THAT WE CAN COME TO A CONSENSUS ON. I THINK THAT I'VE HEARD ENOUGH THAT THERE'S PATHS TO SAY, LET'S PURSUE BOTH. ONE IS LIMITED BECAUSE THERE'S LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON THIS BOARD AND WHAT THEIR FUNCTION IS, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T HAVE THOSE PARALLEL CONVERSATIONS. BUT WE NEED TO WORK IN EARNEST TOWARDS THE VALUE OF A LEASE, DETERMINING WHAT THAT WOULD BE AND WHAT THE TERMS THAT ARE FAVORABLE TO EITHER PARTY ARE, INCLUDING STABILITY FOR THEM TO RUN THE AIRPORT OVER LONG TERM. IF, AND I'LL SAY THAT DID TO THE GOVERNOR. I SAID IT WHEN WE STARTED THIS. IF OUR OBJECTIVE ISN'T TO GUARANTEE THIS IS THE SAME VALUABLE JEWEL 99 YEARS FROM NOW, THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WHEN WE SHOULDN'T BE IN THIS ROOM, AND THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING. AND I THINK MR. MCCONNELL HAS OUTLINED I THINK THE COOPERATION HAS BEEN OUTLINED TO SAY, TO THE EXTENT THE ATTORNEYS, IF I'M RIGHT IN INTERPRETING WHAT THE BOARD SAYS, THAT WE CAN HAVE THE ATTORNEYS IN THE ROOM FOR AT LEAST TO BROACH THE SUBJECT IN AN AREA THAT MAY NOT OTHERWISE BE BROACHED WITHOUT THEM IN THE ROOM. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT FAA. AT LEAST IT ALLOWS FOR THOSE CONVERSATIONS TO COME BACK AND REPORT SOMETHING TO YOU. SO I'VE SAID MY PIECE, BUT I THINK THAT THAT REALLY IS IT IS A CONSOLIDATION OF THE CONVERSATION. AND THE ONLY ONE THAT I'M GOING TO IT'S BEEN SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE APPROACHED THE AIRPORT FOR A LONG TERM LEASE. FOR 005 ACTIONS OVER THE LAST THREE, FOUR YEARS. AND EVERYTHING ELSE BROUGHT THE LEASE TO WHERE IT SAID TODAY. IT'S NOT ABOUT WHETHER THE CITY COULD HAVE PROPOSED BETTER GOVERNANCE AND SAID, LET'S ADD 20 YEARS OR.

AND THEY COULD HAVE. WE ARE WHERE WE ARE, BUT WE DO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THE LONG TERM STABILITY AND EXTENDING THE LEASE FOR OPERATIONAL INSTABILITY PURPOSES FOR, FOR EVERYBODY. SO I I'M GOING TO STOP THERE, BUT I DON'T THINK IN READING THE DAIS THAT WE'RE THAT FAR AWAY FROM BEING ABLE TO SAY WE SHOULD APPROACH IT FROM THOSE PERSPECTIVES. AND I HOPE I THANK YOU FOR INDULGING ME, MA'AM. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD GO TO

[6) PUBLIC COMMENTS]

YOU CAN LOOK AT THE ARCHIVES AND YOU KNOW WHO THOSE PEOPLE WERE. SO, YES, THIS BOARD INFLUENCED THIS BOARD TO ACTUALLY DO THAT. THAT'S A DETRIMENTAL MOVE TO AN AIRPORT.

IF WE CARED ABOUT OUR JEWEL, WHY WOULD WE DO THAT? AND THEN WE ALSO KNOW THAT THEY APPOINTED ANTI AIRPORT BOARD MEMBERS. AND WE'VE SEEN THEIR BEHAVIOR. AND WE'VE SEEN THEM

[03:00:05]

LET'S GET RID OF THESE BIG JETS. LET'S NOT HAVE A LITTLE JETS. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. THERE'S FAA LAWS IN PLACE FOR THAT. SO MY QUESTION STANDING HERE IS WHY WOULD ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE COLLABORATE WITH ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE? THE YOU'VE BEEN TAKEN AWAY THE POWER TO APPOINT BECAUSE IT WAS IRRESPONSIBLE. THIS NEW INDEPENDENT, DEPENDENT COUNSEL. YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO SUBSTITUTE THAT IN TO TAKE THE PLACE OF THAT. I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, THERE'S SOME GOOD PEOPLE OVER HERE. I THINK COMMISSIONER KAVANAUGH HAS BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH TO WATCH WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING OVER THE YEARS, AND I'M PRETTY SURE HE'LL CONCUR WITH ME. SO THE GOOD PEOPLE WILL STAY. BUT YOU DON'T GET TO APPOINT ANYBODY FOR YOUR AGENDA ANYMORE. AND THIS DEPENDENT COUNCIL IS JUST A SUBSTITUTE FOR THAT. WE ALL SEE THAT IF YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT THE AIRPORT, ALL THIS PAST HISTORY THAT THEY'VE SEEN IS ALREADY OUT OF THE BAG. MY THING, WHICH I THINK COULD BE SOLVENT, IS IF WE DO NOW, WE HAVE TO GO TO VOTING. THE GOOD PEOPLE WILL PLACE BECAUSE THE FIX IS IN ANYMORE. BUT THEN ALSO GOING FORWARD, IF THIS BOARD ACTS LIKE THEY REALLY DO CARE ABOUT THE AIRPORT AND THEY'RE NOT FOLLOWING THE LEADS OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE WANTING TO DESTROY IT, YOU GUYS GET TOGETHER AND SAY, WE'RE GOING TO APPOINT PEOPLE THAT ARE QUALIFIED, THAT ARE GOOD, THAT HAVE THE THE CAPACITY TO CARE FOR OUR AIRPORT, NOT TRYING TO DESTROY IT. SO ANYTHING THAT YOU ARE PASSING OR TALKING ABOUT TODAY, THESE GUYS SHOULDN'T BE IN FAVOR OF IT BECAUSE YOU'RE WORKING AGAINST THE AIRPORT. AND, AND THEY ARE THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY. WE DON'T NEED A DIFFERENT SUPPORT. WE NEED THIS AS THE SPONSOR. AND THAT IS WHAT'S GOING TO KEEP US INDEPENDENT FROM ANY OTHER POLITICAL THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO TRY TO HURT OUR CITY'S BEST ASSET. AND I REALLY VALUE THAT.

YOU ON THE LEFT WILL STICK UP FOR ALL OF OUR CITY AND OUR PEOPLE. AND I REALLY VOTE FOR YOU PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT TO COLLABORATE ON WHAT'S REALLY GOOD FOR THE AIRPORT. DON'T JUST SAY IT, BUT ACTUALLY GET IN THERE AND DO SOMETHING THAT PROTECTS IT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. YOU CLEARLY EXPRESS THE SPECIAL INTEREST THAT YOU HAVE, AND I HEAR YOUR PASSION FOR THE AIRPORT, BUT YOU HAVE TO RESPECT THIS BODY WHO TOOK AN OATH TO UPHOLD OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH IS ABOUT THE FUTURE GROWTH. SO WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR FUTURE GROWTH, AND ALSO THAT THIS LAND THAT IS OWNED BY THE RESIDENTS OF THIS CITY, THAT THEIR INTEREST IS AND LONG TERM EXPECTATIONS OF THE AIRPORT ARE MET. SO DON'T DIMINISH THAT, RIGHT? NOT JUST THE VOCAL SMALL MINORITY THAT DON'T LIKE THE PLANES GOING OVER THEIR HEADS THOUGH. THE WHOLE COMMUNITY.

RIGHT. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. OUR NEXT PUBLIC SPEAKER IS JOSE CABRERA. BLESS YOU. GOD BLESS YOU. ALL RIGHT. AFTER MORNING, ALMOST AFTERNOON NOW. SO WE'VE HEARD HOW YOU

[03:05:07]

THIS WENT TO ALL KINDS OF LOCAL COMMITTEES. I WAS IN TALLAHASSEE SPEAKING ABOUT THIS WITH MULTIPLE CONGRESSPEOPLE OVER THERE. LIKE THIS WAS THIS WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS. WE NEED TO RESPECT IT. NOW. EVERYONE WANTS TO WANT, WANTS TO EXTEND OR AMEND THE LEASE IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. I THINK THAT'S THE TAKEAWAY FROM TODAY. I'VE PERSONALLY TALKED ABOUT THIS WITH MANY OF YOU ON BOTH SIDES. THERE'S COMMON INTEREST IN EXTENDING OR AMENDING THE LEASE, COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ SAID MANY GREAT THINGS WE MAY NOT AGREE WITH ALL, BUT LET'S PROCEED WITH WHAT WE CAN AGREE AND ACCEPT THE PAST FOR WHAT IT IS AND SEEK FOR A BETTER FUTURE. IF YOU REMOVE THE APPOINTMENT ARGUMENT, IF YOU REMOVE WHO APPOINTS WHO AND ACCEPT WHAT HAS OCCURRED SO FAR, YOU WILL FIND THAT THERE'S EASY AND COMMON GROUND BECAUSE IT WAS DISCUSSED. LET'S RENEW AND EXTEND THE LEASE IN GOOD FAITH AND LET'S PLEASE MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I DO WANT YOU TO KNOW, THOUGH, IN A JOINT MEETING IN NOVEMBER 23RD, I THINK IT WAS MR. KIRSCH, ALONG WITH OUR ATTORNEY, WHO SAID THAT IF YOU WANT LOCAL CONTROL, THAT YOU WOULD STOP ACCEPTING GRANTS AND SPECIFICALLY, MR. ROZANSKI SAID HE WOULD NEVER NOT ACCEPT A GRANT FROM THE FAA IF IT HAD TO DO WITH SAFETY, WHICH IS VERY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. SO I JUST THE COMMENTS THAT ARE BEING MADE ALSO THAT OUR CONSTITUENTS VOTED THIS IN IN TALLAHASSEE. THOSE PEOPLE DON'T REPRESENT US.

THERE WAS NOT ONE BIT OF CONVERSATION BY THOSE PEOPLE. IT WAS BASICALLY PRESENTED AND VOTED ON WITH NO DISCUSSION FROM ALL COMMITTEES, PERIOD. SO THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND YOUR PASSION AND YOUR CONCERNS, AND YOU HAVE TO RESPECT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THINGS THAT LIKE THE COMP PLAN AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE LAND OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY. SO

[03:10:08]

[5) DISCUSS POTENTIAL RESOLUTIONS]

HE SUMMED IT UP FROM WHAT WAS COMING HERE AT THE DAIS, AND IF THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION TO THAT.

YEAH, I NEED I NEED TO SAY SOMETHING, IF I MAY. YES. LOOK, THERE'S NO OPPOSITION THEN FROM BOTH BOARDS, BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WHEN WE WORK TOGETHER WITH SOME OF THESE STATE AGENCIES. MR. ROZANSKI, YOU REFERENCED SOME LICENSES WITH FDOT AND STUFF, SO IT WOULD HELP ME IF I COULD GET POINTS OF CONTACT THAT YOU NORMALLY DEAL WITH WHEN IT COMES TO FDOT AND SOME OF THESE DIVISIONS, SO THAT I CAN REACH OUT TO THEM DIRECTLY. SO I'M NOT JUST CALLING LIKE A ONE 800 NUMBER OR A FIVE ZERO NUMBER. YEAH, THAT THAT WOULD BETTER, BETTER ASSIST. AND THEN WHAT I DO THINK NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS IF WE ARE WORKING ON THESE CONCURRENT PATHS, I THINK WHILE WE'RE ALL HERE AND HAVE OUR PHONES RELEVANT, WE NEED TO SET A MEETING FOR A MONTH FROM TODAY AS A FOLLOW UP, WHICH WOULD BE JULY 9TH OR THAT WEEK, AND WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT AND WORK TOWARDS THAT MEETING SO THAT WE'RE NOT LOSING MOMENTUM, BUT WE'RE RATHER CIRCLING BACK AND SAYING, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE'VE DONE. THIS IS WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED. AND THEN FROM MY COUNSEL, I WANT TO MAKE SURE, BECAUSE THE THEME WHEN IT COMES TO THE AMENDMENT OF THE LEASE THAT I'VE HEARD TODAY WHILE WE WORK THROUGH THIS CONCURRENT PATH IS OVERSIGHT AND COORDINATION. AND THAT COULD LOOK 100 DIFFERENT WAYS. AND I DON'T NEED A DIRECTION ON WHAT THIS LANGUAGE IS, BECAUSE THIS LANGUAGE WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOU. BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANT, MR. YOUNG AND I TO WORK THROUGH DURING THAT CONCURRENT PATH, I THINK NOW'S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO LET ME KNOW THAT, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS LEFT. I WILL SAY, OBVIOUSLY, MONETARY, MONETARY. OKAY. SO I DON'T HAVE SPENDING AUTHORITY. SO IN ADDITION TO THAT, I'M GETTING DIRECTION TO WORK WITH CITY MANAGER, HIRE AN APPRAISAL, OR MAYBE WORK WITH THEM AND HIRE ONE APPRAISER, DEPENDING ON, I KNOW THEY PROBABLY HAVE A LIST OF PEOPLE THAT THEY UTILIZE TO GET AN APPRAISED VALUE. AND I WOULD JUST SAY, AND I APPRECIATE YOU LAYING THAT OUT THERE. AND I THINK SOME GOOD POINTS, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT IF IT'S THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD, THEN WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO. ON THIS CONCEPT OF THE PARALLEL PATHS, SUPPORT THE CITY HAVING THESE DISCUSSIONS. AND I THINK I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE A PRESENCE, IF EVEN IF ONLY BY OUR COUNSEL AT THOSE DISCUSSIONS, IN PURSUING THIS CONCEPT OF A NEW LEGAL ENTITY AND THEN SEPARATELY, PARALLEL PATH ON NEGOTIATING A LEASE AMENDMENT. BUT I'M GOING TO DEFER THAT TO THE CONSENSUS OF OF OUR BOARD, OF COURSE. AND JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, I THINK I PERSONALLY AND PETER, I THINK, AGREES THAT WE WOULD BE COLLABORATIVE AND HELP SET UP PHONE CALLS AND BE IN ATTENDANCE, BUT WE CAN'T ADVOCATE FOR OR TAKE A POSITION ON WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING. BUT WE'D BE HAPPY TO FACILITATE THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND LISTEN IN ON THOSE DISCUSSIONS. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT, PETER? OKAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. I THINK WE HEARD MR. BURNS BE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THAT ISSUE. SO I GUESS MAYBE FROM A CONSENSUS STANDPOINT, MY FELLOW MEMBERS WILLING TO SUPPORT THAT, THE FACT THAT WE WILL WE WILL ACT AS A AS AN ENTREE AND CONDUIT FOR THE DISCUSSION, BUT WE WILL NOT BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION OR ADVOCATING FOR A POSITION.

YES. SO IT'S THERE'S A DUAL PARALLEL PATH. IT'S HELPING TO FACILITATE ONE HALF OF THE DISCUSSION, BUT NOT BE PART OF IT. AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO BE PART OF ANY DISCUSSIONS ON A LEASE AMENDMENT. THAT WAS MY SECOND. I WAS GOING TO I WAS GOING TO DEAL WITH THAT SECOND.

SORRY. SO, MR. KAVANAGH, YES, I CAN SPEAK FOR MYSELF. WELL, I JUST WAS TRYING, I DIDN'T HEARD YOU BEFORE CORRECT WHAT YOU JUST SAID. OKAY, I APOLOGIZE. I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE NEGOTIATION THAT WE CAME UP WITH. AND THE STRATEGY THAT WE'VE COME UP WITH IS, WAS JUST CONFIRMED BY OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. SO I, I UNDERSTAND WHY WE CAN BE ON THE CALL, BUT NOT BE AN ADVOCATE. OKAY, I AM WE'RE ALL IN SYNC. WE'RE ALL IN CONSENSUS. SO PLEASE ASK ME FOR

[03:15:06]

I GUESS I AS I READ THE 164, I THOUGHT IT WAS A PROCESS THAT PRECLUDED A LAWSUIT BEING FILED.

BUT THEN THE. YOU THE CITY DID FILE A LAWSUIT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT. IT'S NOT UP TO ME TO ASK YOU WHAT THE STRATEGY WAS THERE. BUT IF WE GET TO A COMMERCIAL TERMS WITH THE LEASE, I'M GOING TO STRUGGLE WITH BEING PROACTIVE IN THAT REGARD WHILE WE'RE STILL IN LITIGATION. SO.

THAT YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINION OR DO YOU SPEAK? THAT'S MY THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION.

YEAH. NO, I I'M NOT SPEAKING. I JUST WANT TO BE OPEN WHEN WE HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY. I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO BE WITH ALL OF YOU PROBABLY GOING FORWARD FOR A WHILE. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT, OKAY. AGAIN, JUST TO LAY OUT THE PURPOSE OF 164 AND THERE'S A SECTION IN IT. I'M SURE YOUR ATTORNEYS NOTIFIED YOU THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY FILE SUIT FIRST, BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO FILE WHAT'S CALLED A MOTION TO ABATEMENT, WHICH WE'VE DONE AND WE'VE SERVED TO YOU WITH. SO IT CONTEMPLATES GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS PRIOR TO FILING AND ALSO AFTER FILING, WHICH WE'VE DONE. BUT ULTIMATELY THE WHOLE IDEA HERE AND MR. ROZANSKI IDENTIFIED NUMBER FIVE, DISCUSS POTENTIAL RESOLUTIONS. WE'VE NOW DISCUSSED TWO CONCURRENT PATHS THAT WE ARE GOING TO WORK THROUGH THAT COULD POTENTIALLY RESOLVE OUR 164 ISSUE, DEPENDING ON WHAT'S PRESENTED TO THE BOARD AND WHAT DECISIONS ARE MADE. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS IS TO SEE IF WE CAN RESOLVE THE 164 PROCESS. SO THERE WILL BE A RESOLUTION TO IT IF AN AGREEMENT IS REACHED.

DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, BUT THAT LAWSUIT, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S AGREED TO BY BOTH BOARDS, WILL NO LONGER BE THERE TO BE EVEN MORE CLEAR. SO THERE IS A TIME FRAME OF 14 DAYS. CORRECT. SO WHERE ARE WE WITH THAT? IF WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND WE PASS THAT 14 DAYS, WE STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE MEDIATION. AND I THINK AT THIS POINT, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU GUYS GET, THE CONSENSUS, I'M GOING TO BE REQUESTING THE SAME THING FROM CITY COUNCIL. THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TALK ABOUT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING AND POTENTIALLY EXTENDING THE DEADLINES OF MEDIATION, WHICH THE STATUTE ALLOWS FOR. OKAY.

SO LET ME FOLLOW THROUGH WITH IT. AND SO I'D ASK FOR THE CONSENSUS IS TO MOVE FORWARD PROACTIVELY ON RENEGOTIATING THE LEASE. YES, YES, YES YES YES. OKAY. COUNCIL VICE MAYOR.

SO TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE LEASE AMENDMENT DISCUSSION, I, I BELIEVE WE NEED TO HIRE AN OUTSIDE EXPERT. SO THE QUESTION IS, IS IT 1 OR 2? DOES THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE CITY HIRE ONE AND A HIRE ONE? OR IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO THAT JOINTLY BECAUSE WE NEED TO MAKE WE NEED TO HIRE 1 OR 2 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. CORRECT. THAT'S AND THEN I LIKE YOUR IDEA OF, LET'S GO AHEAD AND SET A DATE FOR WHEN WE'RE GOING TO GET BACK TOGETHER AGAIN. SO I WANT TO

[03:20:03]

I WOULD SUGGEST TWO ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE ONLY HAVE ONE AND THE NUMBER IS SOMETHING THAT ONE OF US DOESN'T LIKE, WE ARE NOW LOSING TIME FROM THAT STANDPOINT. SO YOU CAN TAKE TWO AND DO AN AVERAGE OF THE TWO FROM THAT STANDPOINT. WELL, AND I WOULD GO FURTHER TO SAY THAT'S A FEW STEPS DOWN THE ROAD. YEAH IT IS. AND I THINK THERE'S SOME DUE DILIGENCE THAT NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE BEFORE WE GET TO THAT VALUATION STEP THERE. THERE ARE SOME POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES THERE THAT DON'T RELY EXCLUSIVELY ON US DOING MULTIPLE APPRAISALS. OKAY. THIS IS THERE'S NOT A LOT OF EXAMPLES OF THIS IN INDUSTRY.

AND I THINK THAT WE DO THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME OTHER PATHS. OKAY, MAYBE I'LL SHARE SOME INFORMATION ON THAT BECAUSE I JUST, I PERSONALLY WON'T BE ABLE TO VOTE ON SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE LEASE TERM OR DOLLAR AMOUNT WAS SOME KIND OF EXPERT ADVICE. YEAH, WE CERTAINLY RESPECT THAT. I DON'T KNOW, PETER. THERE THERE ARE ONLY AT MOST 2 OR 3 EXPERTS IN THE WORLD THAT DO THIS WORK. TO GET A RESPONSE IN LESS THAN NINE MONTHS WOULD BE EXTRAORDINARY. THE REASON BEING, VALUATION ON AIRPORT IS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT. THEY HAVE TO COMPARE THIS AIRPORT TO OTHER AIRPORTS IN COMPARABLE PLACES AROUND THE WORLD, BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING COMPARABLE IN FLORIDA. AND THAT PROCESS, GIVEN THAT THERE ARE VERY FEW PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY BUSY, THE THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE EXPERT ARE GOING TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART. WHEN YOU DO AN APPRAISAL OF A HOME, THAT'S EASY. WHEN YOU DO AN APPRAISAL OF A BUSINESS, THAT'S EASY. AN APPRAISAL OF AN AIRPORT IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT BECAUSE IT'S A UNIQUE PROPERTY. AND ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS, IF YOU EVER DO AN APPRAISAL IS WHAT ARE YOU APPRAISING? ARE YOU APPRAISING THE GOING CONCERN VALUE? ARE YOU APPRAISING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS AN AIRPORT? ARE YOU APPRAISING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR SOME OTHER USE? IF IT WEREN'T AN AIRPORT AND EACH OF THOSE REQUIRES A SEPARATE SET OF ANALYZES, AND I'VE APPROACHED APPRAISERS BEFORE AND I'VE NEVER GOTTEN ONE WILLING TO DO IT. EVEN THE THREE EXPERTS HAVE TOLD ME THEY WON'T DO IT BECAUSE IT'S JUST TOO COMPLICATED. SO OKAY, SO MAYOR, ON THAT POINT, IF THE NA IS POSITIONED RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE THIS IS NEW TO ME, IS THAT WE CAN'T GET A DOLLAR AMOUNT ON THE LEASE FOR NINE MONTHS, THEN I THINK THAT CHANGES THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE NOW TIMING IS NOT REALLY SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO BEFORE NOVEMBER. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING. I THINK WHAT I WAS SAYING IS HIRING AN EXPERT APPRAISER TO DO THIS WILL TAKE A LONG TIME. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE CITY AND THE AUTHORITY CAN'T TALK ABOUT VARIOUS CHANGES TO THE LEASE COMPENSATION. MR. YOUNG YEAH, AND I WAS GOING TO PICK UP ON BOTH STATEMENTS. SO FIRST, I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN YOU SET THAT MEETING TO HAVE THE DISCUSSIONS, LOOK AT WHAT THE FRAMEWORK WOULD BE, IDENTIFY WHAT THESE EXPERTS, YOU KNOW, THE 2 OR 3 THAT MAY BE OUT THERE HAVE AN IDEA OF COSTS, BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE BAKED OUT SOME OF THE FRAMEWORKS YOU'RE WILLING TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS ON AND SAY, IF WE'RE NOW DOWN TO A NUMBER, OR MAYBE WE DON'T EVEN NEED TO GET THERE, WE AT LEAST HAVE AN IDEA BY THE TIME WE GET TOGETHER, WHAT THAT TIME FRAME AND COST COULD LOOK LIKE. THAT WAY YOU'RE NOT SITTING ON YOUR HANDS, BUT YOU ALSO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT TIME FRAME ADDS TO IT. SO I DON'T THINK THAT, TO CHRIS'S POINT, I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO WAIT, BUT I ALSO DON'T THINK YOU WE SHOULDN'T COME IN WITH TRYING TO HAVE IDENTIFIED DURING OUR PROCESSES WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE. SO WE'RE ALSO PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION TO YOU. SO, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER FRAMEWORK IS WORKED, YOU KNOW, WORKED OUT WHEN YOU HAVE THE NEXT MEETING AND OR THOSE DISCUSSIONS, YOU ALSO KNOW, IF YOU GO DOWN THAT PATH, WHAT THAT DOES AND HOW IT ELONGATES THE TIME FRAME. SO I JUST THINK THAT IT, IT SHOULDN'T SHUT US OFF FROM STARTING THE CONVERSATION, BUT I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD NOT BE AT LEAST CONSIDERED. SO WE CAN COME BACK WITH SOME, SOME, SOME INFORMATION ON THAT WHEN WE GET BACK TOGETHER AS WELL. AND THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MA'AM, I AGREE, I THINK WE CAN BE BETTER PREPARED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION NEXT TIME WE MEET. THIS OBVIOUSLY WASN'T THE FOCUS OF WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE PREPARING FOR TODAY. YES, SIR. OKAY. WITH THAT, I'M JUST GOING TO ASK MEMBER ARNOLD, DO WE STILL GO LOOK FOR A MEDIATOR WHILE THIS PROCESS GOES ON? I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR CAVANAUGH'S QUESTION. I'M SORRY. SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. SO WE'RE GOING DOING SOME MORE WORK AND DUE DILIGENCE AROUND THESE TWO ISSUES. BUT THERE MAY BE NOT A RESOLUTION. AND THERE'S THIS TIMELINE. SO DO WE HAVE A TANDEM TRACK THAT WHERE

[03:25:02]

I DON'T KNOW, WAS THAT THE THAT WASN'T SAID RIGHT. WE COULD STILL WE COULD STILL SET A RENT AMOUNT, COULDN'T WE? COULDN'T WE SAY, HEY, WELL, HERE'S WHAT WE'D LIKE. AND THEN THEY SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T JUST. WHAT'S THAT GOING TO BE BASED ON? THERE ARE THERE ARE TWO WAYS YOU COULD DO THIS. YEAH, WELL, MAYBE THERE'S THREE WAYS. COME UP WITH A NUMBER OUT OF THE OUT OF THE SKY. SECOND WAY IS DO YOUR BEST JUDGMENT OF WHAT'S FAIR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE. THAT'S RIGHT. AND THEN WHEN YOU GO BACK TO GET IT APPROVED BY THE REGULATORS, THE REGULATORS AT THAT POINT, YOU ALREADY HAVE A DEAL. REMEMBER, THE REGULATORS AT THAT POINT MAY SAY, WE NEED YOU TO GO OUT AND GET AN EXPERT TO VALIDATE THIS. THAT'S A BACK END ANALYSIS. OKAY. AND THE QUESTION THE POLICY QUESTION IS DO YOU WANT THAT ANALYSIS BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN TO NEGOTIATE? OR DO YOU WANT TO NEGOTIATE BASED UPON YOUR OWN EXPERTISE, YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE, YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE CITY NEEDS AND THE AUTHORITY NEEDS? AND THEN IF THE REGULATORS REQUIRE TO DO SO, THEN SPEND THAT MONEY, THEN. AND THAT'S A POLICY QUESTION.

YEAH. WELL, MY CONTENTION IS ALL SORTS OF NUMBERS FROM PEOPLE OUT IN THE COMMUNITY, WHAT THEY THINK WE SHOULD BE GETTING. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. YOU KNOW, I WOULD I HAVE TO MY CONTENTION WITH WHAT I TELL THEM, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. BUT I KNOW WHO DOES. AND FIRST OF ALL, IT'S AN OPEN BOOK. YOU'RE THE N A WE'VE YOU REPORT.

YOU'VE REPORTED YOUR FINANCIALS EVERY YEAR. WE CAN SEE WHAT'S WHAT. SO THAT'S NOT HARD. PART TWO. I TRUST OUR CITY MANAGER. HE'S A REALLY SMART GUY. NOBODY KNOWS MONEY OR DOLLARS BETTER THAN GARY YOUNG. NO ONE'S MORE FRUGAL. NO ONE WILL HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE MORE. THAT'S.

THAT'S WHERE I'M WITH THAT. I ALSO TRUST OUR CITY ATTORNEY. IF HE'S TELLING ME WE NEED TO EXTEND THIS TO GET TO BE PRODUCTIVE, TO MOVE THESE TWO LINES CONCURRENTLY, THEN I'M DOING THAT. I DON'T MIND IF HE HADN'T SAID THAT, I WOULD SAY, NO WAY, JOSE. HOWEVER, HOWEVER, I CAN BE COACHED UP. AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, IF THAT WILL MAKE THIS PROCESS MORE EFFICIENT, MORE EFFECTIVE, AND THEN WE WANT THE WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING. I THINK ALL OF US AGREE WITH THAT. AND THEN WE WANT TO DO WHAT IS ABSOLUTELY BEST. AND IF I HAVE TO LEAN ON OUR ATTORNEY AT TIMES AND OUR ATTORNEY SAYS, HEY, MAN, WE NEED TO GET THIS ANOTHER COUPLE OF WEEKS. OKAY. WELL, JUST TO CLARIFY, I'M NOT SAYING THAT BECAUSE I HAVE NO DECISION IN THIS. OKAY. I'M JUST SAYING IF THE CONCURRENT PASS IS WHERE YOU WANT TO GO, WE WANT TO HAVE A JOINT MEETING A MONTH FROM NOW. THEN WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON WHETHER OR NOT TO EXTEND THE DEADLINES. WE CAN DISCUSS THAT THOUGH. IF YOU CALL FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

I THINK THERE'S THINGS THAT. NO, NO. MY QUESTION THEN TO YOU IS WHAT IS THERE AN URGENCY TO THAT? CAN WE I MEAN, WE COULD USE THE MEDIATION TO DISCUSS ONE OF THE CONCURRENT PASS WE'RE DISCUSSING NOW. THE MEDIATION CAN BE CENTERED AROUND AN AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE. I MEAN, WE COULD USE A MEDIATOR FROM FAA WITH EXPERIENCE THAT CAN HELP US WITH WHAT THE GOING RATE IS FOR NUMBERS. I MEAN, WE CAN MAKE IT A PRODUCTIVE MEDIATION. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EXTENDED. SURE. SO IN THAT CASE, WHY WOULD WE WANT IS THERE ANYONE ON THIS SIDE OR OUR SIDE? WHY WOULD WE WANT TO EXTEND THE TIMELINE ANYWAY? YEAH, I MY THOUGHT WAS I THOUGHT YOUR TIME WAS SO COMPRESSED YOU COULDN'T GET IT DONE, COULDN'T GET IT ALL DONE. BUT I GUESS THAT'S FOR GARY TOO. BUT CAN YOU GUYS GET IT ALL DONE? AND WE MOVE FORWARD WITH BOTH. WELL, THAT WAS MY CONCERN IN TERMS OF SAYING THAT ELONGATING IT AND NOT HAVING A MONTH. WHAT ARE WE REALLY BRINGING BACK TO YOU UNLESS WE START TO TALK FRAMEWORK OF A LEASE AS WELL? SO THAT WAS THAT WAS MY ONLY POINT. IT WASN'T AN ABSOLUTE THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A COST ANALYSIS DONE. BUT THERE ARE THERE ARE THINGS TO DISCUSS IN THE NEXT 30 DAYS THAT AN IDENTIFYING WHO SOMEBODY COULD BE THAT COULD DO THAT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS, THAT THERE'S STILL VALUE TO BE GAINED IN THIS 30 DAY PERIOD. AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS ALLUDING TO. RATHER THAN, OKAY, GO FIND SOMEBODY. WE DO NOTHING BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN THEY COMPLETE THEIR ANALYSIS. WE HAVEN'T MOVED THE BALL FORWARD IN ANY WAY. AND SO I

[03:30:02]

IT'S NOT THEIRS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HOLD IT. SO SECURITIES LAWS CAME INTO PLACE ON VALUATIONS WHERE YOU'RE MOVING SIGNIFICANT SUMS OF MONEY. SO STATE REGULATORS AND SECURITIES, THIS WOULD NOT BE A SECURITIES ISSUE. I DON'T BELIEVE BECAUSE IT'S NOT. BUT THE CONCEPT OF SELLING BLUE SKY, GETTING IT, PULLING A NUMBER OUT OF BLUE SKY OUT OF THE AIR. IT WE THAT I THINK THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF POTENTIAL LITIGATION AGAINST US IF WE JUST THREW A NUMBER UP WITH US. YEAH. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. I WILL CONTEND WE THREW A DOLLAR OUT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NO LITIGATION DIRECTION NEEDED ANY FURTHER. MR. MCCONNELL, DID YOU GET AGREEMENT ON THE DATE? SO THE ONLY THING NOT TO REPEAT MYSELF, THE ONLY THING I'VE HEARD CLEAR DIRECTION ON IS THAT WE'RE WE'RE OPERATING ON CONCURRENT PATHS THAT YOU CAN CHECK THE BOX ON. BESIDES THAT, I DON'T HAVE CLEAR DIRECTION ON THE DEADLINES FOR MEDIATION. IF WE'RE STILL SETTING IT WHEN THE NEXT JOINT MEETING IS. I DID GET DIRECTION ON AN APPRAISAL, BUT I THINK BASED ON MR. YOUNG'S COMMENTS, WE'LL WORK WITH THEIR SIDE. I DO HAVE SOME NAMES THAT I'VE RECEIVED, SO I

[03:35:03]

YOU NEED TO THINK OF MEDIATION AS AN INFORMAL VERSION OF A TRIAL. WHEN THE MEDIATOR WILL ASK FOR BRIEFS FROM BOTH SIDES, HE'LL ASK BOTH SIDES TO BRIEF HIM. THE HE WILL ASK FOR ALL THE FACTS AND THE DATA AND. I'VE BEEN IN MANY MEDIATIONS AND IT'S A LOT EASIER THAN TRIAL. BUT IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT A CONVERSATION LIKE THIS. YOU DON'T JUST SIT AROUND AND VISIT WITH THE GUY OR WOMEN. AND SO, YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE WERE GOING TO MEDIATION IN 28 DAYS, MY COLLEAGUES AND I WOULD START WORKING ON THAT TODAY BECAUSE IT WOULD TAKE US A MONTH TO PREPARE FOR THAT. AND WE CAN'T. THAT'S FINE. NOT A PROBLEM, BUT BUT WE JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND. I DON'T MEAN TO SPEAK FOR YOU, MR. MCCONNELL, BUT I IMAGINE THAT FOR YOU, IT'S A COMFORTABLE TIME. OKAY, SO THIS IS WHAT I'M GOING TO PROPOSE.

CAN WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK? PLEASE? YES. SO I CAN COME BACK AND GIVE YOU A REALISTIC TIMELINE OF WHAT I FEEL COULD WORK AND STILL RESERVE THE CITY'S RIGHT TO FIGHT WHAT IT NEEDS TO FIGHT. FOR THAT FIVE MINUTE RECESS. I THINK WHEN IT COMES TO TIMELINE, I THINK THE MOST PRUDENT COURSE OF ACTION IS TO GET A ANOTHER JOINT MEETING ON THE BOOKS WHILE WE'RE ALL HERE. THAT'S FIRST AND FOREMOST. I THINK THAT'S A HUGE IMPORTANT THING TO DO BECAUSE THEN IT'LL IT'LL ALLOW BOTH COUNCILS AND THE ADMINISTRATION FOR BOTH BOARDS TO KIND OF WORK THROUGH SOME OF THE CONCURRENT PATHS THAT WE'VE DONE, HAVE THE PHONE CALLS, DISCUSS AMENDMENT TERMS, ETC. TRY TO GET A DOLLAR AMOUNT. BUT THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, AGREED THAT MEDIATION WILL OCCUR NO LATER THAN 45 DAYS FROM TODAY. WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT I WILL NEED COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE ANY EXPENDITURES THAT ARE REQUIRED, I'M SURE MR. YOUNG WOULD WANT THAT AS THE MEDIATOR. WHOEVER WE SELECT IS PREPARING, BECAUSE A GOOD MEDIATOR IS GOING TO WANT THE NEXT 30 TO 35 DAYS TO DIGEST ALL OF THE INFORMATION AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE FULLY PREPARED FOR THE MOST PRODUCTIVE MEDIATION POSSIBLE.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF IF THE NEA REPRESENTATIVES HAVE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ON THAT PROPOSAL. AND I WOULD MY BOARD'S DECISION, BUT I WOULD DEFINITELY RECOMMEND THAT THAT'S A REASONABLE PROPOSAL TO CONSIDER ACCEPTING. OKAY. SEEING THAT THERE'S NO OPPOSITION. WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE A FORMAL VOTE. BUT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS OF GETTING A JOINT MEETING DATE, WHAT DATE WOULD THAT BE? NO, MADAM MAYOR, SO, NO, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF WHAT I WOULD SAY IS WE'LL CIRCLE BACK BY THE 17TH. WE WILL EITHER HAVE SOMETHING BEFORE YOU RELATED TO THE SPENDING, OR WE WOULD JUST MERELY I WOULD IDENTIFY YOU DURING BREAK THAT WE WOULD IDENTIFY THAT YOU WOULD GIVE AUTHORIZATION, OR AGAIN, IT WOULD BE THE MAYOR'S EXECUTION OR VICE MAYOR IN HER STEAD THAT WOULD EXECUTE ANY AGREEMENT BEYOND THE CITY MANAGER'S SPENDING AUTHORITY. SHOULD THAT BE THE CASE AND THE WHOLE BOARD WOULD RATIFY IT. BUT TO THE EXTENT WE CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, RATHER THAN HAVE THAT SIDEBAR CONVERSATION RIGHT NOW, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BEST TIME TO HAVE THAT. CAN WE SET THE MEETING DATE CORRECT? YES. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE SPEND, BUT YES, THE MEETING DATE. I JUST WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE SPEND PART. YES. SO AND IF I COULD JUST INTERJECT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO ASSUME ANYTHING FROM MY BOARD. SO I JUST, I, I MADE THE STATEMENT OF WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND AS BEING A REASONABLE PROPOSAL. SO I WOULD AT LEAST LIKE A CONSENSUS FROM MY BOARD AS TO THE PROPOSAL BY CITY ATTORNEY MCCONNELL, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IS IS ON BOARD WITH THAT. I DON'T THINK WE NEED A FORMAL MOTION. MR. BURNS.

YES. THAT'S FOR THE MEDIATION DATE. 45 DAYS. YES. YES. YES. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. I ASSUME THAT WAS THE CASE, BUT I DON'T LIKE TO ASSUME. THANKS. THANK YOU, MR. OWEN. AND SO THE DATE AND THEN FOUR WEEKS FROM TODAY IS JULY 7TH. I KNOW IT'S JULY 4TH WEEKEND, BUT IT'S TUESDAY AFTER. SO I THINK WE ALL HAVE OUR CALENDARS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WHAT DAYS ARE AVAILABLE FOR EVERYONE, BUT IDEALLY, EVERYONE HERE CURRENTLY WOULD BE PRESENT AGAIN AT THE FOLLOW UP. JUST. I CAN'T REMEMBER THE SIXTH HOLIDAY. SO COULD YOU CONFIRM THE FOURTH? MONDAY? THE

[03:40:07]

THE FOLLOWING WEEK. THE FOLLOWING WEEK IS BETTER. SO WE SAID SEVENTH, EIGHTH AND NINTH DOESN'T WORK, DOES THE SIXTH? OKAY. THE SIXTH. PETER, WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO CHECK WITH OUR BOARD, BUT SIXTH WORKS ON THIS TABLE. YEAH. SIXTH. OH, GOOD THING YOUR BOARD'S HERE.

YES. NO THAT WAS THAT WAS A QUESTION I GUESS MORE THAN A STATEMENT. JULY 6TH. I FOR ONE I'M NOT AVAILABLE FROM JULY 6TH TO AUGUST 7TH. YOU'RE OUT OF COUNTRY RIGHT. CAN WE COME. CAN YOU ZOOM. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I'M I, I IF I'M ABLE, IF I'M IT WOULD BE ANOTHER SPECIAL MEETING. AND ACCORDING TO OUR PROCEDURES OR BYLAWS, THE, YOU KNOW, BOARD MEMBERS IN PERSON ATTENDING COULD AUTHORIZE YOU TO PARTICIPATE, POTENTIALLY. THANK YOU. I'D BE WILLING TO IF I CAN. OKAY. OKAY. SO OUR COUNCIL DIDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE SIXTH. OKAY. NO, I WENT DOWN THE LINE TO YOU. OKAY. SEVENTH WAS FINE. SCHULTZ. SIXTH. IF SIX COUNCIL MEMBER SIX. THIS FINE SEVEN IS FINE. PERFECT. AGAIN. OKAY. MR. BURNS. BURNS. YES. YES, YES, YOU CAN DO IT. ARE YOU TRAVELING? I'M OUT OF TIME. SO NOW, MONDAY, JULY 6TH, I THINK IS THE DATE THAT YOU IF IF YOU COULD ATTEND VIA ZOOM IS WHAT WE'RE ASKING. BUT IF WE HAVE A MEMBER THAT'S MISSING, THAT'S THAT'S WE WOULD. I MEAN, IT'S NOT IDEAL, BUT WE WOULD HAVE A, YOU KNOW, ENOUGH TO MAKE DECISIONS. ARE YOU COMFORTABLE? YEAH. I TRY AND MOVE SOME THINGS AROUND, BUT IF YOU CAN'T, YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH US MEETING THAT DAY WITHOUT YOU. YES. OKAY. YES.

OKAY. SO WE CAN DO THE SIX. OKAY. SO TO PREPARE A JOINT NOTICE OR DO WHAT WE DID FOR TODAY'S MEETING. SO JULY 6TH, EVERYONE LIKE 830. YEAH, I LOVE IT. MORE OF A 9:00 GUY MYSELF, BUT JUST KIDDING. OKAY. 830. ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER DIRECTION? THEN WE GOT THE CONSENSUS FROM THE BOARD MEDIATION NO LATER THAN 45 DAYS. GARY AND I DISCUSSED SPENDING.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE BOARD NEEDS TO OR IF YOU NEED TO. CHRIS. SPENDING FOR THE MEDIATION. I KNOW. DISCUSS THAT NOW OR AT OUR REGULAR JUNE MEETING. WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSIONS AT OUR MEETING LATER THIS MONTH. BUT OKAY, WE HAVE A 1:00, WHICH IS IN 15 MINUTES. SO WITH THAT, THE NOTICE SET AT 1:00 OR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THIS. SO WE CAN TAKE A LUNCH BREAK AND COME BACK. YEAH. IF IF COUNCIL WOULD LIKE. I'M SURE. WELL, MR. ROSANSKY, IT'S YOUR 1:00. WHAT TIME WOULD YOU WANT TO. ITS 1115 WORK FOR EVERYONE. 30 MINUTES AND LUNCH IS BEING SERVED. MAYOR ON THE UPSTAIRS CONFERENCE. YES. WITH THAT, WE'VE HAD ENOUGH CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS AND WE WILL BE BACK AT

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.