May 03, 2023 Community Redevelopment Agency

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:08]

TO ORDER. >> -- MEMBER >> HERE.

>> REMEMBER PHYSICAL -- >> HERE. --

>> PLEASE JOIN ME FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -- ONE NATION UNDER GOD AND --

LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> THANK YOU. BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I JUST WANTED TO AGAIN, EXTEND MY EXTRA APPRECIATION FOR EVERYONE ON THIS COMMITTEE.

WE'RE ALL VOLUNTEERS, AND I KNOW WE COULD ALL BE DOING SOMETHING ELSE, BUT I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU ALL UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS TO OUR CITY AND OUR COMMUNITY, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR CONFIDENCE AND YOUR EFFORT IN THE TIME YOU PUT

[4. PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA]

GENTLEMAN WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO US ON THAT. >> JOE BLANCHE AND, 5593, FERNANDINA BEACH. I'M A CHAIR PERSON OF THE MARINA ADVISORY BOARD, AND I DECIDED TO COME HERE TONIGHT TO DISCUSS THE ENTERPRISE -- THAT THE MARINA IS UNDER.

THE HISTORY OF THAT ENTERPRISE FUND IS SOMEWHAT INTERESTING. WHEN THE MARINA WAS BUILT, SO WAS -- THE IDEA WAS THAT AT THAT TIME, EVERYTHING WAS UNDER PARKS AND RECREATION. BUT THE FEELING WAS, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE SYSTEM WAS BUILT AT THE TIME, THAT BRATS WOULD BRING IN $100,000 A YEAR TO SUPPORT THE MARINA.

AND FOR MORE BUILDINGS WOULD BE BUILT ALONG THE COAST. ONE OF THEM BECAME A SEAFOOD PLACE, ONE BECAME A MUSEUM, AND ONE OF THEM BECAME THE HEADS AND THE SHOWERS FOR THE MARINA.

THEY WERE NEVER TURNED INTO COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES. SO THEY COULDN'T GENERATE ANY FUNDS. BECAUSE OF SOME INTERESTING THINGS AT THAT TIME, LEGALLY, BRETT'S NEVER SUPPORTED THE MARINA. SO, SINCE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO SUPPORT THE MARINA, THEY PUT EVERYTHING UNDER AN ENTERPRISE FUND.

SO IT WOULD BE TOTALLY SELF SUFFICIENT. BUT, THE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DISAPPEARED. NOW, THE ONLY THING THAT FUNDS THE MARINA IS NOT EVERYTHING FROM THE BULKHEAD INTO THE WATER. IT'S NOTHING ON THE LAND, REALLY, THAT SUPPORTS THE MARINA. MY FEELING IS WE HAVE TO TURN IT BACK TO PARKS AND IRAQ. IF LEGALLY WE CAN DO THAT, I'M GONNA TRY TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN.

BUT I JUST WANTED YOU GUYS TO BE AWARE OF SOME OF THE HISTORY OF THAT MARINA.

THANK YOU. >> JOE? >> YES, SIR?

>> BEFORE YOU GO, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BLANCHED? I HAVE ONE. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THOSE BUILDINGS THAT WERE BUILT, AND THEIR USE RIGHT NOW, AND FUNCTIONALITY, AND HOW THEY POSSIBLY COULD HAVE, AT ONE

POINT IN TIME -- >> WELL, THE ACTUAL PRIVATE ENTERPRISE THAT STARTED THE SLING ONE TYPE OF GUILTLESSNESS. WHEN IT BECAME AN ENTERPRISE FUND.

BECAUSE OF THE LEGAL ISSUES THAT CAME UP WITH BRETT'S, WHERE THE MONEY THAT WAS GENERATED WAS A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE INCOME FROM BRETT'S THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO TO SUPPORT THE MARINA -- WELL, THAT WAS BEFORE THE CENTER STREET RESTAURANT GROUP GOT INVOLVED, AND THEY BASICALLY HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY, AND CENTER STREET RESTAURANT GROUP SUBLEASE HAS TO BRETT'S, AND BRETT'S TURNS THEIR MONEY OVER TO CENTER STRAIGHT. AND CENTER STREET DOESN'T TURN THEIR MONEY, BY ANY LARGE AMOUNT, TO THE CITY. SO THERE'S NO SUPPORT THERE. SO SINCE THE ORIGINAL PLANS FOR -- COLLAPSED, THEN BASICALLY, THE MARINA SHOULD COME BACK UNDER PARKS AND REX. THERE'S NO WAY IT CAN FUND ITSELF UNLESS, FOR SOME REASON, BRETT'S NOW STARTS GENERATING FUNDS, OR SOMETHING THAT REPLACES BRETT'S GENERATES FUNDS, AND WHERE THE SHOWERS AND THE HEADS ARE GETS MOVED BACK TO THIS SIDE OF BRETT'S, WHICH IS NOW A SHOP, AND THOSE BUILDINGS BECOME COMMERCIAL ENTITIES THAT SUPPORT THE

[00:05:05]

OF THAT. >> OKAY. I THINK YOU'RE ASKING US TO LOOK INTO THE POSSIBILITY OF TURNING THAT AREA BACK FROM ENTERPRISE ONLY --

>> OR INVESTIGATING HOW TO DO THAT. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> WHO IS THE COLLECTIVE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT? >> MARINA ADVISORY BOARD.

>> OKAY. >> I THOUGHT THEY CHANGED -- PARKS AND RECREATION ALREADY?

>> THE DATE CHANGE PART OF THE? -- >> YES, SIR?

>> WHERE DOES THE NURSES COME FROM THAT MODIFICATION TO THE OTHER MARINA FROM THE ENTERPRISE FUND TO A GENERAL FUND SUPPORTED PROPOSITION -- HOW DO YOU VIEW THAT AS BEING

IN ANY FASHION, IN THE PURVIEW OF THE ADVISORY BOARD? >> I JUST WANTED YOU GUYS TO BE AWARE OF THAT SINCE CRA IS, YOU KNOW, THE CHATTER IS TO IMPROVE THE WATERFRONT, AMONG OTHER

AREAS. >> SO IN FORMATIONALLY -- >> YES, JUST AN INFORMATIONAL THING. BECAUSE WHATEVER PLAN YOU COME UP WITH, WITH PRIVATE AND, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC MONIES, IT'S BEEN TRIED BEFORE. AND I'M JUST TRYING TO EXPLAIN

TO YOU WHAT HAPPENED. >> WELL, I THINK WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HAPPENED HISTORICALLY. AND I THINK YOU'VE ISOLATED ONE PART OF IT.

I THINK THE OTHER PART OF IT WAS, I DON'T THINK ANYONE EVER COMPLAIN PLATED THAT THE -- REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE WHAT THEY HAVE BECOME. AT LEAST, AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL ENVISIONING OF HOW THE PORT COULD BE SELF-SUSTAINING.

>> NOT NECESSARILY. I'M AN OCEANOGRAPHER, OKAY? THE MARINA WAS BUILT BY DIGGING A HOLE. THEY ACTUALLY DUG OUT THE DIRT TO PUT THAT MARINA IN.

GOD PUT IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, GOT HAS A HABIT OF REPEATING HIMSELF.

SO ANYBODY THAT THOUGHT THAT THE SOUND THERE IN AND OF THE MARINA WOULD NOT SET IN WASN'T

PAYING ATTENTION. >> WELL, I THINK, FRANKLY, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MARINA AREA IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE LARGEST OBJECT LESSONS THE CITY HAS EVER SEEN IN PRETENDING THAT THINGS WOULDN'T COME UP THAT WERE ALMOST CERTAIN TO COME UP. HAVING SAID THAT, I CERTAINLY, ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, SHARE YOUR CONCERN THAT IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THE MARINA AREA PROPER, AND YOU CAN USE THAT IN A BROADER CONTEXT THAN YOU ARE, BECAUSE I'M TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AREA, CAN EVER BE SELF-SUSTAINING, AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO THOSE PARTS OF IT THAT ARE PARK RELATED FACILITIES.

EXCEPT BY CONTINUING THEM IN A VERY LOW MAINTENANCE PLAN, WHICH THIS GROUP HAS SUPPORTED PRETTY DIRECTLY IN THE PAST FOR THOSE RECREATIONAL COMPONENTS. AND THEN, LOOKING FORWARD LONGER TERM SOLUTIONS OF PRIVATE INTERACTIONS -- I GUESS MY OTHER CONCERN IS THE TIMING OF THIS IN THE FACE OF -- NOT AN INTERMEDIATE TERM, UNDERSTANDING THAT BRETT'S SITE IS GONNA HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH IN ITS OWN RIGHT IN THE

FORESEEABLE, RELATIVELY NEAR FUTURE. >> RIGHT.

>> NOW, THAT CAN HAVE AN EFFECT ON TWO COMPONENTS OF THE FUNDING DILEMMA.

CONCEIVABLY. BOTH THE GENERATION OF SOME REVENUE -- I DON'T KNOW HOW WE HAVE FORGOTTEN THE POSITION THAT THE CONTRACT CAME TO READ THE WAY THAT IT READS. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A WONDERFUL QUESTION FOR HISTORIC

UPS EXPLORATION. >> OR HOW IT GOT RENEWED REPEATEDLY WITH THE SAME BAD

DEAL. >> THOSE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS, BUT PROBABLY, WE'LL NEVER GET ANSWERS TO THEM. BUT, WE'VE ALSO BEEN GIVEN TO UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE -- THE REMOVAL OF BRETT'S AND IT'S UNDERPINNINGS COULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS -- FACILITIES, AT LEAST TO SOME -- I THINK WILL KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT VERY CERTAINLY IN THE NEAR FUTURE EITHER. BUT WITH BOTH OF THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES BEING A RELATIVELY SHORT TERM CONSIDERATIONS, FOR WHAT IT'S

[00:10:01]

TWO YEARS AWAY, IS IT NOT? >> IT'S CLOSER TO THREE. >> WELL, THERE'S A COUPLE OF ISSUES WERE WORKING ON. ONE, IT'S A FEDERAL CHANNEL. AND IT'S OUTSIDE THE HARBOR HERE. FROM BUOY TEN, READ TEN STAFF -- IT HASN'T BEEN USED IN 50 YEARS. IT'S NEVER BEEN MAINTAINED IN 50 YEARS. BUT IT'S STILL EXIST. BECAUSE IT EXISTS, IT LIMITS WHAT THE MARINA CAN DO AS FAR AS EXPANDING. AND THE ONLY WAY TO EXPAND MARINA, TO MAKE IT ANYWHERE NEAR PROFITABLE IS TO MOVE IT NORTH.

WE EXPAND IT TO THE NORTH AND INTO DEEPWATER, WHERE THE FLOW KEEPS IT SILT FREE.

SO, THE BEST IDEA I CAN COME UP WITH, AND IT'S JUST ME, JOE BLAINE SHOULD, TALKING WITH THE MARINA ADVISORY BOARD, IS TO FILL IN EVERYTHING TO THE SOUTH AND MOVE TO THE NORTH.

IT'S TO KEEP EXPANDING TO THE NORTH. BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WAY BEYOND ANYTHING HERE. NOW, THERE IS SOFTWARE, AND BACK WHEN MATTHEW TOOK OUT THE MARINA, I RECOMMENDED THAT SOFTWARE BE PURCHASED, OR AT LEAST SOMEBODY USE SOME OF THAT SOFTWARE TO ANALYZE THE DYNAMICS OF THE WATER THAT FLOWS AROUND ALL THE PILINGS, THE BOATS, AND EVERYTHING ON THE COASTLINE HERE. SO THAT YOU COULD DETERMINE WHAT YOU COULD DO TO FIX IT. BUT EVERYBODY HAS A WILDCAT ON WHAT WILL FIX IT.

THERE'S BEEN ALL KINDS OF THINGS ABOUT -- INCREASING THE TURBID IN THE WATER, WE WILL DO ALL KINDS OF STUFF TO KIND OF KEEP IT FROM SALTING IN.

BUT THOSE ARE GASES. YOU CAN ACTUALLY MODEL THIS THING TO DETERMINE HOW THAT BASIN IS GONNA REACT TO ALL KINDS OF FLOW. BUT NO ONE SEEMS TO DO THAT.

THEY JUST GO FROM ONE GAS TO THE NEXT. THAT'S ABOUT MY PAY GRADE.

>> IT'S PROBABLY ABOVE OURS AS WELL. WE'VE GOT INFORMATION RECENTLY

THAT THE COST OF DOING THAT WILL BE, FRANKLY, ASTRONOMICAL. >> $14,000 WITH THE COST THAT I

GOT WHEN THE MARINA WAS BEING REBUILT. >> WELL, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS -- HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WITH THE COST WE'VE GOTTEN IN A REPORT IN THE LAST

THREE MONTHS. >> EXCUSE ME. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE

PURCHASING OF THE SOFTWARE PACKAGE? >> THE SOFTWARE PACKAGE TO

ANALYZE. >> OKAY. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING

ABOUT. >> OKAY. >> WHAT GENERATES THE DATA

ABOUT THAT SOFTWARE PACKAGE -- >> WILL HAVE TO TAKE SAMPLING AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

THAT'S GONNA TAKE MAN POWER. THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE. BUT I'VE DONE IT FOR THE NAVY

FOR 26 YEARS, SO. YOU KNOW. >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> I'M NOT TOO SURPRISED IT HAD TO DO IT. >> I WISH HE HAD THE NAVY'S

BUDGET. [LAUGHTER] >> I WAS GONNA GET PAID WHETHER I DID IT OR NOT. THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANKS VERY MUCH.

WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING HERE. >> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.

>> FOREST, TO TEN, NORTH STREET, WHO WAS NOT GONNA SAY ANYTHING, NO I AM.

THE SIX BOXES UPSTAIRS THAT HAVE MOST OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT HAPPENED HERE ORIGINALLY. FIRST, LET ME GO TO THE STUDY. WE JUST DID FOR A STUDY.

YOU PAID $70,000. THEY DID A MODELING STUDY, AND THEY FIGURED, I THINK, WHAT FRANKLIN IS REFERRING TO -- THE FIXES FOR THAT ARE ALL THEORETICAL, AND NONE OF THEM ARE PREDICTED TO WORK PARTICULARLY WELL. GOING BACK TO THIS MARINA, THERE WAS A MARINA HERE PREVIOUSLY, THE 19 80S. THE FIRST MARINA WAS BUILT IN THE 1960S. IF YOU GO AND LOOK, AND YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MR. COOK, IF YOU GO AND LOOK, THE REASON THE MARINA WAS BUILT THERE, BECAUSE IF YOU TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THAT TIME, THERE WAS NOWHERE ELSE TO PUT ANYTHING.

EVERYTHING ELSE WAS ALL BUILT, WITH WHARVES, ALL KINDS OF BUILDINGS.

SO THE MARINA WAS PUT WHERE IT IS. THE NEW DAM WHILE AT THE TIME THAT -- PROBLEM WITH SEDIMENTATION. THEY BUILT THE MARINA, AND THEN THEY BUILT THE WELCOME CENTER, WHICH IS THE TP. ALONG CAME UP GROUP, HEADED BY A GUY NAMED BOB ALLISON, AND THE MONEY BEHIND THAT WAS A GUY NAMED JOE HICKS.

AND THEY PUT TOGETHER A GROUP -- I CAN'T REMEMBER ALL OF THE -- WHOLE BUNCH OF GROUPS. BUT WHAT THEY BASICALLY DID, AS THEY WERE GONNA BUILD A MARINA, A NEW MARINA, AND THEY'RE GONNA PUT THE MONEY UP FOR THAT. IN FACT, AS THEY TOOK OUT A 4 MILLION DOLLAR BOND OF THE OCEAN HIGHWAY PORT AUTHORITY TO FUND THAT.

THEY ALSO PUT -- JOE HICKS PUT A COUPLE MILLION OF HIS OWN MONEY INTO IT.

PART OF THAT IS THAT THE CITY CAME UP WITH WHAT'S CALLED A PG, WHICH IS --

[00:15:06]

BRETT'S WAS FUNDED BY A GRANT ON THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FROM $642, 000, AND IT'S NOT CLEAR WHETHER IT WAS OVERPAID BACK OR NOT. BUT THE CITY FRONTED IT.

DOING ALL THIS FUN MEMORY, SO. IT GETS COMPLICATED. THE CITY AND THIS GROUP ENDED UP IN A BUNCH OF LAWSUITS. THAT GROUP DECLARED BANKRUPTCY. THEY GAVE THE MARINA TO THE CITY. THEY JUST WALKED AWAY FROM IT, BASICALLY.

AND THE CENTER STREET, THERE WAS THE CENTER STREET GROUP, AND THEN THE CENTER STREET RESTAURANT GROUP, AND THEN THERE WAS SOMETHING CALLED AMELIA'S RESTAURANT, AND ON AND ON IT GOES. THERE ARE WHOLE BUNCH OF INTERLOCKING COMPANIES WITH THE SAME PEOPLE, ALL THESE BOARDS. WHAT HAPPENED IS, AND YOU ASKED -- THERE WAS ONLY THE CURRENT LEASE FOR BRETT'S, IT WAS WRITTEN BACK IN 1988.

AND THEN, RENEGOTIATED SHORTLY THEREAFTER. THAT'S WHERE THE 5% OF THE 5% CAME FROM. AND IT'S UNCLEAR BACK THEN WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED.

BUT IT WAS 5% OF THE LEASE THAT THEY RECEIVED, AND THE CITY GOT 5% OF THAT.

SO, THE ENTERPRISE FUND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. AND ENTERPRISE FUND IS AN ACCOUNTING NECESSITY. THE MARINA IS PAID FOR BY -- UNDER THE RULES, IT'S CALLED GATSBY, OR WHATEVER IT'S CALLED -- NECESSITATE THAT THE CITY HAVE THAT AS AN ENTERPRISE FUND. JUST AS THE GOLF COURSE HAS TO BE -- JUST AS THE UTILITY FUND HAS TO BE AN ENTERPRISE FUND.

BECAUSE WE'RE PAYING THAT OFF WITH MONEY THAT'S GENERATED BY SERVICE.

AND THAT'S WHAT AN ENTERPRISE FUND HAS GOT TO DO WITH. IT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH PARKS AND REX. PARKS AND REX HAD NEVER, IN THE 20 YEARS I LOOK THROUGH ALL THOSE BOXES, THERE'S A LOT OF BOXES, AND HAVE A STACK OF DOCUMENTS THAT'S ABOUT THIS HIGHER. THEY TALK ABOUT ALL THESE THINGS.

IT IS A LOT OF DOCUMENTS MISSING. BUT PARKS AND RECORDS NEVER INVOLVED IN ALL THIS. THE ENTERPRISE FUND -- AND ACCOUNTING THING THAT CAME MUCH LATER. THE UNITY WAS JUST REVOKED IN THE LAST YEAR, I THINK? TWO YEARS? AND NEVER GOT BUILT THAT. THE HOTEL NEVER GOT PICKED OUT.

THE ORIGINAL -- YOU GO BACK, WHEN THEY WERE GONNA BUILD BRETT'S, THE ORIGINAL COMPANY THAT WAS GONNA BUILD IT SAID, YOU HAVE TO PUT 60,000 MORE DOLLARS INTO THE FOUNDATION, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T CARE OUT WHERE THE WELCOMING CENTER WAS.

THEY JUST BUILT ON TOP OF IT. AND THEY WOULDN'T DO IT AT THE TIME.

ALL THIS IS CLEARLY DOCUMENTED IN ALL THESE DOCUMENTS. THEY WOULDN'T DO IT AT THE TIME, SO WHAT THEY DID INSTEAD OF BUILDING A BIGGER RESTAURANT, THEY BUILT A SMALLER RESTAURANT. INSTEAD OF SPENDING THE $60, 000, THE TIME IT WOULD'VE TAKEN THEM TO FIX THE UNDERLYING -- SO, IF YOU WANT, AND MORE THAN HAPPY TO SHARE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH US. BUT, AN ENTERPRISE FUND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US. THE PARKS AND ROCK HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, AND IT WAS A

BIG FINANCIAL MESS BACK AT THE TIME, AND IT STILL IS. >> THANK YOU, TODD.

COMMISSIONER, A QUESTION FOR YOU. SO --

>> I WASN'T GONNA GET UP AND SAY ALL THIS. >> APPRECIATE IT.

SO, TALK TO ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, THEN, THE REVENUE THAT SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN GENERATED

FROM THIS ENTERPRISE. >> IT'S NOT AN ENTERPRISE ZONE. THERE'S NO ENTERPRISE ZONE.

LET ME GET THE STRAIGHT. THERE'S NO ENTERPRISE ZONE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU GOT

THAT. >> RIGHT. YOU JUST MENTIONED, IT ALSO.

>> I SAID ENTERPRISE FUND. AND THAT'S ACCOUNTING. >> SO IS THERE ANY MONEY INTO

THAT GOES INTO THE ENTERPRISE FUND? >> YEAH.

REVENUE FROM THE ARENA. >> HOW MUCH IS THAT? >> TOP OF MY HEAD, PROBABLY 1 MILLION DOLLARS. BUT THEN, THIS OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES.

THE THREE BIG -- THE OPERATING EXPENSES, THE -- THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER HOUR DISCUSSION ON HOW THAT GOT GENERATED. BUT THE CURRENT THAT IS ABOUT 750,000. I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT IT'S 750,000 A YEAR

FOR THE NEXT NINE YEARS. >> RIGHT. >> THE -- FIRST TIME WE GOT AWAY WITH IT WITH FEMA, BUT FEMA SAID IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE INSURANCE THE SECOND TIME, WE'RE NOT GONNA FIX YOUR ATTENUATE OR. LAST YEAR WAS $402, 000, THIS YEAR WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. AND THEN, THE THIRD NUMBER IS DREDGING.

AND STRETCHING, IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK, THEN YOU BACK THEN, AND EVERY YEAR SINCE, ABOUT JUDGING. THAT'S NOTHING THAT IS NEW. IT'S BEEN A PROBLEM.

THERE'S BEEN STUDIES DONE THROUGHOUT THE YEARS. I HAVE THEM ALL.

[00:20:06]

THEY'VE ALWAYS KNOWN THAT THIS WAS A PROBLEM. >> SO, GETTING BACK TO THIS, ON THE ENTERPRISE FUND -- THE INCOME THAT'S BEEN GENERATED BY THE MARINA EVERY YEAR, AND YOUR BEST ESTIMATE IS IT'S A SHORTFALL BY SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR.

>> CORRECT. AND THE CITY MAKES UP THE DIFFERENCE FROM THE GENERAL

FUND. >> OKAY. >> AND THEY HAVE FOUR YEARS.

AND UNTIL RECENTLY, THE CITY IS TO TAKE IT FROM THE UTILITY FUND, AND LOAN THAT MARINA.

IT WAS IN THE MAGNITUDE OF SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.

WE WROTE ALL THAT OFF IN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET. SO THERE IS NOW JUST TWO LOANS OUTSTANDING THAT HAVE BEEN -- ABOUT $750,000 A YEAR IN PRINCIPAL INTEREST.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS AREN'T CLOSE TO OUR AGENDA? SEEING THAT, MOVE FORWARD TO BUSINESS. THIS BRINGS ME TO EDDIE, I WANT

[5.1 CRA PLAN UPDATE - Board review and update of the 2005 CRA Plan.]

ALMOST ANY OF IT. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHY WE'RE HERE.

BECAUSE IF IT HAD BEEN DONE, IT WOULD BE ANY NEED FOR ICE. BUT BECAUSE IT WASN'T, RIGHT HERE. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THIS, AS WE GO FORWARD.

ONE OF THE THINGS IN HERE -- I THINK THEY'RE STILL RELEVANT. SOME OF THEM.

AND LIKE I SAID, AND I THINK YOU'LL ACCEPTED THE CHARGE OF LOOKING INTO THIS AND TRYING TO UPDATED -- AND I'D REALLY LIKE TO GET A VERSION OF THIS, A CLEAN VERSION, EVENTUALLY, TO THE COUNCIL AT THEIR NEXT CRA MEETING.

WHICH I AM SO GRATEFUL THAT THEY DECIDED TO CONTINUE ON A QUARTERLY BASIS, EVEN THOUGH I THINK IT DESERVES MORE ATTENTION THAN THAT. SO, HAVING SAID THAT, OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSIONS, AND ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THAT PEOPLE HAVE WITH REGARDS TO WHAT'S IN THERE. SO. LET'S START.

>> I HAVE AN OBSERVATION, MISTER CHAIRMAN.

>> AND LOOKING AT THE CATEGORIES THE STAFF ESTABLISHED IN THERE -- FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, I THINK THE REFERENCES TO GREEN AND RED AND ORANGE IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, AND IN MANY, IF NOT VIRTUALLY ALL OF THOSE INCH -- INSTANCES IN MY REVIEW, RESULTED IN A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT AGREEMENT THAT THOSE PROVISIONS ARE PROBABLY NO LONGER RELEVANT TO THE CRA. I HAVE TWO COMMENTS ABOUT THE OTHER TWO. THAT IS REFERRED TO AS COMPLETED, AND THOSE REFERRED TO AS WORKING PROGRESS. I'M KIND OF AN OFFER OF GENERAL CONSIDERATION, THAT PERHAPS WE'D LIKE TO HYBRIDIZE LATIN SOME FASHION. BECAUSE, I THINK THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE PARTIALLY DONE IN THE WORK IN PROGRESS PRIVATE THAT STILL HAVE ONGOING REQUIREMENTS. AND I THINK THERE ARE SOME LISTED IN THE GREEN AS COMPLETED THAT STILL HAVE, AS POLITICS SEE MATTERS, AT LEAST, STILL HAVE PLANS FOR THE FUTURE.

MY FIRST RECOMMENDATION WITH RESPECT TO THIS, AND I KNOW THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A STANDARD PART OF A REPORT, AT THIS TIME, BUT I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE HAVE SOME DIFFICULTY IN THIS COMMUNITY KEEPING MOMENTUM MOVING FORWARD ON PROJECTS IS THE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED WITH RESPECT TO MOVING TOWARDS THOSE GOALS. AND I THINK THE REMOVAL OF GREEN ITEMS AS COMPLETED FROM THE REPORT ENTIRELY -- INSTEAD OF DOING THAT, I THINK WE OUGHT TO GIVE CONSIDERATION,

[00:25:03]

SOME MAY GO TO 23, IN PART, BUT YOU GET MY POINT. AND I THINK THAT AS A WAY OF COMMUNICATING TO THE PUBLIC THAT THESE PROCESSES THAT SEEM ENDLESS ARE, IN FACT, JUST

COMMITMENTS TO LONG TERM CHANGES THAT TAKE A LONG TIME. >> YES.

>> AND THEY OUGHT TO SHOW IN THE DOCUMENT. SO THAT'S RECOMMENDATION NUMBER ONE. RECOMMENDATION NUMBER TWO IS THAT MANY OF THE THINGS THAT GO INTO THAT CATEGORY AND CAN BE SHIFTED INTO A SECTION, A NEWS SECTION OF THE MASTER DOCUMENT ESTABLISHING ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED TO BE RETAINED IN THE INNER PROGRESS PART OF THE REPORT TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE ITEMS UNDER THOSE CATEGORIES THAT ARE STILL MOVING FORWARD AND OTHER WAYS. SO THAT'S JUST AN OVERARCHING AMENDMENT THAT I WOULD MAKE TO THE OUTLINE THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, IF IT'S AGREEABLE

WITH GROUP. >> I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT SUGGESTION.

I WAS GONNA SAY, WE NEED TO SORT OF BIFURCATE THE INFORMATION THAT'S IN HERE WITH THINGS THAT WE BELIEVE HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE.

ALSO THINGS THAT ARE IN PROGRESS. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE TWO MORE SESSIONS, WHICH WOULD BE THINGS THAT WE THINK ARE STILL RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, AND ANOTHER CATEGORY WHICH, I THINK, IS THINGS THAT ARE NO LONGER RELEVANT. AND I LIKE YOUR SUGGESTION. I THINK AS WE GO FORWARD IN THIS PROCESS, THAT'S HOW WE SHOULD CATEGORIZE IT. SO PEOPLE WHO LOOK AT THIS AFTERWARDS CAN HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE IT WAS, AND WHERE WE ARE, AND HOW WE'RE

ABLE TO TRANSITION. >> YEAH. THAT'S THE IDEA.

>> OKAY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT AS FAR AS THE

BREAKDOWN INFORMATION? >> I WAS THINKING ALONG THE SAME LINES AS WELL.

BECAUSE I DO THINK YOU LOSE SOME KEY INFORMATION WHEN YOU TAKE OUT OF THE GREEN.

BUT I WAS ALSO THINKING, YOU KNOW, FROM JUST A FORMAT IN ORGANIZATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE DOCUMENT ITSELF, YOU KNOW, DO YOU MAINTAIN THE SECTIONS AS THEY ARE, AND JUST BREAK THEM DOWN INTO, YOU KNOW, THE OBJECTIVES, AND THEN AN IN PROGRESS AND THE COMPLETED SECTION? OR DO YOU COMPLETELY PULL THOSE THINGS OUT?

I THINK YOU MAY LOSE COTINUITY FROM SESSION TO SECTION. >> I AGREE.

THE ACTUAL FORMATTING OF IT, I THINK, IS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE I THINK IT SHOULD HAVE CONTINUITY. I THINK WE SHOULD LEAVE IT AS IT IS, AND MAYBE JUST ARRANGE IT, OR IN THIS CASE -- I THINK IT WOULD BE JUST TO ARRANGE IT IN AN ORDER OF COMPLETED ITEMS, ITEMS THAT ARE STILL IN PROGRESS, ITEMS THAT WE WISH TO SEE COMPLETED, AND ITEMS THAT ARE NO LONGER RELEVANT. SO PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY SEE WHAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED, OR WHAT I THOUGHTS ARE, I NEED TO THOSE SECTIONS.

DOES THAT SEEM LIKE A REASONABLE WAY -- >> THE ONLY PART OF THAT THAT I MIGHT NOT AGREE WITH IS THE NO LONGER RELEVANT PART. PERHAPS THEY SHOULD JUST COME OUT. BECAUSE I THINK SOME OF IT REALLY IS REMARKABLY DATED, CLEARLY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE POLICIES THAT WERE TRYING TO COMMUNICATE AND OUR FUTURE.

>> OKAY. >> I AGREE WITH YOU OTHERWISE. I THINK KEEPING IT IN THE SAME FORMAT, WITH THE OBJECTIVES, AND THEN JUST RE-LISTING THOSE UNDER THAT, CURRENT ACTIVE POLICIES, THE LACK OF A BETTER EXPRESSION -- DURING ACTIVE POLICIES, COMPLETED PROJECTS, AND I THINK THE CURRENT ACTIVE POLICIES AND PROJECTS WOULD PROBABLY -- ACCOMMODATION OF SOME OF THE YELLOW AND THE UNREST, THAT, IS A WHICH IS BEING CARRIED FORWARD, AND THEN SOME OF THE YELLOW WOULD BE RECITED IN THE COMPLETED FACES, BUT THAT'S THE CASE. MAYBE WITH A LITTLE MORE SPECIFICITY -- SO THAT YOU CAN REALLY -- THE LANGUAGE, WHEN WE SAW THAT, IT WOULD DESCRIBE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC -- ALL THAT REPAVING AND REASSIGNING OF THE SPACE ON

[00:30:05]

>> OKAY. >> AND I THINK KEEPING IT IN THIS GENERAL FORMAT DOESN'T MAKE IT MORE INTELLIGIBLE FROM DRAFT THE DRAFT. PRESUMABLY IT WILL BE 20 SOME YEARS BEFORE WE DO THE NEXT -- AND THEREFORE, WE HAVE A CONTINUITY OF DOCUMENTATION.

>> RIGHT. THAT SOUNDS EXCELLENT. >> ONE OF THE IMPORTANT ITEMS -- THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT IN THIS REPORT THAT I THINK WE WISH TO SEE ACCOMPLISHED. SO, THOSE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL ITEMS. AND I THINK THAT IS A PERMANENT PART IN THIS, AND I THINK THAT IS SORT OF ONE OF THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITIES THAT WE HAVE, IS TO HELP PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION OR SUGGESTIONS TO THE COUNCIL TO WHAT WE PERCEIVE AND THINK IS IMPORTANT GOING FORWARD. OBVIOUSLY, THERE ARE SOME ITEMS LIKE THAT.

I THINK THOSE SHOULD BE INCLUDED. SO, I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP RIGHT NOW TO TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT WE REALLY THINK -- THAT ARE RELEVANT.

>> THE RESILIENCY WON'T. -- PROTECT THE DOWNTOWN.

>> RIGHT. >> THAT'S PROMINENT, IN MY OPINION.

>> THERE ARE REFERENCES TO IT. AND, I THINK AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE WAS IN A PLACE WHERE IT CONSTITUTED A YELLOW ITEM. BUT PART OF WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED. -- PERHAPS WITH GREATER SPECIFICITY. THE QUESTION IN MY MIND RIGHT NOW IS HOW TO ATTACK THIS FROM -- MY EXPERIENCE, THESE PRODUCTS, WE ARE TRYING TO COME UP WITH A REPORT, ARE ALMOST THE HARDEST THINGS THAT COMMITTEES ARE EVER ASKED TO DO.

BECAUSE IT'S THE ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK AND THE WORDSMITHING OF IT WHERE MOST OF THE WORK GETS DONE. AND THAT'S JUST HARD FOR A GROUP OF THIS SIZE TO DO IN A PANEL. SO, I'M WONDERING IF, WITH AN ADDITIONAL FRAMEWORK, JACOB, IT WOULDN'T BE ADVISABLE TO ASK STAFF TO TAKE ANOTHER CUT THIS IN TERMS OF THAT FRAMEWORK, THAT SUGGESTED FRAMEWORK, BEFORE WE GET TO THE PLACE OF ACTUALLY TRYING TO WORDSMITH IT? AND I THINK THE ORANGE PARTS ARE KIND OF EASY, AND I THINK -- WE'LL, ACTUALLY I'M NOT SURE ANY OF IT IS ACTUALLY THAT HARD UNTIL WE GET TO THE PLACE OF ESTABLISHING SOME NEW PRIORITIES AND WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COMMISSION. AND I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY BEST DOING THE SEPARATELY FROM WHAT

WE'RE DOING IN HERE. >> I AGREE. >> SO, WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS THIS REORGANIZED IN WAYS THAT WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED, AND TO LEAVE IT SORT OF IN THIS FORMAT, BUT THEN GOT TO THE SUGGESTION, SO ABOUT WHAT'S BEEN ACCOMPLISHED, WHAT SOME

PROGRESS, AND THAT STILL TO BE DONE. >> --

TAKE ANOTHER BITE OUT. >> YES. >> AND THEN, YOU KNOW, REGARDING THE ORANGE PIECES, I THINK THERE IS VALUE TO RE-STATING THEM.

FOR INSTANCE, THE BARREL ROUTE. YOU KNOW, THE SUGGESTION THAT IT BE REDUCED FROM TWO TRACKS TO ONE. CLEARLY, THAT WAS LIKE THAT. SO, JUST TO CHANGE THAT STATEMENT AROUND AND NOTE THAT THAT WAS SUGGESTED, AND THIS WAS THE OUTCOME, SO THAT, AGAIN, YOU'RE NOT REVISITING AN OLD IDEA LIKE, OH, WE JUST THOUGHT OF THIS.

YOU KNOW? BECAUSE IT HAPPENED SO OFTEN. >> THERE'S A SUGGESTION.

>> AND I THINK I'M REASONABLY CONFIDENT AND BELIEVING THAT THE REASON THAT IS NEVER BEEN PURSUED FURTHER IS THAT THE RAILROAD MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR IT WAS NEVER GONNA HAPPEN. AND LET'S SAY THAT IN THE REPORT.

>> EXACTLY. >> SO THERE ISN'T A TEMPTATION FOR FUTURE PEOPLE SITTING IN

THESE CHAIRS THE KIND OF -- >> I'VE SEEN A LOT OF CHESHIRE CAN'T SMILES IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM FROM CURRENT AND FORMER COMMISSION MEMBERS WHOM I KNOW HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE BEATING OF MANY OF THESE CONCEPTS NEAR COMPLETE BAT, AND WOULD MAYBE LIKE TO SEE -- THAT WAY TOO. IS THERE ANY VALUE, JACOB, SO YOU CAN --

[00:35:01]

TAKE A CUT THAT -- >> I THINK THE DIRECTION YOU PROVIDE AS FAR AS FORMATTING, IN MY MIND, IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. THAT WAS REALLY HELPFUL.

TO KEEP THE DOCUMENT FROM THE STORYTELLING PERSPECTIVE. I THINK WHEN WE COME BACK WITH THE DIRECTION THAT YOU ALL PROVIDED, IT WILL BE EASIER TO ATTACK THE ITEMS WE WANT TO ADD

IN. >> I PROMISE THIS IS MY LAST OBSERVATION ON THIS TOPIC.

HAVING WORKED ON OTHER ADVISORY BOARDS WITH THE CITY IN THE PAST, ONE OF THE HARDEST THINGS WHEN YOU START LOOKING OVER DOCUMENT LIKE THIS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMETHING DOESN'T FALL BETWEEN THE CRACKS. BECAUSE WHEN YOU START MOVING STUFF AROUND, IT'S EASY FOR SOMETHING THAT'S INTENDED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO BE DROPPED. AND IT'S A POLICY CHANGE FOR ALL TO SEE WHETHER IT WAS EVER ATTENDED AS A POLICY CHANGE OR NOT.

SO IF YOU CAN UNDERTAKE SOME TRACKING OF THAT, AND YOU COULD COMMUNICATE, IF POSSIBLE, WITH THE DRAFT, THAT WOULD HELP US OVERSEE THE PREVENTION OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

>> THAT'S A GREAT SUGGESTION. IF YOU COULD CIRCULATE THAT TO US ONCE YOU GET IT DONE, AND WE COULD INDIVIDUALLY LOOK AT THAT, AND GET BACK TO THE COMMENTS, AND CLEAN IT UP BEFORE OUR NEXT

MEETING? >> FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, WHEN I'VE DONE THIS IN LARGE PROJECTS WITH THE CITY BEFORE, ONE THING I ALWAYS DO IS WHEN SOMETHING GETS MOVED FROM PLACE A TO PLACE B, I ALWAYS RAN THE PHRASE OR THE SENTENCE, USUALLY SOME SUBSET, SMALL ENOUGH THAT YOU'RE LIKELY TO ACTUALLY GET IT, IN A WORD SEARCH. RUNNING INTO NEW DOCUMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO BE THERE, IT'S ACTUALLY THERE.

AND IF IT INTENDED TO COME OUT OR BE REVISED, IT DIDN'T JUST GET REVISED IN THE ONE PLACE YOU THOUGHT. IT GOT REVISED IN THE OTHER PLACES YOU DIDN'T FIND IT ON

THE FIRST PASS. >> SURE. >> FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. I APPRECIATE THE FORMATTING QUESTIONS, AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING. I KIND OF TOOK A DIFFERENT APPROACH, WHICH IS JUST SPECIFIC FROM GOING THROUGH THIS, LOOKING AT EACH ONE OF THESE, IN TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER -- NO LONGER RELEVANT, IS IT REALLY? AND I GUESS I CAME UP WITH A NUMBER OF ONES IN HERE WHERE WE WOULD BE GETTING RID OF THAT.

BUT I APPRECIATE -- I THINK WE SHOULD DISCUSS THAT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR. -- THE COLOR CODING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE, THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. BUT ALSO -- SPECIFICALLY TO SOME OF THESE ITEMS. AND PLEASE INDICATE --

LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT. >> WELL, I GUESS I'M WONDERING HOW WE DO THAT.

THIS IS JUST THE ONE I DID. PERHAPS EVERYBODY ELSE IS DID THAT SORT OF TWO.

IT IS QUESTIONS ABOUT DIFFERENT ONES. I DON'T KNOW HOW I GET MY ARMS

AROUND -- >> WELL, I DID THE SAME THING. AND WHEN I FINISH THAT PROCESS, AND IT SEEMS THERE'S OTHER OVERARCHING CONCERNS THAT SORT OF -- I CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT MAYBE -- ONE MORE CUT AT IT BEFORE WE DO THAT. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT MAY LOSE SOMETHING -- SOMEONE'S INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION HAS ALREADY IDENTIFIED THAT MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE BE OBVIOUS

TO EVERYBODY. SO -- >> IS HE GONNA KNOW WHAT THINGS

TO CHANGE HERE? >> WELL, I THINK IT'S MOSTLY BY CATEGORY AT THIS POINT.

MAYBE, FOR WHAT THIS IS WHERE -- SINCE THE RESULT OF -- WELL, WE REALLY TOP PASS THIS. I'M SORRY. MY MOUTH FRIENDS AND I SHOULDN'T DO THAT. IF WE END UP PUTTING THE ORANGE ITEMS IN A SECTION NO LONGER RELEVANT, AND MAYBE -- OF WHY, THEY'LL STILL BE THERE TO CAPTURE, WHETHER THERE'S SOMETHING IN THAT ONE OR MORE -- BELIEVES IS STILL RELEVANT, AND SHOULD BE MARKED IS NO LONGER RELEVANT. BUT I WONDER STILL IF THAT ISN'T PRODUCTIVE -- THE OTHER OPTION IS FOR THOSE OF US THAT MADE COMMENTS, TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS AVAILABLE TO JACOB FOR HIM TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.

>> SO. I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS VERY MUCH.

[00:40:04]

I'M NOT 1 TO 1 AWAY. BUT I THINK AT THIS STAGE, I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY AT A POINT

WHERE WE NEED TO GET REWARDED. >> AS A POSSIBLE TO PUT THIS UP ON THE SCREEN? WE JUST GOT YOUR REAL QUICK? JUST TO SEE IF THERE'S SOME CONSENSUS HERE ABOUT WHAT -- OKAY. SO, IF I'M -- REENA FACILITY TO -- WHY WOULD THAT BE A YELLOW? ISN'T THAT AN ONGOING THING? I MEAN, DON'T WE WANT TO FIND WAYS TO ALLEVIATE -- THAT'S WHAT I HAD IN BOTH CATEGORIES.

>> AND THE A AND B, WELL, I HAD THOSE AS BEING -- STRATEGY 1.2, THAT'S -- NOT CONSIDERED PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS, IN THE REDESIGN OF MARINA FACILITIES. WE'RE NOT GONNA BE DOING THAT, I MEAN?

ISN'T THAT AN ORANGE? OR -- >> IN THE REDESIGN?

>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MARINA. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> RIGHT. SO -- THE CITY ISN'T LOOKING FOR PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS RELATE TO THE MARINA, IS THAT? ANYWAY, I PUT THAT IS AN

ORANGE. >> WELL, IT DEFINITELY ISN'T IN THE REST OF THE SENSE, WHICH IS TO -- CONTINUE TO MAINTENANCE. THE INITIAL IMPROVEMENTS, OBVIOUSLY -- REMOVE THE INITIAL, AND LEFT THE OTHER.

>> OTHER THAN THE INITIAL -- >> OKAY. THAT, HEY, THE CITY SHOULD -- TO THE NORTH, WATER RIGHTS, THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE NORTHERN EXTENSION OF THE MARINA FACILITY. GEE, ISN'T THAT A? DON'T WE WANT TO CONTINUE --

>> I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT. YES.

>> OKAY. I'M NOT GONNA READ THE WHOLE THING, THEN.

B I THOUGHT WAS. -- >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING,

TO. >> OKAY. BE.

BUT IT -- IS THAT CLEAR? I MEAN, RIGHTS WITH SOME OF THE PROPERTIES, PLEASE, STILL QUESTION. SO.

,. . >>.

IT'S -- CURRENTLY PERMITTED, SO FORTH. I THINK THOSE ARE OUTDATED IN LIGHT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.

>> RIGHT. >> WELL, SOME OF THESE, PART OF IT SHOULD BE ONGOING, BUT PART

OF IT SHOULD BE REMOVED WITHIN THAT. >> I AGREE.

I THINK WHAT YOU JUST BROUGHT UP IS THE PART THAT OBVIOUSLY --

IT'S NOT APPLICABLE GOING FORWARD. >> I THINK IT SHOULD BE ONLY --

>> RIGHT. >> THE REST OF IT CAN PROBABLY GO -- I THINK OF SOMETHING CHANGES, IT'S GONNA HAVE TO HAPPEN ON THE WEST SIDE.

>> OH YEAH. >> IF THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO DO IT, THEN.

[LAUGHTER] >> SO IF YOU CAN, AND JUST -- >> YEAH.

I'M JUST TRYING TO TAKE A BROAD BRUSH HERE REAL QUICK. >> NO, I UNDERSTAND.

>> JACOB HAS SOME IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE -- >> OKAY.

>> AND OBJECTIVE TO YOU, THE FIRST SENTENCE THEIR, EXISTING FUTURE LAND --

[00:45:02]

WELL, THE CITY COMMISSION JUST CHANGED THE ZONING FOR PARKING LOT C.

NOW, PARKING LOT G TO RECREATION. OR AGREED TO THAT.

>> RIGHT. >> SO. >> BUT, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT

AGAIN, IT'S NOT THE ENTIRETY. I THINK -- >> IT'S NOT SORT OF CORRECT OR NOT UP TO DATE. IT'S NOT EITHER ELIMINATED NOR --

>> IT'S STILL VIABLE, JUST NOT IN THE ENTIRE AREA. >> RIGHT.

>> BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY MADE ADJUSTMENTS TO IT. >> MAYBE SOME NOTATION SHOULD

BE MADE THAT THERE ARE OTHER ZONING CATEGORIES NOW. >> UNDERSTAND, YES.

>> I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER PLACE WHERE A LOT OF CHANGES WERE MADE IN THE RELATIVELY RECENT PAST, AND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TO SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZE TYPES OF USE ON THE WATERFRONT.

ALL THE MATERIALS WITH THE RESPECT TO -- DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, SO FORTH. I THINK A LOT OF THAT HAS BEEN ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED.

MAYBE PRIDE TO THAT ON TO GO INTO THINGS ACHIEVED AS WELL. >> I.

OKAY. >> MAYBE THAT SECTION JUST HAS TO BE LOOKED AT WITH CURRENT

LAND DEVELOPMENT. AND UPDATED. >> YES.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO -- >> SPEAK? >> YES.

>> JAPAN SHOULD, FIVE MAN THREE, -- I JUST GET PIECES OF THE POT -- CONVERSATION AROUND ME. EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT OUR WATERFRONT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A WORKING WATERFRONT. OKAY? PHOSPHATE, NUMBER, ALL KINDS OF STUFF. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN PERCEIVED BY MOST OF THE PEOPLE AROUND HERE AS -- ONE OF THE PROBLEMS YOU RUN INTO IS WHAT WE HAVE AN AREA ON THE WEST SIDE THAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF RAILROAD TRACKS. AND THE CRA, YOU GUYS WORK WITH ALL THE TIME, INDICATES THAT THE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS IS TERRIBLE. WHAT'S INTERESTING IS, LIKE, WHEN THE RAILROAD MODIFIES THE CROSSINGS, NOBODY PUTS ANYTHING UNDERNEATH THE RAILROAD TRACKS. THERE'S NO PIPES INSTALLED.

THERE'S NO CONDUIT INSTALLED. STRANGELY ENOUGH, IT'S VERY INTERESTING, BECAUSE I'M FROM AN OLD ENGINEERING THING. IF SOMEBODY TAKES A WHOLE, I'M PUTTING PIPE IN IT.

BECAUSE ONE DAY, I MAY NEED THAT TYPE. SO PFIZER IS, WATER MAINS, EVERYTHING ELSE, LAST TIME STREET CROSSING WAS DOG, NO PIPE WAS PUT UNDER IT.

YEAH, WE HAD A PILOT OF STAINLESS STEEL PIPE THAT WE PULLED OUT OF THE MARINA THAT WAS EXCESS. IT'S FOUR INCH DIAMETER PIPE. IF WHEN GOD ONLY KNOWS WHERE.

BUT WE TRY TO GET IT WENT ON TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS TO BE ABLE WAS, YOU KNOW, FIBER OPTICT IT- CAVER, -- WHEN I CHECK OF THE CITY, IT'S THAT WAS NEVER THE PLANTS.

WHICH TO ME, IT'S CRAZY. ANYTIME YOU TAKE A HALL, AND YOU'VE GOT THE SIDE OF THE CITY THAT'S UNDER SUPPORTED FOR UTILITIES, AND BE PUTTING PIPE IN THE GROUND. SO, ANYWAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT. >> ISN'T SOME INFRASTRUCTURE -- HASN'T BEEN INCORPORATED? BOTH DRAINAGE AND ELECTRICITY ON THAT SIDE OF THE TRACKS? IS -- IS ADEQUATE THE REASONABLE FORESEEABLE FUTURE OF USES ON

THE WEST SIDE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS? >> IT IS.

AREA SIX DRAINAGE -- [INAUDIBLE] WHAT WE'VE GOT ON THE PANEL RIGHT NOW IS ADEQUATE FOR SERVICING WHAT'S THERE. THE -- UNDERGROUND CONVERSION OF THE POWERLINES ALONG FRONT STREET, IT'S GONNA BE CONDOM -- CONDUITS OUT OF THE RAILROAD BACK TO THE EAST SIDE. SO THERE ARE PIPES UNDER THEIR.

AND ISSUE IS, WE'VE GOTTA GO THROUGH THE RAILROAD FOR APPROVAL FOR THAT.

THEY -- IF IT COLLAPSES, IT'S CAUSING PROBLEMS -- I'VE SEEN WHERE THIS WAS DONE ON BOTH THE RAILROAD TRACK. I PULLED THE -- MACHINE OUT, IT COLLAPSED THE TRACK. WANT TO DO THAT TO THE RAILROAD HERE? THAT'S MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF DAMAGES.

[00:50:01]

LINES, DRAINAGE LINES -- >> DO ANY OF THOSE, AND THAT MAY NOT BE THERE THIS WEEK, I DON'T KNOW, I APOLOGIZE IF I'M DATING MYSELF HERE ON THIS, BUT THERE ARE A BUNCH OF, WHEN I UNDERSTOOD TO BE, SERVICE WATER DRAINAGE PIPES THAT ARE WAITING THERE BECAUSE SOME THINGS HADN'T BEEN RECEIVED FOR THEM TO BE PUT IN THE GROUND. ANY OF THAT --

GOING ON TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS? >> WRITE SOME. >> THAT'S PERMITTED AND READY TO GO ON HIS BEEN APPROVED BY THE RAILROAD? OKAY.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. IT'S A NEW CHANCE OF BEING ABLE TO BE BACK WITH THOSE PIPES THAT ARE GOING INTO YEAR -- FOUR OTHER USES? FIBROTIC'S, THINGS LIKE THAT?

>> WE TRY TO PUT SPARES AND WHEN WE'RE DOING THEM. WE TRY TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FUTURE. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH YOU CAN DO.

YOU GOTTA COME BACK OUT. >> YEAH. >> RIGHT AWAY --

THINGS IN THE WAY. YOU CAN'T GO TOO DEEP. >> YOU GOTTA.

>> YEAH. KIND OF A TRICKY SITUATION. >> WELL, THIS WAS RAISED BY A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. SO I WANT TO SAY THAT LAD. BOTH THE -- MADE 70 YEARS AGO TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ADDRESSING THE WORKING WATERFRONT AREA AND THIS PROVISION THAT IS JUST BEEN CALLED THE ATTENTION AGAIN, REFERRED TO THE -- DIRECTIVES TOWARD MAINTAINING THAT AREA AS A WORKING WATERFRONT.

AND I HAVE TO SAY, WHEN I TALK STATED COMING TO YOU FERNANDINA WHEN I WAS 23 YEARS OLD, AND I'M 73. I'VE HAD SOME FAMILIARITY WITH THIS WATERFRONT FOR A VERY LONG TIME. AND WITH A COUPLE OF OBVIOUS AND NOTABLE SELECTIONS, THERE IS NOT MUCH WORKING WATERFRONT IN THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA.

I'VE BEEN MADE TO UNDERSTAND OVER AND OVER AGAIN THERE'S NO FUTURE FOR A WORKING WATERFRONT IN THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH. SO I'M GONNA RAISE NOW SOMETHING FOR DISCUSSION UNTIL WE GET TO THE PART WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VISIONS FOR THE FEATURE THAT AREN'T HERE NOW. IN MY OPINION. BUT, I'M WONDERING IF IT ISN'T TIME TO ABANDON THE NOTION THAT EVERYTHING DIRECTED TOWARD DEVELOPMENT -- I MEAN, I WANT TO KEEP RESTRICTIONS, ALL THE THINGS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH PRESERVING THE RIGHT SIDE OF DOWNTOWN FERNANDINA BEACH AS AN ATTRACTION ITS OWN RIGHT, BECAUSE -- AND I'D LIKE TO SEE THE CONTINUING EXPANSION OF A RIVER WALK AREA WITH THAT NOTION VERY MUCH AND WIND AS WELL. BUT THE NOTION THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE DOCKS, AND SEAFOOD, SHIPPING IN STORAGE, SO ON AND SO ON, THAT'S A FICTION THAT THE CITY ABANDONED AT LEAST 15 TO 20 YEARS AGO, I'M WONDERING IF IT ISN'T TIME TO ABANDON IT IN THIS CONTEXT AS WELL. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT HISTORIC PRESERVATION, TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THE THINGS I'M CARVING OUT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME INCLUSION OF DESIGN STANDARDS FOR BUILDINGS TO MAINTAIN THE MOTIF OF A WORKING WATERFRONT, THE NOTION THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE WATERFRONT BUSINESSES DOWN THERE, DEVELOPING AREAS THAT HAVE GONE UNDEVELOPED, AND THE REASON FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF SO MUCH OF THIS AREA AS -- TO BEGIN WITH HAS NOT BEEN MODIFIED SINCE THIS PLAN WAS ADOPTED AND ITS ORIGINAL FORM. MAYBE IT'S TIME TO MOVE AWAY

FROM THAT. >> I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS.

I THINK, FROM MY STANDPOINT, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE, TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, CABLE AND ELECTRICITY AND ALL THAT, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY FOR THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY, OR THINGS LIKE THAT. IT'S FOR OTHER POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND HE SAYS.

GOES TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS, WHICH I THINK IN THE FUTURE -- BE VERY SHORTSIGHTED NOT TO REALIZE THAT THOSE WILL BE NEEDED IN THE FUTURE. I THINK WE SHOULD TRY TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THAT IN PLACE AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

SO. >> WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE GREEN DEVELOPMENT DOWN HERE TO

STABILIZE THE SHORELINE. >> YEAH. >> THAT'S HOW IT WORKS.

[00:55:05]

>> YOU GET IT STABILIZED? NOTHING IS GONNA BE BUILT. --

>> YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU WRITE. SO.

BUT IT'S ALMOST A QUESTION OF WHAT COMES FIRST. I MEAN, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE

INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE -- >> RECOMMENDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M REFERRING TO. >> YOU NEED TO HAVE A NAME ON

THAT FOR YEARS AND YEARS. >> YEAH. OBVIOUSLY --

>> WE'LL, IF IT WASN'T, I WOULDN'T BE HERE. [LAUGHTER]

>> ALL RIGHT. SO. >> OKAY.

>> YES, PLEASE, CONTINUE. >> STRATEGY 2.4. THE ONES BEFORE THAT -- IN ORDER TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE WORK AREA SHOULD PRIORITIZE COMMERCIAL USES, THE CITY, OR SHOULD, CONSIDER ACQUIRING THROUGH DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT THAT DEVELOPERS OF RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT SHALL HAVE PURCHASES SIGN A RELEASE, ET CETERA. RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT.

ISN'T THAT KIND OF OUT OF DATE? WE'RE NOT REALLY PURSUING RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT ON THE

WATERFRONT ANYMORE. >> THAT'S A GREAT POINT. I'M NOT SURE THE SPECIFICALLY IS TALKING ABOUT THE WATERFRONT AS MUCH AS IT IS THE SIERRA. AND WE DO HAVE RESIDENTIAL --

>> WELL. IT'S A WORKING WATERFRONT AREA. >> I KNOW.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. JUST -- KNOW, I UNDERSTAND.

I READ THAT TO YOU AND I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED, AND I THOUGHT, IS THIS PERTAINING JUST TO THE WATERFRONT, OR IS THIS? BECAUSE THIS WHOLE DOCUMENT REFERS -- SO. I THINK WE SHOULD REMOVE THAT CONFUSION, JACOB.

>> THAT STRATEGY CERTAINLY NEEDS TO BE COMPLETELY EFFACED. >> YEAH.

OBVIOUSLY -- >> 20 YEARS OLD. >> YEAH.

NOTHING NEXT TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS. BUT WITHIN THIS AREA, OBVIOUSLY,

IT'S STILL GONNA BE -- >> WELL, THERE ARE TWO PARCELS. --

>> YES. >> TO YOUR POINT, IT'S REFERRING TO ALL OF THE SIERRA.

SO. >> OKAY. OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> AND UNDER OBJECTIVES, OR OBJECTIVES THREE -- PAY GOING DOWN TO FIELDWORK -- IT SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO PROVIDE AN INPUT FOR COMPUTER

WATER DISTRIBUTION MODEL FOR THE CRA. >> YEAH.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT IS. >> WHERE IS NOT? >> IT'S THE LAST PARAGRAPH.

>> YOU GO DOWN PAST THE SECOND ORANGE --

SPEAKERS] >> THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION. SO THIS IS SOMEWHAT CONFUSING.

THEN, GOING OVER THE NEXT PAGE -- WE GET TO STRATEGY FOR 0.1.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> JUST BACK UP ON THAT ONE. WHAT WAS YOUR ISSUE AND THAT?

>> I DON'T KNOW. >> PREVIOUS ONE, HOW THE FIELDWORK SHOULD BE CONDUCTED -- WHAT A DISTRIBUTION MODEL FOR THE THEORY.

>> AND TAKE THAT IS JUST GOING OUT INTO THE FIELD AND ACTUALLY GETTING THE DATA TO GO AND

BASICALLY MODEL THAT AND HOW -- UTILITY OUT THERE. >> WE HAVE COMPUTER MODELS TO

DO THAT NOW. >> SO WE JUST NEED TO CHANGE THAT?

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY -- >> THAT'S A TAKE OUT. >> YEAH, THAT'S A TAKE OUT.

>> THAT'S DONE. >> OKAY. COOL.

>> STRATEGY FOR 0.1. THE SECOND PARAGRAPH THERE, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE SPECIAL NEEDS WITHIN THE CORRIDOR, THE SURVEY OF THE EXISTING RUNWAY SHOULD BE PREPARED.

WE HAVE THIS? >> YES. >> OKAY, THAT COULD GO TO GREEN. THEN, UNDER B, POSSIBLE COORDINATION WITH PROPERTY OWNERS WEST FRONT STREET TO ALLOW THE SIDEWALK -- OVER THE PROPERTY.

SHOULDN'T THAT BE A YELLOW? WE'RE TRYING TO GET THAT? >> YES.

>> ISN'T THAT ALREADY IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE RIGHT NOW? >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> BUT THEN, THE SECOND HALF OF THAT PARAGRAPH, COMBINED WITH THE POSSIBLE COORDINATION WITH PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE EAST SIDE OF FRONT STREET TO ALLOW A FRONT EDGE LAME WAY ADJACENT TO

[01:00:02]

IS THAT STILL RELEVANT? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT A LANEWAY IS.

BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN PUT ANYTHING IN BETWEEN THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

>> YEAH, I'M JUST TRYING TO PROVIDE JACOB WITH THINGS -- >> WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

>> YES. I AGREE. COULDN'T QUITE FIGURE OUT WHETHER WE WERE TRYING TO HAVE BUILDINGS THAT WOULD FACE THE MARINA FROM FRONT STREET.

>> YOU HAVE TO GO BACK HERE 20 IS THE WAY THIS WAS BUILT. >> YEAH.

I THINK THIS IS DEFINITELY -- YOU CAN TAKE THAT OUT. SO.

>> THAT STRATEGY, 4.5. NEXT PAGE. THE CITY SHOULD CONSIDER CREATING A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN THE EXISTING TOP -- RIGHT IN THE WAY UP FRONT

STREET. THAT'S NO LONGER RELEVANT? >> THE RAILROAD TRACKS?

>> YEAH. >> THAT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

I DISAGREE. >> YOU HAVE TO GET HIGH UP ON THE RAILROAD --

>> JANUARY, PEDESTRIAN FLY -- >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT ISN'T IT A TOPIC THAT SHOULD REMAIN --

>> WE HAD TO GUARANTEE WE WOULDN'T DO IT. >> OKAY.

>> WHEN THE RAILROAD TELLS US -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY.

>> SOME OF THESE ITEMS, I THINK, IT'S ALMOST LIKE A WISH LIST. I MEAN, IN A PERFECT WORLD, WE HAVE THIS DONE, BUT IN REALITY, IF IT'S NOT FEASIBLE, THEN I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE HAD ONE TO HAVE IT IN THE OTHER THAN FOR A REFERENCE AT SOME POINT, BUT THIS IS WHAT WE'D REALLY LIKE.

>> THIS IS A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING, NOT AN AUTOMOBILE CROSSING.

>> WELL, IT'S ABOUT. >> WELL, THIS IS BOTH. THIS ONLY REFERS TO A

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING. >> THEY DON'T WANT ANYTHING CROSSING --

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. THEY DIDN'T WANT -- EITHER, BUT WE GOT THERE WITH DILIGENT EFFORT. NOT 20 YEARS SUSTAINED, FRANKLY.

ONE OR TWO YEARS OF SUSTAINED AFTER 20 YEARS OF WISHING. AND I'M OKAY WITH STILL WISHING

FOR A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING. I DON'T KNOW -- >> IT DOES MENTION --

>> I'M JUST RAISING THE QUESTION FROM JACOB. >> BUT IT'S IMPORTANT --

WE HAVE TO DETERMINE HOW WE WANT THIS TO BE NOTED. >> WE'RE GONNA COME BACK WITH

ANOTHER CUT. YOU LOOK AT THAT AND SAY -- >> IT DOES MENTION VEHICULAR

CROSSING IN THERE AS WELL. >> WELL, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE, WHEN YOU'RE INCLUDING -- WHEN YOU'RE ADVISING THOSE STATEMENTS TO INCLUDE THE OUTCOME FOR THE REASON THAT IS ORANGE OR YELLOW, YOU'RE STATING THAT AT THIS TIME, YOU KNOW, AT THE TIME WHEN THE PLAN WAS PREPARED, HERE WAS THE REASON THAT THIS WAS REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION.

YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE WEREN'T ABLE TO DO IT. THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT WITH THE RAILROAD THAT WE WOULD, THAT THE CITY WOULDN'T. YOU KNOW, PURSUE THAT.

IF THAT'S THE CASE. >> LET'S NOT RECITE IN -- PLANNED AGREEMENTS WITH THE

RAILROAD UNLESS THERE'S ASSIGNED -- >> EXACTLY.

>> SUCH THINGS CAN -- >> I AGREE. SO.

>> MORE INFORMATION THAT COULD BE IN THERE SO PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO --

REHASH IT. >> RIGHT. >> AS LONG AS --

>> WHAT NEEDS TO BE ACCURATE. >> RIGHT. >> STRATEGY 4.6.

THE CITY SHOT COORDINATE WITH PROPERTY OWNERS TO DEVELOP SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY AS NECESSARY. SURELY, THAT SHOULD BE A YELLOW.

>> YES. >> I'M SORRY, 4.6? >> 1.7.

>> I'VE GOTTEN AN ORANGE. >> YEAH, IT'S AN ORANGE NOW. BUT.

I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE YELLOW. >> 4.6. >> JUST TO POINT EFFECTS --

>> OUT, THOSE TWO 4.6. >> 4.6 AND 4.6. >> THIS IS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER. DON'T WE HAVE PROVISIONS, NOW, ON THE PROPERTIES ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS? AND IT'S THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE DEVELOPING --

THE AFTER INCLUDE SIDEWALK? >> GENERALLY, YES. THE CITY WILL REQUIRE THEM TO

[01:05:04]

MAKE THE EFFORT. >> SO THAT'S WHY -- IT'S OKAY LEAVING THAT IN THE DONE. BECAUSE I THINK THAT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED.

>> THAT'S TRUE. IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE HAVE TO ASK ANYBODY TO LOOK AT.

>> THIS IS A GREAT PLACE TO PUT IT IN THE THINGS ACCOMPLISHED. NOW PART OF THE LBC --

>> THAT'S A GREAT SUGGESTION. >> FIRST STRATEGY, 0.7 -- THE LAST PART OF THAT PARAGRAPH SAYS, REGARDING SCALE STREET LIGHTING, CONSISTENT WITH LIGHTING FIXTURES -- MAYBE THAT SHOULD BE REMOVED, BECAUSE THAT'S GONNA BE -- THE COUNCIL WEIGH IN ON THE.

>> I APPRECIATE IT. BUT IT DOESN'T SAY -- I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER.

, BUT I THINK CONSISTENCY IS KIND OF -- >> PART OF THE REASON THAT IS GOING, I KNOW THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONSISTENTLY VIEWED AS STREET.

FROM A DESIGN STANDPOINT. SO -- THIS IS KIND OF MAKING THAT STATEMENT THAT THEY HAVE THE SAME. BUT, JUST RAISING THE QUESTION.

AND THEN, STRATEGY 4.3, THE NEXT ONE IS A LITTLE BIT IN THE SAME VEIN.

THE CITY SHALL CONSIDERED SIGN ELEMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE CENTER STREET -- TO CREATE STRONGER PEDESTRIAN LINKAGES BETWEEN CENTER STREET IN THE WATER.

JUST A QUESTION. >> YEAH.

AGAIN, REMEMBER THIS WAS CREATED FOR THE CI DESIGN GUIDELINES.

>> YEAH. >> AND STRATEGY 4.6 -- THE CITY --

SIGNAGE >> IT'S BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. >> AND THEN, THE CITY COULD, THE SECOND PART OF THAT, SECOND PARAGRAPH, THE CITY PARTNERED WITH LOCAL GROUPS SUCH AS THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO EFFECTUATE THIS PROGRAM. ALL OF THAT SHOULD BE YELLOW.

OR ORANGE. >> RIGHT. WELL, THAT WAS A MAINSTREAM

PROJECT. >> YEAH. >> YEAH.

>> OKAY. STRATEGY 5.1. THE FIRST PART OF THAT IS -- BUT THE SECOND, THE SECOND PART, THIRD PARAGRAPH. THE FUNDING, AND THE RE-DESIGN OF THE MARINA ALLOW -- CONSIDER MASTER PLANNING OF THIS FACILITY IN FACES SUCH AS THE FIRST PHASE CAN BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE SHORT TO MIDTERM TO GENERATE ACTIVITY --

WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION. >> WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF -- STAGED LIKE A FIVE YEAR --

>> SO, I'M NOT SURE THIS IS EVEN NECESSARY TO BE IN HERE. >> WELL -- IF SOMEBODY READS THIS IN THE FUTURE, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND TAKING THAT -- THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON. IT'S GONNA BE STAGED.

HASN'T GONE THROUGH HERE. >> THAT'S ONE OF THE AREAS I HAD MARKED IN BOTH GREEN AND

YELLOW. >> IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED, BUT IT'S --

>> UNTIL IT'S COMPLETELY DONE -- PART OF IT IS COMPLETE, BUT IT

WON'T BE COMPLETE UNTIL -- >> HOPEFULLY, NEVER. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

YOU'RE CONSTANTLY REDEVELOPING. I WON'T BE HERE, BUT, YEAH. >> JUMPING DOWN TO STRATEGY 5.5,

IT REFERENCES -- AND OF THAT PARAGRAPH, RIFFRAFF. >> THAT NEEDS TO COME OUT.

>> YEAH. WE'LL LET OTHERS DECIDE THAT. THEN, OBJECTIVE SIX.

THE FIRST PARAGRAPH THERE, SIGNIFICANT PORTION -- AS A MEANS OF MAINTAINING CONNECTIONS TO THE WATERFRONT, THE SIERRA SHOULD MAKE EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN NEW QUARTERS.

ISN'T THAT -- >> THAT'S DONE. >> IT'S ALREADY IN THE LBC.

IT'S IN THERE. SO THAT CAN BE COMPLETED. >> OKAY.

[01:10:06]

>> OBJECTIVE SEVEN. PARKING LOT. AT THE VERY END OF THAT FIRST

PARAGRAPH -- >> WHICH PARAGRAPH? >> OBJECTIVE SEVEN PARKING.

>> YEAH, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH. IT'S NOT GREEN OR YELLOW OR ORANGE.

IT'S JUST THE FIRST PARAGRAPH THERE. JUST THE VERY END OF IT, THE RELOCATION OF PARKING FELONS EAST OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS. THAT SHOULD BE YELLOW.

>> WELL, THIS IS JUST -- I UNDERSTOOD THE UNMARKED THINGS TO BE --

AT LEAST 14 IN THE PLAN, COMPLETELY UNCHANGED. >> RIGHT.

I DID TOO. WHEN I WAS READING IT. BUT THEN, I THOUGHT WITH THESE INITIAL PARAGRAPHS OF THE OBJECTIVES, THERE'S A GENERAL STATEMENT IN THE BEGINNING, AND THEN THERE'S A STATEMENT IN THE SECOND PART OF IT, AND I THINK --

THAT ANOMIE MARKED AS EITHER YELLOW OR GREEN. >> SO YOU'RE SAYING.

I AGREE. I THINK SOME OF THESE THINGS SHOULD BE MARKED UP IF WE HAVE ANY PROGRESS, THEIR WORK IN PROGRESS, AND WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED SOME OF THOSE

THINGS. SO, I AGREE. >> YEAH.

SO, THE RELOCATION OF PARKING TO LANDS EAST OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS AS YEAH.

IT'S ONGOING. >> YES. >> WELL, I THINK THEY HAVEN'T MARKED ANY OF THESE OBJECTIVES -- THE DESCRIPTION, IT'S THE

STRATEGIES. >> BUT I AGREE WITH ERIC. IT SHOULD BE YELLOW.

IT'S ALMOST LIKE THE -- THIS WILL BE ONGOING. IT'S GONNA BALL OVERTIME, AND

MAYBE NEVER BE QUITE FINISHED. SO. >> I'M JUST LOOKING OUTSIDE THE

LINES HERE. >> OKAY. THEN, STRATEGY 7.3.

>> IT'S ORANGE. >> SHOULD BE. >> CITY SEAN COOPERATE SCREENING AND LANDSCAPE STANDARDS FOR NEW OFF STREET PARKING FACILITIES WITHIN THE CRA. LAPIERRE -- YELLOW?

>> EXTENDED. >> STANDARDS ARE. >> IT HAS BEEN COMPLETED.

THE STANDARDS ARE COMPLETED. >> SO, IT HASN'T HAPPENED, BUT YEAH.

>> OKAY. OKAY. OBJECT OF EIGHT.

MAINTAINING A WORKING WATERFRONT. THE LAST PART OF THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH, AGAIN -- THE CRA SHOCK -- CONTINUATION OF WHAT A RELATED

COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES IN THE AREA. >> YES.

>> STRATEGY 8.1. THE CRA SHELL MAINTAIN A GENIUS DATABASE --

NEW DATABASES LOOKING IN THE AREA. >> YES.

THAT'S BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. >> GOING DOWN TO STRATEGY -- CRA SHOULD WORK WITH STATE REPRESENTATIVES TO EXPLORE THE OPTION OF DESIGNATING A PORTION OF THE WATERFRONT AS A -- GREENBELT FOR THE SHRIMP INDUSTRY. IT'S NOT A BAD THING?

IT'S NOT AN IRRELEVANT THING? >> I THINK IT IS. IT'S BAD, BUT I THINK IT'S

RELEVANT. >> I MEAN, WHEN YOU MEAN ABOUT THAT, THEY'VE BEEN?

>> WELL, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOT A CHANCE. >> OKAY.

JUST ASKING THE QUESTION. I'M NOT SURE WHAT A CULTURE GREENBELT FOR THE SHIPPING

INDUSTRY -- >> I DON'T BELIEVE. >> OKAY.

>> YEAH, I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE GOING FORWARD.

>> OKAY. OBJECTIVE NINE. SECOND PART OF THAT BEGINNING PARAGRAPH -- THE CITY SHOULD MAKE -- ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ELEMENTS AND PRESENTATION INTO REDEVELOPMENT EFFORTS MORE PRACTICAL.

I GUESS I'D MAKE THAT YELLOW. IT'S A GOOD THING. >> YEAH.

>> GOING DOWN STRATEGY 9.4, AS PART OF THE MARINA PERMITS, MARINE EDUCATION FACILITY IS IDENTIFIED AS AN OBLIGATORY REQUIREMENT. IS THAT SOMETHING THE CITY DOES

[01:15:04]

NOT WANT TO -- >> I DON'T THINK IT'S TRUE. >> PURSUE IT ALL?

OR? >> I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT WOULD GO, WHAT IT IS, BUT IT'S BEEN IN THE CONVERSATION FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

I CAN REMEMBER PROBABLY SIX YEARS OR SO AGO. SOMEONE BROUGHT THAT UP AND

WANTED TO PROCEED. I DON'T KNOW. >>, MAYBE THAT COULD BE INCORPORATED AT SOME POINT. THAT WOULD BE A SMALL -- I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

>> TALKING ABOUT A FACILITY THAT -- I WOULD UNDERSTAND IF IT WAS

JUST INFORMATIONAL -- YOU'RE WALKING AROUND -- >> I DON'T THINK THIS IS BEING READ NEARLY ENOUGH. IT SAYS, AS PART OF THE MARINA PERMITS --

>> RIGHT. >> AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITY IS IDENTIFIED AS AN OBLIGATORY

REQUIREMENT. DO WE HAVE ANY MARINA PERMITS? >> THE STATE DOESN'T REQUIRE

THEM. >> THAT IS EVER REQUIRED THAT? AND WOULD BE IN THE FUTURE?

I DON'T THINK IT'S IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. >> FROM EDUCATIONAL -- PROBABLY SIGNAGE. YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS SPELLING PETROLEUM AND STUFF IN THE WATER -- I THINK THAT'S -- WHAT IT'S INTENDED TO BE, NOT SOMETHING WITH A BUNCH OF INTERACTIVE FEATURES. I THINK IT'S MORE JUST LETTING

THE PUBLIC KNOW WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN'T DO ON THE WATERFRONT. >> BUT WHO WOULD BE PERMITTING

TO HIM -- >> TYPICALLY, WHEN YOU GET A MARINE -- REQUIREMENTS -- WHAT YOU NEED TO FIND -- THINK THAT'S PART OF WHAT

THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> SO, IF I MAY, WHAT I THINK IS PERTINENT IS BASICALLY THE LAST SENTENCE OF THIS. AND I AGREE WITH THE COLLEAGUES HERE, THE FIRST SENTENCE -- A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO TRANSLATE INTO WHAT ACTION WOULD ACTUALLY TRANSPIRE.

>> RIGHT. >> BASED ON THAT. --

BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE. >> SOME OF THE STATE PERMITS -- AFTER IT'S COMPLETED, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN WATER MARINA --

>> GOTTA GO THROUGH WITH THOSE KIND OF LOOPS. AND SO, HE HAS BEEN DESIGNATED -- THE MARINA. THEY PROBABLY --

HAVE THAT INFORMATION. >> OKAY. WELL, I DO LIKE THE LAST SENTENCE. I THINK THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULD STRIVE FOR.

OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T HAVE A, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T FINISHED.

>> OKAY. >> OKAY. OBJECTIVE TEN.

I CAN, IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, THE UNMARKED PARAGRAPH, THE CRA SHALL ENCOURAGE BASIC CLEANUP EFFORTS AS A RELATIVELY INEXPENSIVE MEANS OF REDUCING A CONDITION OF BLIGHT WITHIN THE

CRA. IT'S KIND OF AN ONGOING THING. >> YEAH.

IT'S GREEN. IN 10.2. >> YES.

>> YEAH. >> I JUST THINK NONE OF THE INTRO PARAGRAPHS I'VE BEEN

COLOR CODED. >> RIGHT. >> IT'S ONLY STRATEGY.

>> THAT'S ONLY CONVINCING -- AND I WOULD THINK -- >> YEAH, I WOULD THINK THAT ONCE WE ADDRESS THE STRATEGIES, THAT WILL DRIVE WHAT GOES INTO THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PARAGRAPH.

>> OR MAYBE, WHEN JACOB IS LOOKING AT THIS, THE SHOWER SHOULD STATEMENTS THAT ARE IN THOSE OPENING PARAGRAPHS, OR EACH OBJECTIVE SHOULD BECOME STRATEGIES.

>> STRATEGIES. >> YEAH. SO YOU JUST KEEP THE GENERAL

STATEMENT AS THE OBJECTIVE. >> I THINK -- YEAH, MOST OF THEM ARE.

>> YES. >> YEAH. >> OKAY.

WELL -- OBJECTIVE 11, AGAIN, IT'S ONE OF THE ONES THAT'S UNMARKED.

[01:20:03]

TO ME, THAT'S A YELLOW. WE SHOULD OBVIOUSLY BE DOING THAT.

>> YES. >> STRATEGY 11.1, THE CRA SHELL PROMOTE THE WATERFRONT AREA THROUGH SPONSORING OR COORDINATING WITH COMMUNITY GROUPS, ORGANIZE WEEKLY, MONTHLY, QUARTERLY, AN ANNUAL EVENTS. EXAMPLES OF THE EVENTS COULD INCLUDE AN OPEN AIR PARK, SO ON. ISN'T THAT A YELLOW?

>> YES. >> YES. >> THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

BUT TO SOME EXTENT, THE YELLOW CATEGORY IS A LITTLE BIT AMBIGUOUS, BECAUSE WHAT WE CALL IT IS IN PROGRESS. ALSO, SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT MEANING AS IT'S ONGOING.

>> SOME OF IT, OBVIOUSLY, HAS BEEN DONE. BUT IT'S NEVER-ENDING.

SO. >> IT'S TOUGH THAT DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE, BUT NOW DOES EXIST, BUT

HAS TO BE MAINTAINED. >> AND JAKE, THIS IS HERE WHERE I THINK RASKIN YOU GENERALLY TO INCLUDE ONE CATEGORY FOR ONGOING INTERESTS THAT LIST HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED HISTORICALLY, AND CONTINUES TO BE AN ONGOING POLICY OR COMMITMENT INTO THE FUTURE.

I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE DIFFERENTIATION WERE LOOKING FOR.

>> OKAY. >> WELL, I THINK ALL THE ONES ALREADY OUTLINED IS ONGOING ARE YELLOW RIGHT NOW. IT'S ALREADY OUTLINED HIS ONGOING ON THIS DOCUMENT.

>> YEAH. BUT SOME OF THEM -- >> PUT AN ACTUAL CATEGORY --

>> NOW. I'M SUGGESTING THAT THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES HERE TO PROPERLY DENOTE THE PARTS OF WHAT IT MARKED IS ONGOING I'VE BEEN COMPLETED.

AND TO SPECIFY WHICH ONES THEY ARE, BETWEEN THE INCEPTION OF THE SIERRA AND TODAY'S DATE.

SO IT'S INCLUDED -- THE GENERAL STRATEGY CONTINUES TO BE A PART OF THE DOCUMENT, BUT THERE IS A SECOND OR SEPARATE CATEGORY THAT LISTS WITH A LITTLE MORE SPECIFICITY THE THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED TO ADVANCE THAT STRATEGY.

AND I THINK WE BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY BY LISTING THEM BOTH. >> THAT CASE, JUST TO MAKE IT EASIER, WE NOT CHANGE THE TIME TO INITIATED AN ONGOING RATHER THAN CREATED ANOTHER SECTION, PER SE? JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT EASIER AND SHAKE UP.

I THINK PUTTING ALL THESE INTO DIFFERENT SECTIONS AS ONGOING AND ALREADY COMPLETED TO AN

EXTENT MAKES IT A LITTLE CONFUSING. >> I DON'T VIEW THOSE HAS BEEN THE SAME THING. I VIEW THE COMPLETED PART TO SPECIFY IN THE TIME FROM INCEPTION TO CURRENT THAT I WAS A, B, C, ANDY HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED UNDER THAT STRATEGY. BUT THE STRATEGY REMAINS ONGOING.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THIS DOCUMENT TO SHOW WHAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.

IN A WAY THAT THE NOTES THAT WITH SOME SPECIFICITY. I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA BE THE SAME WORDING IN BOTH PLACES. I AGREE WITH YOU, THAT WOULD BE CUMBERSOME.

AND IT WOULDN'T COMMUNICATE ANYTHING. BUT I THINK, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE THERE WAS THIS REFERENCE TO ENCOURAGING CONTINUITY, PLANNING FROM ONE PHASE TO THE NEXT, I THINK WE HAD OVERSIGHT THE PLACES WHERE THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.

THAT THE CITY DID ITEM NUMBER ONE AND COORDINATION -- DEVELOPMENT WITH THE AREA.

THEY TOOK THAT OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE THE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES, AND THE ELECTRICITY DOWN TO THE AREA, SO FOR. I THINK STAFF'S GONNA KNOW OF SCORES OF THOSE THAT WE COULD RECITE IN THIS DOCUMENT THAT COMMUNICATE TO THE REPUBLIC -- THE PUBLIC THAT THERE IS MOMENTUM ON THE STUFF. IT IS BEING DONE. IT HAS BEEN DONE.

AND IT'S GONNA KEEP ON BEING DONE. INSTEAD OF PERPETUATING THE NOTION THAT ALL WE EVER DO IS -- I DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE.

>> WELL, IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE SINCE -- IT'S FOR SURE.

A LOT OF THESE THINGS -- THAT THEY HAVE ENVISIONED IN THIS DOCUMENT, YOU KNOW, 2005, A LOT OF THIS -- THEY SORT OF HAD LAYUPS. AFTER THEY TOOK THOSE LAYUPS,

[01:25:07]

THINGS TO DO. >> ALL RIGHT. THAT'S MY LIST.

>> REMARKABLE. >> YEAH. >> I RAISED THEM AS WE WENT.

>> YEAH. I THINK THAT'S GREAT. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING I WOULD CHANGE -- A FEW MORE THINGS THAN EVEN I WOULD LOOK AT, BUT I APPRECIATE YOU GOING THROUGH AND FINDING THOSE. A LOT OF IT IS JUST CAPTURING WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, WHAT OUR OBJECTIVES ARE, WHEN WE THINK WE SHOULD PASS ON TO CITY

COUNCIL. >> WANT TO BE SURE THAT EVERYBODY ELSE -- IF THERE ARE THINGS ON MY LIST THAT OTHER PEOPLE FOUND OTHER THINGS, YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS.

>> DO YOU MIND SHARING THIS? >> YEAH. YOU CAN HAVE A LIST.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. -- JUST WANT TO BRIEFLY, KEEP YOU HERE ALL NIGHT. APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. -- UNLESS THERE'S ANY MORE COMMENTS ON THIS. ONE OF THE THINGS --

>> ARE YOU GOING TO -- >> YES. >> CAN I JUST TAKE A COUPLE

SECONDS? >> PLEASE DO. >> OUR LAST MEETING, MAYBE TWO MEETINGS, WE TALKED ABOUT ENCOURAGING THE CITY TO PROCEED WITH -- ITS -- CAN BE, THE CITY. SO, WITH THAT IN MIND, I DID

SOME DRAWINGS, AND I'M GONNA. >> PLEASE. >> AND HOPEFULLY, WE WILL TAKE IT HOME, GET SOME FOG, WITH QUESTIONS, OR CRITICISMS, WHATEVER YOU CAN THINK ABOUT THIS. AND THEN THE NEXT MEETING, MAYBE WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT.

>> ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I WAS GONNA ASK, AND I'LL WAIT TILL JACOB GETS BACK, IS, WHERE ARE WE IN THE PROCESS? AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, WE SHOULD BE MOVING FORWARD ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE SPOTS WE'VE IDENTIFIED EAST OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

>> WELL, GOING BACK A MONTH OR TWO HERE, THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE CRA, WHICH IS THE CITY -- APPROVED WHAT WE DID FOR PARKING LOTS A, B, C AND D.

IN TERMS OF PARKING. BUT THEN, THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING, THE CHANGED A LITTLE

BIT. >> YES. >> AND THEN THERE WAS A REQUEST

BY COMMISSIONER ANTON TO RECONSIDER THE. >> YES.

>> AND THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING. SO THEY DID THAT.

SO BASICALLY, LONDON. THE REASON BEING THAT -- AND WE ARE GONNA GET TORN UP

WHEN THEY DO THE WALL. >> YES. >> -- SO IT WOULD MAKE NOT GOOD SENSE TO DO THOSE THINGS. BUT IN THE DISCUSSION -- WHEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT IMPROVING THOSE CONFIGURATIONS -- THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT C AND D. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THE MAYOR DIDN'T WANT TO INCLUDE THAT. SO THAT WASN'T EVEN PART OF -- IT'S GOTTA CHANGE.

SO THAT WASN'T CONSIDERED. SO BASICALLY, THE SCHEME -- UNDONE.

WHICH MAKES SENSE, A BIT. YOU MIGHT WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT'S GETTING TORN DOWN. SO, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

THERE IS NO APPROVAL FOR THESE THINGS. SO THE COURT, I THINK, AT LEAST WEIGH IN ON THE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT CAN HAPPEN. IN THOSE PEDESTRIAN SPACES.

>> AND B? OR C IN THE? >> I'M SORRY?

>> WHICH PART? >> ALL OF THEM. >> SECOND STREET, AND THE.

[01:30:03]

FIRST, GET ALL THE COMMENTS FROM -- AND THEN WE HAVE TO GO -- WITH PLANS, DETAILS, EVERYTHING ELSE. GONNA REALLY CHANGE -- WE WERE PLANNING ON DOING THE STREET, SECOND STREET -- THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE BELIEVE -- WE ARE GONNA SEE -- BIDS ON DESIGN.

-- IT'S GONNA DRAG OUT LONGER THAN WHAT WE WANTED.

>> WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU ANTICIPATE? >> VARIATION, LANDSCAPING,

CURBS, -- >>? >> PAVING, STRIKING.

WE'RE GONNA TRY TO DO WITH MILLIONS, VERY CHEAP, VERY QUICK, GET IT DONE --

WE HIT A ROADBLOCK. >> WHAT'S YOUR EXPECTATION ON THE TIMEFRAME ON THAT?

WHAT'S THE BEST ACCESS TO IT? >> I DON'T SEE HAPPENING BEFORE AUGUST.

>> OKAY. >> AT LEAST IT'S THIS YEAR. >> THIS YEAR, THAT WOULD BE

GOOD. >> RIGHT.

SPEAKERS] >> I APPRECIATE THAT. OBVIOUSLY, LOOKING AROUND --

I APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION. >> THE OTHER PROBLEM IS WE DON'T HAVE THE BUDGET FOR IT.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING TO DO IT NOW. WE DON'T HAVE A BUDGET TO DO

ANY OF THIS. >> ANYWAY. IF YOU LIKE THE PAST THAT --

>> THE DOESN'T INCLUDE ANYTHING EAST OF THERE ARE CHECKS? >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> COMMISSION HAS IMPROVED THAT CONCEPTUALLY. >> I JUST WANT TO HAND THE MAP.

>> THANK YOU. >> ERIC, I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK AND EFFORT YOU PUT INTO THIS BILL. IT'S IMPORTANT. WE WOULD NOT EVER GOTTEN TO THE POINT RIGHT NOW WITHOUT YOUR HARD WORK, AND THE HARD WORK OF EVERYBODY HERE.

A SPECIALLY RECOGNIZE YOU FOR THIS. THANK YOU.

[6.1 PAID PARKING - Chair Hopkins request that the Board discuss paid parking in the CRA.]

IN DOWNTOWN. IT'S GONNA BE DEVELOPMENT ON ALL PRIVATE PROPERTIES.

-- THEY'RE GONNA BE COMING INTO THOSE BUILDINGS, COMMERCIAL -- IT'S COMING. AND WITH THAT, YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC.

YOU HAVE PEOPLE COMING IN, BRINGING THE CARS, THEY NEED A PLACE TO PARK.

EVENTUALLY, AT SOME POINT, YOU RUN OUT OF THE ABILITY FOR OUR AREA HERE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL THOSE CARS AND VEHICLES IN A PLACE WHERE, LET'S FACE IT, A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO COME HERE DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY OF WALKING A MILE, MILE, TO GET WHERE THEY WANT TO BE.

AND AS BUSINESSES WILL TELL YOU, IT'S ABOUT HOW CLOSE YOU CAN GET YOUR CLIENTELE.

TO THE PLACE OF BUSINESS. IT'S A BIG DETERMINING FACTOR WEATHER BEGINNING TO GET THERE OR NOT. -- PART OF THE SOLUTION IN ANY OF THESE AREAS, WHEN YOU HAVE SCARCITY, IS THE COST. WHO'S PAYING FOR IT? RIGHT NOW, PEOPLE WHO PAY FOR THE PARKING DOWN HERE -- LETS PEOPLE PAY TAXES HERE.

14,000 CITIZENS IN FERNANDINA BEACH. EVERYONE PARKS FOR FREE, BUT LIKE I SAID, IT'S NOT FREE. THE QUESTION IS, AS WE MOVE FORWARD, IT'S GONNA END UP PAYING FOR ALL THE ADDITIONAL PARKING THAT'S GONNA BE REQUIRED? I'VE HEARD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT PARKING GARAGE -- AND JUST GIVE YOU MY QUICK SYNOPSIS ON WHAT A PARKING GARAGE WOULD DO IF YOU PUT IT SOMEPLACE.

IF YOU BUILD A PARKING GARAGE, AND THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE WHERE PEOPLE ARE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR PARKING, PARKING GARAGE WILL BE EMPTY ALMOST ALL THE TIME. BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL GO PARK

WHERE IT'S THREE. >> UNLESS THE PARKING GARAGES FREE.

[01:35:03]

>> LEFT THE PARKING GARAGE IS FREE. IF THAT'S, FREE FOR THE PARKING GARAGE? AGAIN, I DON'T WANT THIS BILL TO BE PUT ON THE CITIZENS OF FUN -- FERNANDINA BEACH. THAT'S MY REFERENCE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY COMMENTS ON THAT, BUT THE PROBLEM WILL NOT GO AWAY IF WE JUST IGNORE IT. IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE A SOLUTION TO IT AT SOME POINT.

AND -- SO. AND I'VE ALREADY KEPT YOU -- APPRECIATE ERIC, I APPRECIATE ALL THE DUE DILIGENCE THAT'S GONE ON OUR CRA, ON THIS DOCUMENT, BUT I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION ON THIS.

WHAT I'D LIKE YOU TO DO IS THINK ABOUT IT, IF YOU'VE GOT COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, OR SOLUTIONS, AND HOW WE'RE GONNA SOLVE THIS PARTICULAR -- NOT ONLY IN THE CRA, BUT IN THE CITY, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DEAL WITH THE CRA, THIS ISN'T JUST A CRA PROBLEM.

IT'S EVERYTHING DOWN. IT'S NOT CHANGING. SO IT'S GONNA GET WORSE.

>> A PARKING GARAGE THAT'S PAID? >> I'M ASKING FOR ANYBODY'S SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO DO THIS.

THIS IS ASSUMING -- IT'S NOT THE SIERRA PLAN. I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS FIVE YEARS FROM NOW -- CRA -- HOW DO WE ACCOMMODATE ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING HERE. ONE OF THE REASONS I'M HERE IS BECAUSE IT'S AMAZING PLACE.

IT'S NOT JUST ME. PEOPLE WANT TO COME TO FERNANDINA BEACH FOR ALSO REASONS, WHETHER THEY WANT TO LIVE HERE, WHETHER THEY WANT TO VACATION HERE, OR JUST COME HERE FOR THE DAY. THERE'S -- NO WAY THAT COMING? FERNANDINA BEACH. AND I'M NOT WALKING. SO, WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THIS AS WE MOVE FORWARD, BECAUSE AGAIN, PROBLEMS AREN'T GOING UNDERWAY.

WE NEED DISSOLUTION. WE NEED TO HELP CITY COUNCIL FIND A SOLUTION.

SO. >> YOU WANT TO TAKE SOME OF THIS CONSERVATION LAND --

TURNED IT INTO PARKING LOTS? [LAUGHTER] >> IT'S ILLEGAL.

>> COME ON. >> WELL, ANYWAY. I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A BACK AND FORTH AND DEBATE RIGHT NOW, BUT I THINK WOULD BE VERY PRODUCTIVE TO GET THESE IDEAS TOGETHER. TO SHARE THEM TO GET SHAPE CUB. AND THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE MIX STUNTS OF LEE AND OUR NEXT BOARD MEETING. OKAY? ALL RIGHT. OKAY. YES?

>> CAN I JUST ASK ONE QUESTION? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> IS THE GOAL OF PAID PARKING, WHETHER IT'S IN THE CRA, OR EVERYONE ELSE DOWNTOWN -- IS THAT TO REDUCE THE INFLUX OF

PEOPLE? OR IS IT JUST GENERALLY REVENUE? >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

IF YOU PRESS IT A CERTAIN WAY, YOU WILL HAVE PEOPLE COMING DOWN HERE.

THAT'S NOT -- MY OBJECTIVE, THAT WOULD NOT BE MY OBJECTIVE.

IT'S NOT MAJOR ACTIVE TO HAVE PEOPLE NOT COME HERE. BUT IT IS MY OBJECTIVE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO BENEFIT FROM THE USE OF SOMETHING THAT IS PUBLIC. THEY PAID FOR IT.

>> I THINK NEGATIVELY AFFECTS THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE TWICE, THOUGH.

>> WHICH IS REALLY INTERESTING YOU BRING THAT UP. PART OF WHAT I BELIEVE -- IF YOU ARE A CITIZEN OF FREEDOM GENO BEACH, YOU'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR IT.

-- IT'S THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING INTO OUR TOWN.

>> I KNOW IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I CAN THINK ABOUT RIGHT NOW.

LIKE, AM I GONNA SCAN MY I.D. AND SHOW THAT -- >> YEAH.

NOW, IT'S A GREAT POINT, AND WHAT I'LL TELL YOU IS -- I KNOW THIS IS DONE IN OTHER PLACES. BUT I DON'T HAVE ALL THE DETAILS ON HOW IT WOULD BE DONE.

BUT I WILL TELL YOU, THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE CITY, THE RESIDENTS OF FERNANDINA BEACH, WILL NOT PAY FOR PARKING. THAT'S MICHAEL. EVER.

IN THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH. BUT, SO, I DON'T RUN PEOPLE AT.

I DON'T PARKING -- SO EXPENSIVE THAT PEOPLE WON'T COME HERE.

AND I DEFINITELY DON'T WANT ANYBODY HERE EVER -- BUT WE HAVE TO FIND A SOLUTION TO THIS. AND PART OF IT IS, SOMEHOW GETTING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BENEFITING MOST FROM IT WHO AREN'T PAYING TAXES TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE COST OF

PARKING AND I-10. >> -- GOING TOWARDS THIS?

TAKING THE TAXES FROM THE -- >> NO. WE DON'T GET SALES TAX.

>> OKAY. >> WHICH IS -- HEARD THIS ARGUMENT FROM SOMEBODY. THEY TELL ME THEY HAVE A BUSINESS, AND THEY DON'T ON THE

[01:40:03]

14,000 IN FERNANDINA BEACH. THE MONEY GOES TO THE STATEMENT COMES BACK TO US PROPORTIONATELY. SO EACH RESIDENT OF FERNANDINA BEACH --

>> FROM PARKING STUDIES THAT I'VE SEEN DONE, AND PARKING PLANS THAT I'VE SEEN IMPLEMENTED IN OTHER MAINSTREAM COMMUNITIES, ACTUALLY, ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THERE ARE WAYS TO GO ABOUT IT THAT ARE NOT A BURDEN TO THE RESIDENTS THAT INCENTIVIZE THE EMPLOYEES IN THE BUSINESSES TO ENCOURAGE THEIR EMPLOYEES TO PARK ELSEWHERE.

BECAUSE I KNOW AT THE LAST DISCUSSION, AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL ON THIS, AS MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THEY ASK EMPLOYEES TO PARK -- OTHER LOTS.

BELIEVE ME, WE'VE ASKED. AND NOT ONLY DID THE EMPLOYEES NOT PARKED THERE, BUT THE BUSINESS OWNERS OFTEN DON'T PARK THERE. SO THERE ARE WAYS, I THINK, THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD IMPLEMENT A PARKING PLAN THAT WOULD HELP TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE CONGESTION IN THE VERY PRIME SPOTS THAT WE WOULD WANT FOR CUSTOMERS, WHETHER THEY BE LOCAL OR TOURISTS, OR VISITORS. AND ENCOURAGE OTHERS THAT ARE HERE ALL DAY, YOU KNOW, MYSELF INCLUDED, THAT WORK DOWNTOWN, THE PREGNANT AREA. FOR INSTANCE, I PARK IN THE PARKING LOT, BECAUSE YOU CAN PARK THERE ALL DAY. AND TECHNICALLY, YOU CAN'T IN THE OTHER SPOTS, ALTHOUGH -- I'LL SAY IT OUT LOUD. IT'S NOT ENFORCED, THE PARKING LIMITS. SO I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK INTO PARKING PLAN --

>> YES. >> THAT MAY OR MAY NOT INCORPORATE PAID PARKING, BUT MOST LIKELY WILL. YOU HAVE TO HAVE EITHER A CARROT OR STICK.

IT'S GONNA BE SOMETHING THAT INCENTIVIZES PEOPLE, OR PUNISH THEM, YOU KNOW, SO YOU CAN

CONTROL OF THE SPOTS THAT YOU HAVE. >> THIS IS THE ONLY COMMENT I WOULD MAKE. I THINK THIS IS -- I HAVE A DEEP-SEATED'S

SUSPICION THAT THIS IS AN UNSOLVABLE PROBLEM. >> BUT HURTS.

>> WELL, THERE ARE PROBLEMS THAT ARE MOST EFFICIENTLY LEFT THE HUMAN NATURE.

I THINK THIS MAY BE ONE OF THEM. I THINK IT IS A LOT MORE LIKELY TO GENERATE ALTERNATIVES TO THE EXPECTATION THAT SOMEONE'S GONNA GET IN THEIR CAR AND DRIVE TO -- CRA AND POPULAR WITH THE NEXT NUMBER OF FEET OF WHERE THEY WANT TO GO, AND DO SO.

OR EVEN HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. AND I'M NOT SHARE ANY OF THEM ARE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THEY'RE NOT BEING A PARKING PLACE THERE WHEN THEY TRY TO DO IT. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM WANT TO HEAR RIGHT NOW, BUT IF YOU CANNOT LOOK AT THIS, THE ONE THING I IMPLORE YOU, ABOVE ALL ELSE, TO DO, AND THAT RISES PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF SOME PAID AND UNPAID -- PARKING, IT IS OFTEN THE CASE AND STUDIES THAT I HAVE SEEN THAT THE COST OF IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THAT DIFFERENTIATION, EACH MORE REVENUE THAN THE POLICY GENERATES. AND I THINK THAT'S THE PART OF

THIS THAT'S NEARLY INTRACTABLE. >> YEAH. >> AND YOUR DEMAND -- HIGHWAY PLANNERS ARE FINALLY BEGINNING IN THE UNITED STATES TO COME TO GRIPS WITH THE NATION THAT ADDING ANOTHER TWO LANES TO EVERY THOROUGHFARE IN THE UNITED STATES EVERY FOUR YEARS JUST CREATES A TWO-YEAR CYCLE WHERE THE DEMAND CATCHES UP WITH THE SUPPLY.

AND IT NEVER ENDS. AT THE ENORMOUS EXPENSE OF OUR NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

SO YOUR CONFIDENCE -- CONSTANTLY DEFICIT SPENDING ON THIS.

I'M NOT SURE THIS PROBLEM CAN BE SOFT. TO ME, THE ONLY THING I'VE EVER HEARD COME UP IN THIS CONTEXT, SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH,

[01:45:03]

DEMAND IS THE BEST ARBITER OF THIS PROBLEM. >> WE HAVE TO HAVE PAID PARKING

ON THE STREET. YEARS AND YEARS AGO. >> THE MAINTENANCE OF THE

METERS -- >> I REALIZE. >> MORE REVENUE THAN THE

INCOME. >> SO I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.

YOU BRING UP SOME REALLY GOOD POINTS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO SHARE MY IDEAS AND SHARE THEM WITH JACOB TO SHARE WITH ALL OF YOU WHEN WE MEET AGAIN. -- COSTING THE CITY, COSTING THE TAXPAYERS MONEY, I GUARANTEE YOU THE SOLUTION THAT I WILL PRESENT CAN -- THIS NO WAY IT CAN ACTUAL COST THE CITY MONEY.

I CAN ONLY BE A REVENUE GENERATOR. BUT THE REVENUE GENERATION IS PART OF IT. BUT IT'S NOT THE GOAL. THE GOAL IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SUFFICIENT ABILITY FOR PEOPLE TO COME DOWNTOWN AND ENJOY BUT DOWNTOWN, AND TO ENHANCE OUR BUSINESS DISTRICT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. NOT JUST FOR THE PEOPLE WHO COME HERE, BUT FOR OURSELVES. AND THAT'S WHY I WANT TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.

ALL RIGHT. HAVING SAID THAT -- >> I HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT ON

THAT. >> YES? >> TO ME, IT SEEMS THAT IT WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE CRA ADVISORY BOARD. I DON'T SEE HOW YOU COULD ADDRESS PARKING IN THE CITY IN GENERAL, JUST BY ISOLATING THE CRA AREA.

IT HAS TO BE A WHOLE COMMUNITY ADVENTURE INSTEAD OF JUST THE CRA.

AND WE LEAVE IT TO THE CITY COMMISSIONER. >> I APPRECIATE THAT.

YEAH. I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. >> JUST MY COMMENT.

I WON'T BE HERE NEXT MONTH, SO. I WANT TO FOR THAT ARE. >> I APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT.

AND I JUST -- I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALMOST LIKE TALKING ABOUT UTILITY LINES THAT RUN FROM FOURTH STREET TO THE WATERFRONT. THE FORESTRY -- THE REST OF THE DAYS. SO, IF YOU CAN ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM, YOU REALLY NEED TO ADDRESS IT ON A MORE HOLISTIC BASIS. NO IT MIGHT BE FURTHER THAN THE CRA, BUT IF WE DON'T DO, IT IS GONNA DO IT? AND WE'RE NOT ACTIONABLE -- WHICH IS MAKING SUGGESTIONS. AS WE'VE SEEN, SOMETIMES, THE SUGGESTIONS ARE EXPECTED, SOMETIMES THE MODIFIED. SOMETIMES -- WE CAN ONLY DO WHAT WE CAN DO.

WHAT I REALLY WANT TO DO IS BEFORE WE ADJOURN HERE -- I DO WANT, AGAIN, TO SEND MY DEEP APPRECIATION FOR ALL OF YOU. BECAUSE THIS IS IMPORTANT WORK.

YOU APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. THANKS. ANY OTHER STUFF TO REPORT?

[8. STAFF REPORT]

>> THE ONLY THING I'LL SAY -- IF ANYONE HAS ANY AGENDA ITEMS THEY WANT TO FEATURE, DON'T

[7. BOARD BUSINESS]

HESITATE TO ASK. >> ALL RIGHT. >> CAN I MAKE A COMMENT?

>> YES, PLEASE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ANYTHING THAT WE BRING -- CRA BOARD, MAKE A DEFINITE GONNA SAY YES, I AGREE WITH THIS, WE NEED A REASON WHY THEY'RE SAYING YES. THEY SAY NO, WE NEED A REASON FOR THAT.

I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE KNOW HOW THOSE BOARD MEMBERS STAND.

WE'RE GONNA KICK THE CAN, GET THE CANS -- >> UNDERSTAND.

>> I MEAN, WE NEED TO HAVE A REASON WHY YOU TURN IT DOWN AND BRING IT FORWARD.

>> I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. LET ME GET TRANSPARENCY ABOUT IT.

-- THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.