[1. CALL TO ORDER]
          [00:00:05]
          THE SUN -- LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. I AM CALLING THIS JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE TWO BOARDS TO ORDER AND AS ALWAYS 
          WE START WITH THE ROLL CALL. >> MAYOR BEAN , VICE-MAYOR STURGES, COMMISSIONER ANTUN, COMMISIONER AYSCUE, 
          COMMISSIONER ROSS ? >> HERE. 
          >> WE WILL GET THE ROLE FOR THE PORT AUTHORITY. 
          >> 
          OF ALLEGIANCE. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNIITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVIDBLE, WITH 
          LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >>> WITHOUT FURTHER ADO WE TURN 
          [4.1 This is a court-ordered mediation in the pending lawsuit, City of Fernandina Beach v. Ocean, Highway
and Port Authority of Nassau County, in the Fourth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Nassau County,
Florida, Case No.: 2020-CA-284. Judge Gary Early from the Division of Administrative Hearings will
be present to facilitate this public mediation process]
IT OVER TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE GARY EARLY LEADING THE 
          MEDIATION. >> ABOUT THE ONGOING DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE AND THE PORT AUTHORITY I AM AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE. 
          AND I'M NOT HERE IN THAT CAPACITY FOR THE MUTUAL FACILITATOR AND A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. I WAS GOING TO ASK EVERYBODY TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AND I THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY WELL AWARE OF THAT WITH THE INTRODUCTION AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WANT TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF. 
          >> ATTORNEY FOR FERNANDINA BEACH 
          >> LET ME START OUT BY DISCLOSING THE SUN 
          >> I HAVE REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTS IN THIS CASE . 
          INAUDIBLE ] I THINK YOU HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS CASE AND AS LONG AS THE PARTIES THAT ARE HERE TODAY TO INAUDIBLE ] A RESOLUTION THAT MAY NOT BE ABSOLUTE FOR EITHER PARTY BUT I WANT TO GIVE THE PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK FOR THEMSELVES AS MY JOB AS MEDIATOR HERE IS TO FACILITATE THESE DISCUSSIONS AND I MAY FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO INAUDIBLE ] AND I AM NOT SURE HOW TO DO THAT. IT ISN'T MY JOB IN THIS MEDIATION TO TO TELL YOU HOW I THINK YOU SHOULD RESOLVE THE CONFLICT IN THIS MATTER. AND 
          [00:05:15]
THE LIMITATIONS RESOLUTION THE JUDGE THERE WOULD BE HAPPY TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES. WHEN I AM DONE SPEAKING, I WILL TURN THIS OVER TO THE CITY TO GIVE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF ITS POSITION AND INAUDIBLE ] PAST ARE THERE ANY ISSUES BEFORE WE START CLASS 
          >> THIS IS SORT OF HOUSEKEEPING AND INFORMATIONAL FOR EVERYBODY HERE IN ATTENDANCE. SO UPSTAIRS, WE HAVE A CONFERENCE ROOM THAT HAS ENOUGH ROOM FOR AT LEAST ONE OF THE BOARDS TO GO UP THERE AND IT IS REALLY UP TO US, IF IT IS THE CITY COMMISSION THAT GOES UPSTAIRS, BUT FOR THE PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE HERE TODAY, IF WHICHEVER BOARD GOES UPSTAIRS TO SEPARATE AND MEET, THAT IS A PUBLIC SPACE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CAN GO UP WITH THE BOARD. WE WON'T CLOSE THE DOORS. THE SAME FOR WHICHEVER BOARD STAYS HERE. IT IS ALL PUBLIC. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 
          ARE ABLE TO STAY. >> HAVE A FRANK DISCUSSION AS TO WHAT IS ON THE TABLE. 
          INAUDIBLE ] SO THE BEST MEDIATION IS THE ONE THAT 
          INAUDIBLE ] >> WE DO HAVE ONE OF THESE. 
          >> I SUPPOSED TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION AND SEPARATING ARE GOING THE MEMBERS EITHER WAIT OR ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WHEN MEETING IN PRIVATE IT IS HAPPENING PUBLIC MEDIATION AND IT IS UNUSUAL SO THE PUBLIC BE JOINING IN THESE PRIVATE SESSIONS SO AN INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER SESSIONS AND EVERYTHING IS DONE IN PUBLIC RIGHT HERE WITH 
          [00:10:01]
          EVERYBODY HERE. >> I MAY DO A PRIVATE SESSION THAT COULD BE A PUBLIC SESSION. 
          >> I WILL LET YOU GIVE ME THE STATEMENTS AND THEY ARE VERY 
          IMPORTANT. >> IF YOU ARE OKAY WITH IT, I WOULD ASK TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE OPENING STATEMENT. SHE HAS DRAFTED THE PLEADINGS IN THE CASE AND THIS STATEMENT. 
          >> THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. >> THIS CASE IS WELL KNOWN TO THE PARTIES THE SUN EFFORT TO RESOLVE THIS AND THIS MEDIATION AS WE ALL KNOW IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO CITY'S POSITION IS STRAIGHTFORWARD. THIS IS A CONTRACT ISSUED IN THE 90S THAT BOTH PARTIES UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS IN PLACE THAT THEY NEED PAYMENTS UNDER FOR MANY YEARS AND THEN WITHOUT THIS STARTING WITH IN 2019 DETERMINED THIS NEEDED TO BE RESOLVED AND CREATED ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PORT AUTHORITY AND WHETHER OR NOT INAUDIBLE ] DELIBERATE PROCESS INCLUDING A PUBLIC SESSION AND THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT MULTIPLE PUBLIC MEETINGS IN BOTH PARTIES DECIDED TO RESOLVE THIS BY ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT. 
          SO IT IS NOT ANY MEANS ANNUAL PAYMENTS. SO AT THIS POINT IT IS VERY CLEAR AND MAYBE PREVAIL ON A PENDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IF IT ISN'T RESOLVED BY THE TIME OF THE HEARING NEXT MONTH AND 
          [00:15:08]
OTHERWISE FAMILIAR 
          AND START WORKING ON THAT. >> I DON'T WANT TO ] WHAT HAPPENED TOWARD DID HAPPEN OR DIDN'T HAPPEN BUT THERE WAS ACTUALLY NO CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FROM THE CITY SIDE AND DOCUMENTS FROM PORTSIDE REGARDING AN AGREEMENT WITH RESOLUTIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE AND THERE'S NO ACTUAL CONTRACT OR MEETING OF THE MINDS AND A NUMBER OF DISPUTED FACTS AND PART OF THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES THAT THE CITY WAS SUPPOSED TO DO CERTAIN THINGS BUT THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY EVER DID AND THAT'S JUST ONE INDICATION OF SEVERAL NOT ACTUAL MEETINGS OF THE MIND BUT PARTIES FOR CONSIDERATION AND I THINK, MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE ARE HERE TODAY INSTEAD OF WORKING BACKWARDS IS PUTTING A STAKE IN THE GROUND AND SAYING THIS ARBITRARY NUMBER IS SET IN STONE AND HOW DID THESE ENTITIES TOUCH EACH OTHER AND HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD? WE WERE WORKING ON THAT AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO BRING UP DISCUSSIONS WE WERE HAVING WITH THE CITY LAST FALL BECAUSE WHAT IT DID WAS COME TO THE CITY AND SAID WHAT ARE THE ESSENTIAL SERVICES YOU ARE PROVIDING FOR THE PORT AND WHAT DO THEY COST? THE CITY PROVIDED A SETTLEMENT OFFER AND IT REALLY DIDN'T SUPPORT THEIR NUMBER AND THERE WERE GUESSTIMATES AT BEST AND STATEMENTS FROM STAFF AND THEY HAD NO IDEA HOW TO QUANTIFY BY A DOLLAR FIGURE AS TO WHAT THEY WERE PROVIDING. THERE WERE DEMANDS OF THE CITY THAT IT PROVIDED SERVICES TO NON-PORT FACILITY OPERATIONS THAT THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING FOR AND WHEN THE COURT RESPONDED AND CALLED THE CITY OUT ON SOME OF THEIR NUMBERS AND COUNTERED BASED ON MISCALCULATIONS, SO MANY DISCUSSIONS WENT AWAY IN THE CITY SAID WE THINK WE CAN WIN THAT AND THEN LOOKING BACK I THINK WHAT WE ARE HERE TO DO IS TO SEE IS THERE A WAY FOR THESE TWO AGENCIES TO MOVE FORWARD TO DETERMINE WHAT IS QUANTIFIABLE, WHAT CORRELATES TO WHAT THE CITY IS PROVIDING AND HOW MUCH IT IS AND CAN WE COME UP TO AN AGREEMENT ON THAT NUMBER AND MOVE FORWARD? AND IF WE WILL SPEND THE DAY TALKING ABOUT A RESOLUTION AND A LETTER AND AN AGREEMENT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT REQUIRE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, I THINK WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT THE CITY IS PROVIDING, HOW MUCH IT COSTS, AND WHAT SERVICES OF THOSE THE CITY IS PROVIDING, THAT IS WHAT WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT AND WE WERE TRYING TO TALK ABOUT LAST FALL AND IT KIND OF JUST DISAPPEARED AND NOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS THE CITY WANTING ULTIMATE VICTORY IN THE CITY NOT CERTAIN DEGREE KIND OF AN ATTITUDE OF WE WILL SHOW THIS AND GET WHAT WE DESERVE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT ACTUALLY HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE COLLECTED BUSINESS AND I THINK WE ARE HERE AND PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT THAT AND WE ARE HOPING THAT IS WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS. 
          >> I APOLOGIZE, YOUR HONOR. >> THAT IS QUITE ALL RIGHT 
          THANK YOU FOR COMING. >> 
          [00:20:42]
WHAT IS THE TONNAGE HANDLED BY THE 
          BASIS? >> I WOULD SAY IT BURIES -- IT COULD VARY. 
          >> I AM NOT LOOKING FOR ANYTHING EXACT. 
          >> YOU ARE LOOKING BETWEEN 200 OR 300 TONS ANNUALLY. THAT FLUCTUATES BASED ON 
          >> LAST YEAR'S 2023 256,490 POUNDS YEAR WE EXPECT 25 TO 30% 
          >> YOUR HONOR, IF I COULD JUMP IN AS WELL. I BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT SAID WITH THE FLOOR 50,000 SO IT ALWAYS ENDED UP BEING 50,000 AND THAT WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL 
          AGREEMENT. >> 
          >> OUR SERVICES ARE NOT BASED ON TONNAGE WHETHER THEY HAVE ONE TON OR 2 MILLION TONS WE STILL HAVE TO PROVIDE 24-HOUR POLICE SERVICE AND 24 HOUR A DAY FIRE RESCUE SERVICE AND STILL PROVIDE THE ROADS STORM ORDER AND NOT DEPENDENT ON 
          TIMES. >> I SUSPECT THERE WAS A 
          REASON. >> I HAVE GONE THROUGH EVERY BOX POSSIBLE TO FIND WITH ALL THE MINUTES AND, YES THERE WAS A WERE OPPOSED TO HAVING THE PORT THERE AND THEY SAID YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR SERVICES AND THAT WAS THE MINIMUM AT THAT TIME IN MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO THEY SAID WITH NO ESCALATOR. SO INFLATION IS SOMETHING ELSE AND IT IS SIGNIFICANT WE LONGER OR HIGHER AND ALSO IF THEY WERE PAYING A LOWER TAX IT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER. SO WE DON'T BASE SERVICES ON TONNAGE BUT BASED ON 24 HOURS A DAY SEVEN DAYS AWAY -- A WEEK OF PROVIDING SERVICE 365 DAYS A YEAR. 
          >> 
          [00:25:04]
TONNAGE DRIVES WHAT IS GOING ON AS THEY CORRELATE TO POLICE CALLS, FIRE RESCUE CALLS AND I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A STATE OF READINESS THAT HAS TO BE MAINTAINED REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS HAPPENING. AND THERE IS A CORRELATION BETWEEN THE RATE OF ACTIVITY WHICH IS MEASURED IN TIME AND THE WEAR AND TEAR OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN WHICH IS AT ISSUE LIKE STREETS, SIGNAGE, DRAINAGE AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS CERTAINLY ARE CONNECT DID TO THE ACTUAL ACTIVITY. I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT AND PART OF THE DISCUSSION WE WERE HAVING LAST FALL WHEN THEY MADE AN OFFER UNDER $50,000 AND PROVIDED BACKUP INFORMATION AS TO WHERE THOSE COULD BE AND AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT FOR SIGNAGE AND POLICE CALLS AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS IN THE CITY PROVIDED THAT. IT DIDN'T AMOUNT TO $50,000. I THINK, IMPORTANTLY, IT INCLUDED A FACTOR IN MULTIPLIER FOR WHERE YOU WOULD CALL SHIFT FIRES, NOT AT THE FACILITY BUT ON INDEPENDENTLY OWNED VESSELS IN THE PORT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR OR LIABLE FOR AND IF THEY ADMITTED TO BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR SERVICES PROVIDED ON THAT THAT EXPOSES THESE. SO I DON'T DISAGREE WITH ALL OF THOSE STATEMENTS AND THERE ARE 24 SEVEN 365 SERVICES BUT THERE ARE ALSO SERVICES THAT THE CITY GRANTED AND THEY ARE DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE ACTIVITY IN THE RATE OF ACTIVITY. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND THE PORT AUTHORITY IS FUNDED BY THE OPERATOR. AND THE FUNDING PROVIDED TO THE PORT AUTHORITY. 
          >> RIGHT NOW, THE AGREEMENT HAS AN ADJUSTMENT AND SCALE SO THE PORT AUTHORITY SETS THAT RATE AND CHARGES FOR THE TERRACE AND THE OPERATOR OPERATES THE FACILITY AND MAKES PAYMENT TO THE PORT AUTHORITY AND RIGHT NOW IT'S TO ADJUST IN THE 
          COMING YEARS BASED ON THAT. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE HAS 
          BEEN SOME DISCUSSION. >> WE HAVE HAD MEETINGS AS WELL AND IT IS TRUE AND PATRICK IS RIGHT THAT THE CITY PROPOSED SOMETHING LESS THAN $50,000 AND I THINK IT WAS $36,000 AND CHANGE IN THE PORT AUTHORITY REJECTED IT. AND THAT, AGAIN WAS LAST FALL. SO AFTER THE REJECTION OF THAT OFFER BY THE CITY, THE CITY COULDN'T ACCEPT THE COUNTER OFFER PRESENTED WHICH WAS LOWER BY THE PORT AUTHORITY. SO HERE WE ARE. IT IS NOT AS IF THE CITY OFFERED THE LOWER AMOUNT AND TOOK THAT OFF THE TABLE. IT WAS REJECTED. 
          >> DOES IT ALSO INCLUDE SOME CONSIDERATION I GUESS WE HAVE A PERIOD OF 
          >> YES. TO -- FOR 19 AND 20 BUT NOT TO CATCH UP WITH WHAT WAS MISSING WAS IN 2021, 2022, 2023 PAYMENTS. 
          >> I WOULD SUGGEST THE BOARD'S COUNTER OFFER OR AGREE TO EVERYTHING THE CITY PROPOSED EXCEPT FOR THE SHIFT FIRE AMOUNT AND THE REASONS I STATED AND MULTIPLY THAT AMOUNT BY THREE AND THE JUSTIFICATION MEANS THERE WOULD BE THERE WOULD BE THREE ACCEPT THE ENTIRETY AND COUNTER THAT AND AT THAT POINT SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT 
          >> YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY? WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT SHIP FIRES AND EVENTS AND I PAY MY TAXES AND ALL THE PEOPLE HERE PAY TAXES AND IT'S NOT DEPENDENT ON HOW MANY FIRES THEY HAVE OR HOW MANY ROBBERIES THEY WILL HAVE AT THEIR HOUSE AND IT'S A FLAT FEE THAT COVERS IT IN A GROUP EFFORT TO PAY FOR THE 
          [00:30:01]
ENTIRE CITY AND THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PART OF THAT GROUP EFFORT AND PART OF THE COMMUNITY AND THEY DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT THAT AND THERE ISN'T ONE PERSON IN THE CITY WHO PAYS A PER DIEM IF THE POLICE SHOW UP OR NOT. IT IS A FLAT TAX BASED ON THOSE TAXES AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT BACK IN THE 90S AND THEY SAID WE WILL DO ITTHEY AGREED TO THAT IN THE CONTRACT AND NOW THEY WANT OUT OF THE CONTRACT WE DON'T CHARGE EVERYBODY IF THEY SHOW UP OR NOT AND THERE IS AN EXTRA FEE FOR SOME OF THAT BUT THERE IS A 
          FACE AMOUNT. >> I THINK I HAVE IDENTIFIED THE 
          >> IF WE CAN COME UP WITH AN AGREEMENT, I AM WILLING TO DO 
          THAT. I UNDERSTAND. >> IT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE VICTORY. IT IS THAT THE CITY HAS A TO FUND SERVICES. AND THEY ARE PART OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THEY CHOSE TO BE A PART OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE CITY CHANGE THE ZONING TO ACCOMMODATE THEM AND THEY CHANGED A LOT OF THINGS TO ACCOMMODATE THE PORT AND BE PART OF THE CITY. BUT WE HAVE NOW SPENT -- THE CITY SPENT $90,000 DEFENDING THIS AND MORE THAN 100,000. WHICH IS ABSURD. AND THEY KEEP COMING BACK WITH HOW WE USE THE SERVICES AND IT'S NOT THE WAY IT WORKS. EVERYBODY PAYS A PORTION AND THE PORTION THEY AGREED TO IS A MINIMUM OF $50,000 A YEAR. SO RIGHT NOW WE ARE SPENDING OVER $1000 AN HOUR TO LITIGATE OR MEDIATE THIS. 
          AND SO WHEN YOU SAY ABSOLUTE VICTORY, WE ARE STILL LOSING $50,000 IS NOT THEIR FAIR SHARE SO THEY ARE GETTING A BARGAIN-BASEMENT AGREEMENT AND SOMETHING WAS AGREED TO 20+ YEARS AGO WITH NO ESCALATOR CLAUSES. SO THE CITIZENS WANT THEM TO JOIN THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY AND PAY THEIR FAIR 
          SHARE. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE 36 IS ON THE TABLE. AND HOWEVER IT GOT ON THE TABLE. 
          >> JUDGE , WE HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK FACE-TO-FACE IN THIS IS THAT OPPORTUNITY AND TO IDENTIFY WHERE THAT NUMBER CAME FROM AND HOW WE GOT THERE. I DO BELIEVE, AND YOU CAN STOP ME IF I SAY SOMETHING OUT OF BOUNDS. THIS NUMBER IS A LEGITIMATE NUMBER AND IT DID COME FROM US BUT IT HAD A VERY OTHER SPECIFIC THING THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME IN ORDER FOR THAT NUMBER TO BE A REAL NUMBER, AND THAT IS THE ESCALATION CLAUSE BECAUSE THERE CURRENTLY IS NONE. IN THE 90S, $50,000 WAS A LOT OF MONEY AND IT WAS SO MUCH MONEY IN THE PORT WAS ABLE TO PAY IT EVERY YEAR AND THIS IS WHAT WE AGREED TO. WE BOTH AGREED THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY. EVERY YEAR, THE RELATIVE BUYING POWER HAS GOTTEN LESS AND LESS AND HERE WE ARE TODAY WITH $23,000 AND YOU GUYS KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING. 
          SO I DO UNDERSTAND, AND THE REASON WE WERE WILLING TO COME TO THE TABLE IS BASED ON WHAT WE GOT FROM YOU ALL IS THAT YOU GUYS CAN'T MAKE THE ENDS MEET IN THIS YEAR AND WE NEED TO WORK WITH YOU GUYS TO MAKE THE ENDS MEET THIS YEAR. WE DO WANT THAT. I DO AGREE WITH MR. ROSS THAT WE WOULD LOVE FOR YOU GUYS -- WE WOULD LOVE TO BE WORKING WITH YOU AND I AGREE WITH MR. ROSS. WHAT I WOULD SAY IS WE COULD LOWER THIS YEAR, THEN IF WE HAD THAT ESCALATION CLAUSE, IN THE FUTURE THE PEOPLE WOULD THEN BE PAID FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED SO THAT IS BASICALLY WHERE THIS NUMBER CAME FROM AND YES 36,000 IS A REAL NUMBER CONTINGENT UPON THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT NUMBER WOULD INCREASE OVER TIME AND I AM ALSO FINE WITH NO CHANGE IF YOU ARE FINE WITH THE SAME NUMBER WE ORIGINALLY AGREED TO 30 YEARS AGO IS OKAY BUT IF YOU NEED MONEY TODAY, WE CAN MAKE THAT WORK BECAUSE WE WOULD RATHER HAVE YOU GUYS PAY SOMETHING THEN PAY NOTHING AT ALL AND THAT IS WHERE THAT NUMBER CAME FROM. THE ESCALATION CLAUSE IS THE KEY, AND THIS IS WHAT WE ALL DISCUSSED. 
          >> DO YOU ANTICIPATE 
          >> YES, SIR WE WOULD PROBABLY TIE THAT TO CPI. 
          >> IT SOUNDS LIKE -- I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE OFFERING INAUDIBLE ] BUT 36 IS NOT -- IT LOOK LIKE THERE WAS A 
          [00:35:05]
INAUDIBLE ] IN YOUR LAST DISCUSSION OR 36 IN THAT RANGE? THAT AND DISCUSS THAT. BUT THE POINT IS TRYING TO MAKE WAS THAT OFFER CAME FROM THE CITY WITH BACK UP INFORMATION AND THIS IS HOW WE CALCULATE STATEMENT FROM STAFF SAYING AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW I CAME UP WITH IT. SO WE WILL JUST THROW IT OUT THERE. AND WE COULD PROBABLY SIT HERE AND TALK ABOUT THIS ALL DAY BUT IT'S MORE PROVIDING BACKGROUND OF HOW YOU GOT THERE. HOWEVER, IN AN EFFORT TO SETTLE THAT WE ARE WILLING TO CONSIDER THE MAJORITY OF IT IF AGREED TO BUT AN ISSUE WAS THERE WITH THE INAUDIBLE ] AND THEY ARE NOT BASED ON THIS AND THEY DON'T OPERATE ON THAT. SO MAYBE ISSUES WITH HOW DO WE KEEP THAT AND WHY WOULD WE AGREE THAT THAT AND LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN DO SO I THINK MUTUALLY AND INDEPENDENTLY IT FELL APART WITH ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT FACTORS I THINK WE COULD BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS OR DELIVER ON THAT. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND THE CITY PUTTING DOLLARS AND CENTS ON EVERY SERVICE. BUT JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THAT. THE SUN 
          >> YOUR HONOR? IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM WHAT I GATHER PRETTY CLOSE TO -- AND I'M NOT SURE 
          THE -- >> THE CITY'S POSITION IS THE $50,000 IS FAIR AND JUSTIFIABLE AND WAS MADE OVER 30 YEARS AGO. 
          THE ONLY REASON THAT WE CAME DOWN TO THE 36 WAS TO HELP OUT THE PORT AUTHORITY AND ITS ABILITY TO PAY IT AND WHEN THEY ASKED THE CITY TO JUSTIFY IT, I WENT TO THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS TO TRY TO JUSTIFY IT, BUT OTHER IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT, THE CITY IS VERY FIRM THAT THAT IS THE CONTRACTUAL AMOUNT AGREED TO AND IT HAD MEANING TO OUR PREDECESSORS AND HAS MEANING TO US NOW. THE CITY, AS THE MAYOR SAID IS WILLING TO WORK WITH THE PORT AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THEM THE ABILITY TO PAY AND IT NOT BE SUCH A BURDEN. WEATHER WE JUSTIFY THE NUMBERS BEHIND IT, TO ME, DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. IT WAS A DEAL MADE AND PILOT PAYMENTS ARE LEGAL. 
          THAT IS THE LAW AND THAT DEAL WAS MADE. TRYING TO GO IN JUSTIFY WHY WE ARE I THINK IN THE PORT AUTHORITIES MIND TAXING THEM AND FOR WHAT PURPOSES AND WHAT AMOUNT, I THINK IT IS A RED HERRING AND WASTING ALL OF OUR TIME. I MEAN, IF WE SAY WE WILL REDUCE THE AMOUNT, LET'S DO THAT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AND THE CPI ADJUSTMENTS, SO EVERYBODY KNOWS, THAT CAN BE HIGH IN THE MOST RECENT PAST BUT IT COULD ALSO BE 3% SO THE COMMISSIONERS KNOW BY THE TIME WE GET TO $50,000 IT COULD BE 10 YEARS FROM NOW. 
          >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A POINT. THE POINT IS WHY WE ARE HERE WHICH IS THEY CLAIM THEY CAN'T PAY BUT THE REASON THEY SAY THAT IS BECAUSE THEY RENEGOTIATED THE OPERATING AGREEMENT AND I WAS AT THE MEETING WHEN ALL OF THIS CHANGED. AND I THINK WE WERE THE ONLY TWO THAT WERE THERE. 
          AND WHAT IT WAS IS THE CHANGE THE OPERATING AGREEMENT SO INSTEAD OF THE PORT OPERATOR DOING IT IT BECAME THE 
          [00:40:01]
RESPONSIBILITY OF THEM. AND THEY NEGOTIATED WITH THEM AND THE PREVIOUS OPERATOR AT THE TIME AGREED TO PAY THE FIRST FEW YEARS WHICH IS WHAT THEY HAVE AN ESCROW IN THE PAYMENT WENT TO THE PORT AUTHORITY AND IN THEIR BUDGET THEY HAVE NEVER BUDGETED FOR ANY MONEY TO GO TO THIS AND THE BUDGET IS A STATEMENT OF YOUR PRIORITIES AND IS NOT A PRIORITY FOR THEM TO PAY US AND THEY GAVE THEMSELVES A RAISE AND THEN THEY RETRACTED PART OF IT AND THEY CAN PAY US AND THAT IS THE ISSUE. ISSUE IS THEY DON'T WANT TO. AND THIS IS WHERE WE ARE BUT THEY DID NEGOTIATE AWAY AND THEY ARE THE ONES WHO CREATED THE PROBLEMS BY NEGOTIATING SOMETHING NEW. 
          >> HOW WE GOT HERE IS NOT DECISION THAT THE PARTIES HAVE TO DECIDE SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE FINANCIALLY OR MAYBE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO FORWARD. AND THAT IS THE QUESTION OR THE PAST TO TAKE TO GET SOLUTIONS AND FINANCIALLY JUST THE DOLLARS ARE NOT SO FAR APART. 
          SO THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES. 
          DOLLARS. >> DO YOU HAVE A POINT WELL WE 
          ARE LOOKING AT THIS? >> I WANTED TO COMMENT ON INAUDIBLE ] AND MY RECOLLECTION WAS WE CAME DOWN FROM THAT 50,000 TO 36 AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR THAT THAT NUMBER WAS SUGGESTED TO US AND THEN I DO BELIEVE THE CITY'S POSITION WAS 
          [00:45:32]
          >> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT NUMBER INCLUDES AN ESCALATOR COST. 
          >> WE WILL FIGURE THAT OUT. >> YOUR HONOR, THE ONLY WAY, AND IF I COULD JUST MAKE A BRIEF STATEMENT ABOUT THIS. I LOOK AROUND THE ROOM AND I SEE A BUNCH OF LOCALS, FOLKS WHO ARE FROM HERE AND TO GIVE YOU SOME COLOR ON THIS, DANNY WAS MY SIXTH GRADE GYM COACH AND EVERYBODY KNOWS THE HISTORY OF THIS. AND WHO I AM THINKING IS IN PARTICULAR IS IN THE 90S THIS DEAL WAS PENNED AND BOTH BOARDS AGREED TO THE DEAL FOR $50,000 A YEAR. THAT HAS GREATLY HELPED THE PEOPLE OF FERNANDINA BEACH, WHICH IS WHO WE REPRESENT, PEOPLE. AND THIS IS TO GO BACK $50,000, I WOULD BE DISRESPECTING ALL THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE DEAL OR CARRIED THE DEAL ON AND THE MAYOR WAS THERE WHEN THIS STARTED AND WE ARE GOING THROUGH LIKE MY DAD HAS HELD THIS STRONG AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WILL ON THIS AND THEY HELD THIS DEAL AND THE $50,000 HAS GREATLY HELPED THE PEOPLE IN THE ONLY REASON WE GAVE THE NUMBER LOWER IS BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD BY THESE GUYS THERE IS NO FEASIBLE WAY TO MAKE IT WORK THAT THE ONLY WAY I WILL MAKE IT LOWER AT ALL IS I DON'T WANT TO SAY I AGREE TO THAT NUMBER BUT THE NUMBER IS CONTINGENT ONLY ON THE ONE THING, WHICH IS THAT WE GET THE ESCALATION COST SO FUTURE PEOPLE WILL ALSO BE TAKING CARE OF THIS AGREEMENT AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY WE WILL AGREE TO ANYTHING LOWER THAN 50 UNLESS WE GET AN ESCALATION CLAUSE SO YEARS DOWN THE ROAD THE NUMBER COULD BE HIGHER IF YOU WANT TO KEEP IT AT 50 FOREVER WITH INFLATION THAT GOES DOWN TO ZERO EVENTUALLY, BUT THE LIMIT TO INFINITY IF YOU'RE TALKING 100 YEARS FROM NOW WHICH I HOPE THE PORT IS STILL HERE AND WE WANT TO KEEP IT AT 50 THAT IS ONE WAY TO LOOK TO YOUR BOARD THE FUTURE BUT LOOKING TO THE CITY FOR THE FUTURE, THE ONLY WAY WE GO BACK AS IF WE GET THAT INFLATION CLAUSE AND I WON'T ACCEPT ANYTHING LESS THAN 50 UNLESS WE GET THE INFLATION CLAUSE. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS PART LATER BUT I DON'T WANT TO SAY -- MY NUMBER ISN'T LESS UNLESS IT'S 
          INFLATION. >> I SEE THE DOLLAR FIGURE HERE OR THE PORT AUTHORITY PROPOSED BY THE PORT AUTHORITY. 
          >> I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT. IT WAS 19 AND 20. THIS IS 100. SO FIVE 
          YEARS. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T WANT IT. BUT OUR BUDGET IS BASED ON WHAT THEY GIVE US. SO FOR US TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND, IT BRINGS 
          [00:50:06]
US NOT SOMETHING WE CAN DO OR NOT BE ABLE TO PAY IT AND $.10 AT A TIME AND LAST YEAR WOULD BE $25,000 AND WE ARE WILLING TO START OFF WITH $30,000 BASED ON ALWAYS A MINIMUM OF 30 AND INAUDIBLE ] UP TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT. AND I DO UNDERSTAND THE CITY WANTS ALL IT CAN GET AND OUR ABILITY TO DO THAT IS BASED ON THE TONNAGE WE GET WHEN WE CROSS THAT UP RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF RECENT YEARS THE LACK OF TRADE OR TRADE ROUTES AND THINGS LIKE THAT IT'S NOT AS HIGH AND EXPECTING IT TO BE IN THE FUTURE AND THIS CAN GO UP ABOVE SO THAT IS WHAT WE ARE BASING THIS ON AND WE HAVE A MINIMUM YOU WOULD LIKE TO PAY OF WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW TO REACH IN OUR BUDGET. BUT UNTIL WE CAN GET THE TONNAGE UP $45,000. 
          >> YOU CAN REALLY SAY THAT IS WHAT IS OWED OR IN ARREARS. OR ESSENTIALLY FOR OUR OPERATOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT AND THEN IT WAS 
          AROUND UP OF THAT. >> I DON'T REMEMBER. 
          >> IT WAS NOT. THE CITY KNOWS IN OUR CONTRACT IT'S $50,000 BEFORE CHANGE PLUS THE 100 AND I GUESS AT THAT TIME -- YES. THREE 
          YEARS. >> I DON'T WANT TO JUMP SO FAR 
          AHEAD. >> I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY BUT I DON'T THINK THIS HAS WHAT IT TAKES IF THAT IS WHAT THE CITY WILL DEMAND I THINK THE LIKELIHOOD AND I AM NOT SAYING IT IS ABSOLUTE BUT THE LIKELIHOOD IS WE WON'T FOR THIS BOARD IT GOES BACK TO THE SET FIGURE HAVE MEANING THAT THEY JUST AGREED TO FEW DECADES AGO AND NOW WHAT DO WE DO? WHAT IS THE CITY WILLING TO ACCEPT TO CONSIDER THAT TIME TO 
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.