►
From YouTube: City Council Briefing (1/20/2022)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
F
You
well
mayor
and
council.
Thank
you
for
attending
tonight's
special
council
briefing.
It
is
thursday
january
20th,
5
30
pm,
and
we
have
two
items
that
are
on
the
agenda
for
tonight.
F
Specifically
the
two
parking
lot
items
from
our
charter
review
discussions
over
the
past
eight
nine
months
that
we've
been
going
through
the
two
items
that
we
have
are
council
discussion
on
the
height
open
house
that
was
held
last
week
and
then
also
a
report
out
from
the
two
attorneys,
both
cliff
and
sandy,
with
regards
to
thoughts
regarding
changing
the
liquor
license
section
of
the
city
charter.
D
Let
me
let
me
get
this
screen
share
going
here
and
go
to
this
powerpoint.
I
think
that
should
work,
you
see
virtual
briefing,
liquor
license
limitation,
yep,
okay,
fantastic
all
right,
so,
as
you
will
see,
I
have
almost
nothing
except
experience
to
contribute
on
the
height
issue,
since
I
don't
know
what
went
on
in
the
virtual
in
the
briefing
with
the
citizens
on
that,
but
I
do
know
what
we've
done
on
the
liquor
license
issue,
and
so,
in
my
limited
skill
set,
I
put
together
a
virtual
briefing
powerpoint
on
this
issue.
D
Now
as
we
get
started,
and
it's
assuming
that
I'm
able
to
get
this
thing
to.
Oh,
of
course,
why
won't
it
there
we
go.
It
takes
longer,
there's
a
lag
time.
D
This
is
the
section
we're
talking
about,
and
that
really
was
on
our
first
meeting
and
it's
section
two
of
chapter,
one
of
your
charter
enumerated
powers
and
very
within
that
section
it
says
that
one
of
the
powers
that
you
have
is
the
power
to
regulate
and
limit
the
number
of
licenses
of
vendors
of
intoxicating
liquors,
and
I
underlined
the
portions
and
bolded
the
portions
that
are
our
initiative
tonight
in
proportion
of
the
population
of
the
city
and
the
reason
that's
bolded
is
because
if
we
change
one
thing,
we
have
to
change
another
potentially
and
then
to
be
fixed
and
determined
by
ordinance
by
the
city
council,
but
the
maximum
and
that's
the
second
part
which
is
it
puts
a
cap
on
it.
D
The
maximum
number
of
licenses
of
vendors,
of
intoxicating
letters,
flickers
or
whiskey,
shall
be
one
license
for
each
550
or
major
portion
thereof
of
persons
in
the
city
according
to
the
1950
federal
census.
Now,
before
I
go
beyond
this
slide,
because
there's
only
six,
it's
pretty
brief
presentation.
D
When
I
initially
saw
this,
my
immediate
reaction
was
just
to
change
the
1950
to
the
current
or
the
most
recent
census,
which
in
this
case
now
would
be
2020..
I
do
not
know
the
impact
that
would
have
on
licenses,
but
I'm
sure
it
would
be
a
a
larger
number,
but
how
much
larger
whether
we're
talking
one
two
three
ten
I
don't
know,
but
then
when
it
became
clear
to
me
that
that
wasn't
just
an
update
issue,
but
a
political
one
and
potentially
significant
one
as
well.
D
Second
option
would
be
to
change
the
maximum
number
of
licenses
based
on
a
population
metric,
that's
different
than
the
one
that
is
the
1950
simpsons,
I.e
the
current
census,
2020
specifically
or
the
census.
That's
current.
Whenever
it's
current,
so
the
next
one
will
be
10
years
from
now,
so
2020
automatically
becomes
20,
30
and
so
on,
and
so
on,
which
means
you
have
the
potential
of
the
population
increases
for
the
number
to
go
up,
but
at
some
point
I
don't
know
when
that
point
will
be.
D
Third
option
is
to
change
both
the
metric
from
a
population
base
to
some
other
metric,
like
the
zoning
categories
and
acreage
and
the
maximum
number
licenses
based
on
whatever
that
new
metric
is
so,
for
example,
if
you
say
you
know,
we
have
x
number
of
acres
of
compatible
zoning
property
where
a
liquor
license
like
this
could
be
a
part
of
a
use.
That's
permitted,
you
would,
by
default,
have
a
maximum
number
of
licenses
based
on
acreage
and
available
zoning.
D
So
that's
a
possibility
as
well
and
then
last
is
to
limit
the
restriction
on
maximum
number
of
liquor
licenses
all
together,
limited
then
for
licensing
just
by
zoning.
If
you
apply
for
zoning
and
for
a
permit
to
have
a
business
in
a
certain
area
where
you
could
legally
qualify
for
life
by
state
rules
and
liquor
licenses,
among
other
things,
a
liquor
establishment
would
be
permitted
under
your
code.
That
would
be
your
new
rule,
so
it
would
eliminate
this
provision
regarding
liquor
licenses
altogether
and
then
leave
it
to
your
zoning
code
to
regulate.
D
You
know
what's
there
and
what's
not,
instead
of
some
number
out
of
the
air
of
of
what
is
appropriate
or
not,
then,
by
the
way,
let
me
say
before
I
go
to
the
issues
part
there.
There
may
be
other
ways
to
do
this,
and
certainly
if
you
bring
something
creative
to
the
table,
I'm
I'm
here
to
listen.
I
don't
ex
don't
claim
to
be
the
the
grand
puba
of
all
the
ways
you
can
regulate
liquor
licenses.
These
are
the
ones
that
I
thought
of,
though,
that
are
related
to
the
discussions
we'd
already
had.
D
First
question,
and
that's
one
that
I
raised
is:
is
there
a
liability
that
the
city
might
face
for
allowing
more
licenses
than
are
currently
out
there,
and
the
reason
why
I
raised
this
as
a
question
mark
at
the
time
is
because
I
don't
know
what
your
folks,
who
have
these
businesses
now
paid
for
their
licenses,
recent
or
otherwise.
D
If
you
only
have
four
houses
in
the
neighborhood
and
it's
a
very
sought
after
neighborhood
they're
worth
one
price,
if
you
have
10
houses
in
the
same
neighborhood,
they're-
probably
not
worth
as
much,
and
so
that's
the
theory
so
per
our
discussions
then,
and
directive
that
came
from
the
city
manager,
miss
robinson,
put
together
a
memo
which
I
think
you
have
a
copy
of
which
did
the
research
and
found
that
the
risk
of
any
kind
of
successful
lawsuit
for
allowing
more
licenses
just
based
on
the
fact
that
it
devalues
somebody's
existing
license
is
minimal
to
non-existent,
which
is
what
I
expected
to
find.
D
But
I
knew
it
was
worth
doing
the
research,
so
we
could
satisfy
ourselves
that
we
would
be
okay
there.
The
actual
liability
comes.
If
there's
any
is,
if
you
reduce
the
number
of
licenses
so
that
somebody's
vested
right
in
their
own
license
might
be
harmed
again
and
that's
the
next
point.
Liability
for
reducing
maximum
licenses-
potentially
yes
same
memo
covers
that
and
that's
the
one
that
you
have
already
been
provided.
I
believe,
is
there
a
rational
basis
to
limit
liquor
licenses
at
all,
and
you
may
think.
Well.
D
This
is
a
dumb
question
and
of
course,
lawyers
are
famous
for
asking
a
dumb
question,
but
the
reason
that
it's
it's
here
is
because
when
you
are
talking
about
limiting
anything
in
by
virtue
of
legislation,
whether
it's
through
a
charter
change
or
an
ordinance
or
something
of
that
nature,
the
rule
that
you
try
to
avoid
constitutionally
is
that
that
that
regulation
is
arbitrary
and
capricious
so
that
there's
some
connection
between
what
you're
regulating
and
something
that's
good
for
the
health,
safety
or
welfare
of
the
community.
D
So
miss
brush
your
paralegal
heir,
did
some
research
on
that
to
find
the
backup-
and
I
say
the
backup,
because
I'm
not
aware
of
any
backup
that
was
done
in
1950
to
say,
here's
a
reason
for
550
per
you
know
per
550
limit
to
one
license
and
there
may
not
have
been
any,
but
I
if
we
were
going
to
look
at
changing
either
metric
or
the
max
number
or
whatever
and
putting
a
new
cap
on
it.
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
could
say,
and
we
have
now.
D
We
are
now
able
to
say
that
we
did
research
and
it
shows
that
you
know
when
you
cluster
these
kinds
of
establishments
within
smaller
areas.
Those
typical
things
you
might
expect
you'd
see
so
more
alcoholism,
perhaps
higher
crime
and
various
other
things
that
are
spelled
out
in
miss
rosh's
research.
That
is
accompanied
by
the
memo
from
miss
robinson.
So,
yes,
my
point
is
that
we
have
a
basis
rationally
to
regulate
in
this
area.
D
It
is
not
necessarily
tied
to
a
specific
number
per
that's
really
a
harder
issue,
but
it
tells
you
that
the
idea
that
you
would
want
to
regulate
is
something
that
is
that
is
supported
in
not
surprisingly,
in
the
studies
and
information
we
were
able
to
ascertain
and
then,
if
we're
going
to
limit
the
number
of
liquor
licenses,
is
there
a
rational
basis
for
com
for
calculating
what
that
number
and
if
we
base
it
on
zoning,
because
we
we've
already
said
what
the
error
years
are.
D
You
know
we
know
what
our
our
commercial
business
district
is.
Our
central
business
district
is,
and
we
know
what
the
other
area
is,
although
I
can't
remember
the
title
of
it
now,
but
where
you
can
actually
have
these
licenses
as
a
part
of
a
permitted
use,
then
yeah.
We
have
a
rational
basis,
because
we've
already
that
rationality
is
established
by
a
factor
of
zoning.
This
is
where
we
allow
this
kind
of
establishment
to
exist.
We
don't
put
an
arbitrary
cap,
it's
not
arbitrary
or
capricious,
because
it's
simply
based
on
on
acreage
and
availability.
D
Once
you
run
out
of
space,
you
run
out
of
licenses.
That's
life,
so
that
is
fine.
D
But
the
point
is
I
wanted
to
be
clear
to
everyone
in
this
meeting
that
as
where
I
said
as
a
charter
review
lawyer,
I
don't
have
access
to
that
research.
That
would
have
been
done
when
that
restriction
was
put
in
place
back
in
the
50s,
so
I
don't
know
what
they
based
it
on
all
right.
So
what
are
the
questions
that
we're
going
to
try
to
answer
today
mike
seem
to
like
my
graphic
here.
D
D
If
you
want
to
make
a
change,
do
you
want
to
continue
to
use
the
population
metric
I.e?
Do
you
want
to
use
a
census
or
some
other
metric,
and
if
you
want
to
use
a
new
metric
like
zoning
or
acreage
or
something
like
that?
What
what
metric
do
you
want
to
use
again?
There
may
be
others.
Those
are
the
two
I
thought
of
I'm.
I
don't
claim
to
exhaust
every
possibility
for
a
metric
that
might
work
and
do
you
want
to
have
a
maximum
or
no
maximum.
D
Well,
we
sent
someone
out
to
do
the
research
to
tell
us
for
a
community
like
ours,
given
where
we
are
on
the
beach
and
various
other
factors
that
may
be
relevant.
You
know
what
is
a
safe,
reasonable
number
for
our
community
to
put
as
a
maximum
and
here's
what
it's
based
on.
But
again
we
don't
have
to
get
to
that
place
tonight.
We
just
have
to
decide
the
direction
you
want
us
to
go
in.
F
We've
got
council
member
jamson,
first
followed
by
council
member
okay.
D
G
All
right
so
question
number
one:
yes,
I
think
we
do
need
to
make
a
change.
In
my
opinion,
I
think
the
language
that
we
that
exists
as
antiquated.
I
do
like
the
population
metric.
However,
if
we're
going
to
use
that
moving
forward,
I
think
it
needs
to
be
revisited
more
than
every
37
years,
and
then
I
guess
the
the
big
question
would
be.
What
does
that
population
metric
look
like
I
tend
to
lean
towards,
instead
of
it
being
every
550,
it
would
be
more
like
1400
with
the
with
the
current
metric.
G
I
think
that
puts
us
in
a
range
of
43
licenses
or
something
like
this.
It's
ridiculous
it'd
be
way
too
much
in
my
opinion,
but
I
think
there's
some
room
for
some
growth,
but
not
to
the
extent
that
exists
on
the
existing
language,
so,
I
would
say,
would
be
like
one
per
1400
residents
or
something
to
that
effect.
Given
a
population
of
23
000
and
those
are
just
rough
numbers,
that's
my
initial
reaction
to
it.
F
F
How
many
licenses
that
would
change
by
if
we
still
use
the
same
metric
of
one
for
550,
based
on
our
new
population
of
23
830..
We
also
provided
you
with
a
map
showing
you
where
the
liquor
license
were
currently
provided
around
the
city,
and
I
believe
director,
ireland
indicated
based
on
distance
separations.
There
were
probably
about
five
or
six
more
that
could
be
put
into
the
city
of
jacksonville
beach
based
on
today's
zoning
requirements.
F
So
if
you've
got
the
opportunity
to
pull
up
that
email,
it's
dated
october,
20th
and
you'll
see
that
there's
information
in
the
email,
the
pdf
document
for
the
map
and
the
listing
of
the
existing
12
licenses
that
are
currently
issued
in
jax
beach
just
wanted
to
make
sure
we
didn't
forget
about
that:
supplemental
research
that
was
done
previously
and
and
with
that
then
I'll.
Kick
it
back
over
to
cliff
and
I
believe
fernando
meza
was
next.
C
Cliff,
yes,
I
think
we
do
need
to
make
changes
to
to
that
something
along
the
lines.
What
dan
johnson
said,
maybe
one
license
per
1400.
I
was
doing
in
math
just
to
keep
it
close
to
at
least
our
population
ratio,
which
would
be
one
per
1850
or
2
000
people,
but
yeah
like
mike
and
dan
said
earlier.
I
think
if
you
use
the
same
metric
right
now,
we
will
have
way
too
many
licenses
which
will
value
down
on
these
alcohol
license
down.
D
Even
though
the
population
has
creased.
So
there
has
been
a
cat.
So
that's
certainly
part
of
the
answer,
but
that
there's
no
evidence
that
when
that
metric
was
in
place
and
with
that
limitation,
that
anything
was
particularly
out
of
whack
in
terms
of
crime
rate
or
alcoholism
rate
or
any
of
the
other
factors
that
might
be
considered
now.
I
I'm
saying
this
as
if
I
know
it
to
be
the
case.
D
I
don't
know
if
this
be
the
case,
because
that's
a
historical
question,
but
my
presumption
is
that
if
and
the
reason
I
put
it,
that
way
is
if
there
were
a
problem
we
wouldn't
be
visiting
it
all
these
years
later,
not
having
even
had
it
been
on
the
radar
screen.
So
I
point
that
out
and
that,
by
virtue
of
the
nature
of
how
much
space
there
is
that
you
could
actually
have
a
use
for
a
license
is
even
a
possibility.
D
H
Yeah,
I
thought
about
this
a
pretty
decent
amount,
and
you
know
I
I
personally
don't
have
any
interest
in
and
expanding
the
number
to
open
up,
more
just
bars
that
are
just
alcohol
related.
I'm
not
a
big
fan
of
the
the
supply
and
demand
issue
that
they've
that
the
value
of
them
have
gone
to
the
extent
that
it
has,
but
that's
just
something,
we'd
have
to
deal
with
my
if
I
was
gonna
open
up
more
places
that
served
alcohol.
H
You
know
and
have
a
look
more
into
adjusting
the
the
size
and
the
seating
necessary
in
order
to
do
that,
so
we
can
have
more
small,
locally
owned
restaurants
that
are
able
to
serve
alcohol
with
meals
know.
I
I'm
concerned
with
making
any
changes
at
all
to
this,
because
I
think
we
might
be
opening
a
can
of
worms
like
you
said,
I'm
kind
of
leaning
towards
just
leaving
it
the
way
it
is.
H
I
I
D
If
you're
asking
me
chief,
the
answer
is,
I
didn't.
In
fact
I've
made
the
mistake
at
the
first
meeting
where
this
was
discussed,
and
I
don't
know
if
you
were
in
that
meeting
of
assuming
that
we
were
talking
about
whether
it
was
liquor
stores
or
list
licenses
in
restaurants,
and
I
got
corrected
by
someone
it
may
have
been
mike.
I
don't
remember
somebody
said
no,
no
we're
just
talking
about
this
other
thing.
So
whoever's
made
that
decision.
It
pre-existed
me.
So
I
don't
know.
F
And
I'd
like
I'd
like
to
just
throw
out
there
that
if
you
take
a
look
at
the
methodology,
that's
included
within
the
charter
taking
the
population
of
1950,
dividing
it
by
the
one
for
550
that
gets
you
to
the
liquor
license
number
of
12,
which
happens
to
line
up
with
the
four
cop
license.
Number
that's
been
issued
in
the
city
of
jacksonville
beach.
So
there
appears
to
be
a
rational
nexus
between
the
methodology
contained
within
the
charter
and
the
actual
number
of
four
cop
licenses
that
are
on
the
ground.
In
jack
speech.
D
F
D
D
J
K
As
I'm
looking
at
this,
what
we're
asking
about
is
not
number
of
literal
licenses
throughout
the
city,
but
specifically
what
we
just
said
only
bar
licenses,
so
I
agree
with
corey
on.
I
don't
think
we
need
more
bar
only
licenses,
and
if
we
open
this
up,
then
we
can
be
opening
ourselves
up
to
some
other
issues,
because
it's
based
off
of
population,
not
a
zoning
issue.
K
One
thing
that
really,
if
you
look
at
our
liquor
licenses
and
totality
that
in
the
memo
that
sandy
sent
today,
that
we
have
12
liquor
licenses
operating
currently
for
every
square
mile
in
the
city
and
12
liquor
licenses
within
a
square
mile,
it
seems
rather
robust.
K
So
I'm
not
saying
that
this
shouldn't
be
something
to
look
at.
I
would
think
that
us
looking
at
it
either
holistically
at
just
the
four
cops
or
all
of
the
types
of
liquor
licenses
that
are
allowed
would
be
far
more
work
than
we
could
fit
into
the
time
frame
that
we
have
to
get
this
on
the
november
ballot
for
any
changes
to
the
charter
coming
up.
So
I
like
cliff's
idea
of
maybe
we
need
to
hire
somebody
who's.
K
An
expert
in
this
area
who
can
really
look
at
all
the
different
types
of
liquor
licenses,
be
it
on
cam
on
campus,
on-premises
consumption
or
off-premises
consumption
and
see
what
works
in
other
cities.
And
how
could
we
apply
best
practices
to
our
city?
Again,
that's
going
to
be
a
lot
longer
than
the
time
frame
that
we
have.
So
I'm
more
than
happy
to
kick
this
out
of
this
iteration
of
the
charter
review
into
a
future.
One.
J
So
I
agree
with
miss
dumont
and
mr
nichols.
I
am
not
comfortable
with
increasing
the
number
of
full
bars
that
we
have
in
jacksonville
beach
and
certainly,
as
ms
dumont
referenced
with
the
number
of
of
of
establishments,
that
we
have
selling
alcohol,
whether
it's
you
know
across
the
board.
We
certainly
have
enough
alcohol
being
provided
to
our
our
visitors
and
our
residents
in
jacksonville
beach.
My
question
would
be:
is:
is
there
an
issue
if
we
keep
it
at
12?
D
Your
jobs,
as
as
council
members,
largely
involve
the
regulation
of
health,
safety
and
welfare,
so
is
liquor,
license
fall
in
that
category.
Yes,
then,
the
question
is
okay.
What
is
the
best
way
to
deal
with
that
from
a
health,
safety
and
welfare
perspective
I.e?
What
does
the
research
tell
you
about?
What's
a
safe
number
if
any
and
how
it's
best
calculated
it's
very
similar,
but
not
identical
to
when
you're
charging
a
developer,
an
impact
fee
for
sewer
or
water.
D
You
have
to
show
what
the
impacts
of
that
development
will
be.
On
your
system
relative
to
its
percentage
of
the
of
the
load
so
that
their
pa
development
is
paying
for
itself,
but
not
more
than
itself.
So,
although
not
the
same,
the
idea
is
you
have
a
study
that
gives
you
that
information
here,
what
you'd
be
looking
for
something
that
says
we
just
didn't
pull
a
number
out
of
the
air.
We
had
a
basis
for
this
number.
This
12
number
is
based
on
acreage.
D
It
does
not
mean
it
would
survive
a
legal
challenge,
but
but
if
your
tendency
is
to
come
to
the
same
number,
it
might
be
the
best
idea
to
just
leave
things
the
way
they
are.
If
that's
where
you
want
to
be,
if
you,
because
again
it's
almost
like
you,
if
you
put
in
the
number
12,
nobody
has
to
do
a
calculation
and
they
say
well,
that's
freaking
arbitrary.
How
did
you
get
the
12.
D
if
you
leave
it
based
on
what
it
is
now
just
like?
I
don't
know
what
it
was
based
on.
They
don't
know
either.
I
don't
know
historically
whether
we
could
prove
that's
a
valid
limitation
or
not,
but
I
do
know
that
right
now
nobody's
asking
that
question.
But
if
you
start
putting
on
the
ballot
12,
somebody
who
likes
to
drink
or
sell
liquor
might
say:
well,
that's
arbitrary.
How
do
you
back
that
number.
J
Well
so
I
I
I've
said
this
before:
I
do
not
have
an
issue
with
the
reference
to
the
1950s
census,
even
though
it
sounds
antiquated
or
whatever
to
me.
It
has
meaning,
because
it
was
based
off
of
something
that
the
citizens
at
that
time
wanted
to
put
into
place,
and
so
it's
historical
to
me
and
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
it
with
it
staying
in
there.
J
So
my
position
would
be
to
leave
it
as
is,
and
let's
work
on
some
other
things
that
we
think
are
going
to
make
a
a
bigger
difference
in
our
community.
H
Sorry
my
my
pointer
disappeared.
I
don't
know
what
happened
to
the
back
to
the
memo
I
mean,
I
know
what
most
of
them
are,
but
that
third
paragraph
on
page,
oh
two
of
five,
I
know
what
the
first
ones
are,
but
can
you
run
through
each
one
and
just
just
for
the
record,
just
let
us
know
which
ones
are
because
the
21
2
aps.
I
don't
know
what
I'm
not
fully
aware
of
what
that
one
is
or
the
1
1c.
E
H
Well,
I
I
just
want
to
definitely
I
mean
I
know
the
four
cop
quota
is
just
like
a
full
ball
already
yeah.
The
sorry
12
4
cop
quota
licenses
are
what
we
characterize
as
bar.
Only
and
the
I
know
the
38
for
cop
srx
or
the
restaurant
bars
that
have
to
have
51
food
or
the
21
to
cop
are
are
beer
and
wine.
Only
so
the
next
one's
21
2
aps
can
the
next
couple
can
you
just
identify
which
what
goes
in
each
one
of
those
licenses?
For
me,
please.
E
E
So
what
that
means
in
most
instances
would
be
on
premises,
have
been
determined
to
be
in
bars,
restaurants
and
give
me
one
minute.
I
can
tell
you
how
the
third
category
off-premises
is,
generally
a
liquor
store
or
purchased
through
a
grocery
store.
So
I
can
outline
that
information
to
you
as
it's
provided
in
this
florida
listing,
but
not
how
you
all
utilize
those
references
within
jack
speech.
So
if
you're,
okay
with
that,
I
can
find
the
relevant
pages
and
read
those
off
for
you.
H
Soon,
can
we
sandy
thank
you
city
manager,
stephopolis,
do
you
know
kind
of
which
ones
go
with
which
I'm
just
trying
to.
F
I
do
not
know
my
understanding
was
always
surfacial
to
the
four
cop
being
bars
and
the
cop
standing
for
consumption
on
premise
and
then
the
two
cop
being
bare
and
wine
consumption
on
premise.
And
then
you've
got
a
series
of
other
references.
But
I
don't
know
those.
K
The
21
aps
licenses
are
those
at
those
entities
that
sell
alcohol
to
be
consumed
off
off-site
so
publix
trader
joe's,
but
the
alcohol
is
only
beer
and
wine.
So
when
we
look
at
the
the
two
one
aps
licenses,
those
are
full
liquor
stores,
so
the
two
would
be
abc
liquors
and
brodies.
H
Gotcha,
okay
and
then
the
the
c's,
the
one
c's
are
american
legion,
vfw
and
moose
launch
yes,
the
okay,
all
right!
I
got
it
I'll.
Just
thank
you
for
the
information
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
on
the
same
page
and
we
knew
which
go
which
went
with
what
so
all
right.
Thank
you
very
much.
H
I
Well,
if
corey
could
you
be,
could
you
clarify
that
a
little
one
of
my
general
feelings
reference,
this
discussion
is
kind
of
a
open
question.
Well,.
H
Let's,
let's,
let's
be
I'll,
be
very
specific
on
this.
We
currently
have
12
40cp
for
us
cop
sorry
licenses
that
I
kind
of
look
at
bar
only
licenses
correct.
Do
you
see.
H
From
your
standpoint,
as
chief
of
police,
if
that
is
increased,
is
that
a
negative
for
for
your
group?
Would
you
like
it
to
stay
the
same,
or
do
you
have
much
of
an
opinion
on
that.
I
Well,
instead
of
a
positive
or
negative,
I
can
give
you
if
we
add
four
cop
licenses
to
the
to
the
city.
It's
gonna
put
more
of
an
increased
service
demand
on
us.
I
can
tell
you
that
I
can
also
bite
through
sandy's
memo
and
through
experience,
tell
you
that
whenever
you
have
alcohol
you're
in
crowds,
you're
gonna
have
issues
now.
Is
that
a
positive
or
negative?
I
So
much
depends
on
the
type
of
four
cop,
the
prices
who's
running
them,
whether
it's
high-end
martini
bar
my
boss,
said
earlier,
or
whether
it's
like
sydney
or
the
the
bar
we
ran
out
of
here.
That
was
the
former
cops
rx
a
while
back.
It
depends
on
a
lot
of
different
factors.
Generally,
it's
going
to
put
increased
service
demand
on
us
and
I
can
tell
you
right
now.
I
I
cannot
cover
the
extra
duty
jobs
at
the
current
forced
gops,
much
less
any
new
ones,
and
that
includes,
and
to
get
a
little
bit
bigger
mr
nichols
90
special
events
a
year
that
we're
holding
in
the
city.
That's
everything
from
a
beach
run
to
a
alcohol
festival.
I
Then
you
add
four
five,
six
four
cops
more.
Four
cop
srx's,
it
just
makes
us
busier
and
it's
going
to
bring
more
traffic
and
possibly
more
problems.
Does
that
answer
your
question.
H
Yes,
thank
you
very
much
and
with
with
that,
I'm
back
to
my
I'm
leaning
towards
making
no
change
at
all
and
not
opening
this
can
of
worms
and
if
we
want
to
try
to
do
smaller,
restaurants
that
allow
full
alcohol
sales-
and
I
think,
we're
better
off
attacking
this
at
that
level
and
and
just
not
messing
with
what
we
got
right
now.
G
So
cliff,
I
guess
one
of
the
points
I
was
trying
to
make
earlier
and
I
think
I
understood
what
you
said
is
if
we
leave
the
language
as
it
is,
that
being
antiquated
based
on
the
1950
census,
it
seems
to
me
that
we
would
be
exposed
to
the
possibility
of
a
lawsuit
based
on
those
numbers,
not
saying
that
we
need
to
add
more.
Maybe
we
do
the
math
and
make
it
so
that
it
equals
out
to
be
12
or
whatever
it
is
and
bring
it
up
to
today's
census.
G
D
Well,
let
me
make
sure
that
I
have
this
question
answered
before
I
fill
in
the
rest
of
the
answer.
I
heard
that
with
you
apply
the
1950s
cap.
You
come
up
with
a
number
of
12,
but
what
I
have
not
heard,
but
it
may
be,
the
fact
is
that
all
12
licenses
that
are
potentially
available
are
currently.
D
D
D
So
it's
almost
like,
if
you
asked
me
the
same
question
when
we
were
talking
about
it
when
it
was
coming
from
commissioner
goldie,
it
was
well.
Why
don't
we
just
get
rid
of
the
census
reference
and
talk
about
12..
It
almost
like
puts
a
neon
light,
saying
12
12
12.,
nobody
gets
to
do
the
math.
You
know
if
you,
if
you
can
see
that
it's
12
the
first
next
question
is:
what
do
you
where'd
you
get
12
from,
and
so
it's
kind
of
one
of
those
situations.
D
If
you
changed
the
metric
and
the
calculation
for
what's
been
there
for
a
long
time
that
people
have
sort
of
accepted,
then
you
draw
attention
to
something,
whereas
if
you
leave
it
be
you're
kind
of
not
poking
the
bear,
it
does
not
to
your
point,
mr
jansen.
It
does
not
guarantee
that
the
sick
scenario
of
someone
coming
along
wanting
to
do
what
they
want
to
do
and
being
told
no
and
then
getting
litigious
or
belligerent,
won't
happen.
D
All
I
have
to
go
on
that.
It
won't
is
a
lot
of
history
that
it
hasn't
also
understanding
that
the
more
likely
scenario,
if
I'm
a
bar
that
wants
to
come
to
town,
is
to
buy
an
existing
bar.
Why
I
don't
have
to
rehab
it
or
remodel
it
in
an
extensive
fashion,
I
can
buy
their
license
and
their
location.
D
They
have
an
established
clientele
and
so
forth.
So
the
unique
circumstance
that
you
would
be
looking
at
where
liability
could
occur.
There's
no
question
about.
It
is
someone
coming
to
town
wanting
to
go
in
a
location?
That's
currently
not
licensed
and
apply
for
a
license
and
being
told.
No,
so
they
have
to
get
the
license,
be
able
to
get
the
license
from
the
state
and
be
able
to
fit
within
our
zoning
in
a
location.
D
That's
not
set
up
for
it
right
now
by
changing
the
the
business
remodeling,
the
inside
and
various
other
things,
so
it's
just
kind
of
a
weighing
of
risk.
So
clearly
it's
a
risk,
but
if
you're
kind
of
using
his
history
as
a
reference,
I
would
think
without
being
able
to
justify
it,
except
by
common
sense
that
your
risk
will
increase.
D
No,
it
doesn't
and
that's
why
I
said
if
you
change
it,
what
we
want
if
we're
going
to
change,
it
is
to
be
able
to
justify
the
change,
and
maybe
we
can
justify
12.,
I
just
don't.
The
problem
is
right
now
sitting
here,
I
don't
know
and
that
sort
of
leads
you
back
to.
I
think
it
was
commissioner
dumont
who
said
ticket,
which
I
think
means
until
the
next
round
of
amendments
and
then
maybe
go
out
and
see
what
number
seems
justified
that
we
can
support.
D
Now
I
will
tell
you-
and
I
again
I've
said
this
already,
but
if
the
number
was
oh
12
is
too
many.
It
should
be
seven
you
better,
not
change
12
to
a
lower
number,
just
because
you're
then
you're
definitely
going
to
be
in
a
lawsuit.
But
if,
if
you,
if
a
study
comes
back
that
can
support
a
change
at
12
or
support
12
as
being
reasonable
cap,
then
I
think
that's
great,
but
you
have
to
understand
when
you
get
a
study,
it
also
might
say
no
the
number's,
15
or
20..
D
I
just
don't
know,
that's
the
problem,
but
what
you
get
back
is
something
you
can
hang
your
hat
on
and
it's
not
history
as
you
point
out,
so
it's
it's
a
it's
they're,
not
great
choices,
and
someone
could
argue
with
the
way
I've
waited
the
choices,
but
you
know
a
kind
of
a
creature
of
habit
if
something
has
not
been
bothering
people
for
a
long
long
long
time
I'll.
Let
them
continue
to
not
be
bothered
and
hope
that
it
continues
to
be
that
way.
A
Well,
I
wanted
to
say
first
cliff:
if
you
enjoy
a
bar
or
a
nice
cocktail,
we
have
plenty
of
options
for
you
here
in
jacksonville
beach.
I'm
also
starting
to
understand
why
this
language
has
hung
on
for
70
years,
because
I
can
imagine
that
maybe
councils
have
had
this
conversation
prior
to
us
as
well
and
and
have
come
to
these
same
conclusions,
because
I
was
right
where
sandy
was
you
know
if
it's
12,
why
don't
we
just
say
12
and
take
out
also
where
dan
was.
A
This
is
antiquated
language,
and
especially
after
going
through
this
wholesale
charter
review.
Why
would
we
leave
such
dated
language
in
there,
but
I
can
understand
that
there's
got
to
be
some
sort
of
metric
to
justify
that
change.
At
this
point,
I
think
that
we
we've
lost
control
of
the
message.
I
think
it's
being
portrayed
that
this
discussion
is
to
increase
the
amount
of
bar
licenses.
Unfortunately,
those
are
the
emails
I've
been
getting,
which
has
never
been
the
case
for
me,
or
I
think,
for
this
body
on
its
own.
A
I
think
it's
just
to
look
at
the
language
and
see
if
this
still
applies,
but
I
also
will
say
to
there
are
a
couple
different
people
made
the
points
I
think
corey
and
georgia
both
that
there's
other
things
that
we
can
look
at
here,
and
I
think
that
we
can
keep
this
in
the
back
of
our
mind
as
we
go
through
our
land
development
code
review
and
other
things
like
that
in
the
next
few
years,
that
maybe
we
will
start
to
see
a
logical
number
that
we
can
back
up
in
some
sort
of
metric,
et
cetera,
et
cetera.
A
Now
that
we've
gone
through
this
exercise,
but
I
I
think
I
said
at
the
last
meeting-
I'm
not
this
isn't
necessarily
a
battle.
I
I
think
we
need
to
fight
at
this
point,
because
we
just
don't
have
any
resounding
backup
for
for
any
changes
that
we
we
want
to
make
to
me
getting
this
antiquated
language.
If
it
was
going
to
be
you
know,
an
easy
cleanup
would
be
fine,
but
I
don't
think
there's
going
to
be
anything
easy
about
this,
so
I'm
fine
putting
it
back
in
the
parking
lot.
At
this
point,.
H
Just
for
a
little
housekeeping
on
page
three
of
the
spreadsheet,
there's
actually
there's
an
error
in
there
and
there's
actually
31
two
cop
licenses
and
not
21.
the
first
10
repeat
itself
so
cliff.
I
got
10
extra
places
for
you
to
go,
have
a
beer,
fantastic,
I'm
bi
I'd
like
to.
H
H
Excuse
me:
no,
no,
no,
it
counts
one
to
ten
and
then
it
starts
over
at
one
with
dwight's
restaurant
and
then
counts
to
21.,
so
there's
actually
31,
it's
10,
plus
the
21.
gotcha.
B
Yeah,
I'm
for
keeping
it
the
same
at
this
moment,
but
I
really
like
dr
dumont's
idea
of
of
commissioning
a
full
kind
of
study
and
coming
up
with
a
rational
basis
instead
of
the
population,
the
zoning
or
whatever
it
may
be,
because
I
think
we
could
get
a
smarter
mind
in
here
no
offense
to
anybody
here,
but
just
somebody
that
that
specializes
in
liquor
licenses
and
they
could
they
could
give
us
a
really
solid
footing
to
support
that
12
that
we
have
now
and
and
close
any
doors
for
any
legal
challenges
on
that
number.
B
I
think
that
would
be.
I
think,
that's
the
goal
that
we
want
it's.
The
goal
that
I
want
is
is
have
a
closed
door.
B
There's
12,
that's
based
on
something
and
then
let's
get
support
for
our
restaurants
and
and
things
that
actually
are
gonna
have
a
have
a
better
impact
on
the
community
than
a
full
bar.
But
I
think,
coming
up
with
a
rational
basis
is
the
was
the
objective
and
we
don't
have
it
yet.
So
an
expert
would
be
good
and
I'm
sure
it
would
be
a
long
process,
so
it
wouldn't
come
up
anytime
soon.
B
But
thank
you,
dr
dumont,
for
that
idea
and-
and
I
support
kind
of
going
that
that
direction.
If
we
agree
on
at
some
point.
H
I
think
where
we
are
right
now
is
I
you
know
we
have
backup
to
show
that
why
more
bars
are
a
challenge
to
our
community
from
a
safety
and
health
perspective
that
I
I
don't
know
if
we're
going
to
be
able
to
get
anything
from
a
specialist
or
expert
that
is
going
to
shut
the
door
on
on
a
legal
challenge
to
this,
and
I
just
wanted
cliff's
opinion
on
that.
D
Sure,
well,
the
answer
is
my
opinion.
Is
I
don't
know,
I
know
they're
as
a
lawyer.
It
doesn't
make
me
proud
to
say
this,
but
I
know
I
can
find
an
expert
to
say
almost
anything
if
I'm
paying
them
what
they
want
for
hourly
rates.
What
I
don't
know
is
how
their
credibility
will
hold
up.
I
am
confident
that
the
chief
has
seen
expert
witnesses
in
cases
where
he's
going.
You
got
to
be
with
the
blank
word
in
there
kidding
me,
but
that's
just
the
way
it
is
so.
D
The
question
is:
can
you
find
an
expert
who
has
actually
applied
a
form
of
science
and
statistics
to
an
analysis
that
says
you
know
given
the
combination
of
things,
the
business
area
where
the
users
would
be
permitted,
the
population,
the
demographics
of
the
population
based
on
age,
youth,
that
sort
of
thing
churches
there's
all
kinds
of
things
that
would
figure
into
the
metrics?
I
would
assume
to
come
up
with
based
on
all
these
things
and
studies
that
show
increased
crime
in
this
situation
or
that
or
increased
alcohol
addiction.
D
It
isn't
rocket
science,
but
it
is
a
form
of
science
and
mathematics
and
statistics,
and
it
doesn't
have
to
be
perfect.
The
beauty
of
it
is.
It
has
to
be
something
that
simply
when
it's
put
on
it
means
you
didn't
just
make
it
up
out
of
thin
air,
and
I
am
concerned,
but
do
not
know
that
the
current
charter
is
out
of
thin
air.
But
again
I
don't
know
because
it
came
from
somewhere
and
somebody
suggested
it
and
who
knows
what
it
was
based
on.
H
Okay,
so
before
we
pay
for
a
study,
could
you
at
least
try
to
find
a
couple
locations
that
have
utilized
the
study
to
come
up
with
a
more
justifiable
number
prior
to
doing
studying,
because
my
other
issues,
if
we
do
a
study
instead,
he
says
oh
y'all-
are
good
for
30..
Then
we
end.
D
H
I
think
yeah
exactly
so
I
I
would
like
to
potentially
see
another
community-
that's
utilized
an
expert
in
statistical
analysis
to
to
come
up
with
a
total
number
of
bar
licenses
prior
to
us
going
down
that
path.
D
It
always
makes
sense
to
vet
the
experts.
I
would
tell
you,
though,
the
one
at
least
good
thing
about
this
is
liquor.
Licenses
are
not
specific
to
florida,
so
whether
the
expert
has
done
his
studies
or
her
studies
in
florida,
georgia
or
african
new
york,
the
in
the
data,
should
be
valid
enough,
and
so
there
should
be
you
you
don't
just
have
to
play
in
the
florida
sandbox.
Would
that
be
preferred?
Yes,
but
I
think
you
have
more
options
than
just
someone.
D
Who's
only
done
florida
in
terms
of
how
to
get
into
that
thing,
I
I
would
prob
for,
if
you're
asking
me
to
do
it,
sandy
could
have
the
same
same
access.
There's
a
group
called
the
local
law.
The
government
lawyers
list
serve
and
almost
all
lawyers
who
serve
local
governments
belong
to
it
and
it
serves
in
situations
just
like
this.
Where
you
say
hey,
has
anyone
used
an
expert
for
this
and
then,
if
they
have
they'll
respond
and
say
yeah,
we
use
this
person
or
that
firm,
and
so
I
could
do
that.
D
J
I
just
have
one
quick
comment.
I
want
to
thank
sandy
and
elish
elise
for
the
work
that
you
guys
did
on
the
memo
that
you
sent
us
today.
J
I
also
want
to
thank
heather
and
mike
and
anybody
else
who
was
involved
in
providing
us
the
the
information
that
we
got
previously
and
cliff
for
all
the
time
that
you've
spent
on
this,
because
I
feel
like
we
have
been
provided
a
lot
of
really
good
information,
and
I
just
want
to
I
I
I
just
want
to
acknowledge
the
the
work
that's
been
done
and
thank
you
all
for
it.
K
Yes,
thank
you
to
everyone,
but
sandy
just
said,
but
I
want
to
go
back
to
what
so
when
I
say
we
should
think
we
should
think
about
hiring
somebody
who's,
an
expert
in
this
field.
I
don't
mean
tonight.
K
This
is
down
the
road
after
we
have
figured
out
where
it
is
that
we
want
to
go.
Am
I
kicking
it
down
the
road,
but
definitely
not
tonight,
so
I
don't
think
we
need
to
get
to
all
of
the
nitty-gritty,
as
we
still
have
height
to
deal
with,
but
I
do
want
to
one
of
the
questions
that
cliff
noted
and
heather
noted
in
the
october
20
email
of
2021.
K
There
could
be
approximately
five
to
eight
additional
locations
where
alcoholic
beverage
establishment
could
request
conditional
use
approval
in
the
city
based
on
the
location
of
all
our
current
establishments
that
sell
liquor.
So
we
know
that
there
is,
depending
on
how
we
choose
to
approach
this
in
the
future.
We
know
that
there
is
room
for
growth
depending
on
how,
if
we,
if
it's
done
on
zoning
as
it
currently
stands,
so
these
are
things
that
we
really
need
to
think
about.
K
But
I
don't
think
tonight
is
the
night
that
we
want
to
go
block
by
block
and
inch
by
inch
figuring
out
the
500
feet
and
all
of
that
stuff,
so
great
job.
Everyone
on
this.
D
So
so,
at
a
future
and
distant
happy
hour
somewhere,
we
should
have
this
discussion,
but
but
let
me
point
out,
though,
that
you
know
they're
more
than
this
is
a
antiquated
term,
but
because
I
love
cats,
but
there's
more
way
than
one
way
to
skin
a
cat.
And
if
you
have
our
fear,
additional
establishment
based
on
conditional
use
permits,
you
simply
eliminate
that
as
a
conditional
use.
So
it's
unavailable.
You
make
a
zoning
change
and
that's
that's
that
so
there
are
other
ways
to
get
to
some
of
the
concerns
that
you
have.
C
I
just
have
a
comment.
I
know
mayor
hoffman
brought
it
up,
she's
been
receiving
emails
about
people,
thinking
that
we
are
trying
to
raise
the
up
or
raise
the
amount
of
licenses,
but
obviously
it's
not
the
case,
but
I'm
glad
that
we
were
talking
about
this
and
also
thank
you
to
our
city
attorney
and
everyone
that
was
involved
in
helping
this
research
because
I
actually
enjoyed
the
reading.
C
Actually,
it
was
pretty
interesting
and
since
I'm
in
that
business,
it's
always
good
to
know
some
of
the
research
but
yeah,
I
guess
probably,
should
be
moving
on
to
the
height
limit.
F
Go
ahead
cliff
on
this
one,
I'm
hearing
the
consensus
to
punt
much
later.
D
Yeah
that
I
I
kind
of
kept
track
on
my
scorecard,
and
it
appears
there's
a
certainly
a
majority,
if
not
an
overwhelming
majority,
to
leave
well
enough
alone
for
now
and
at
some
future
date
to
be
determined,
perhaps
consider
whether
you
want
to
commission
a
study
and
before
that
time
you
can
sort
of
beat
the
bushes
if
you
choose
to
to
find
out
who
or
or
or
whom,
what
experts
might
be
out
there.
E
D
All
right
as
to
the
height
issue,
what
I
bring
to
the
table
is
knowing
that
it
exists
and
knowing
that
at
one
point
staff
had
proposed
language
essentially
for
height
bonuses.
We
actually
had
it
and
you
all
reviewed
it.
I
assume
you
still
have
it,
or
at
least
have
talked
about
it.
D
But
what
I
cannot
bring
to
the
table
is
the
results
of
whatever
the
workshop
or
open
public
forum
was,
and
so
not
that
I
am
trying
to
punt
on
any
responsibility
here,
but
I
have
to
kind
of
open
it
up
for
a
free
for
all,
because,
beyond
what
I
just
told
you,
I
have
nothing
to
contribute.
F
Yeah
and
cliff,
I
think
this
was
meant
to
be
more
of
a
council
discussion
on
the
results
of
that
meeting
from
last
week
and
where
they
want
to
go
next
with
it.
K
Thank
you,
the
I
thought
that
the
community
meeting
was
very
interesting.
I
think
the
consensus
was
at
this
moment
the
residents,
the
voters
are
not
ready
to.
K
Fully
look
at
at
right
now,
they're,
not
at
a
place
where
changing
the
current
charter
in
the
just
regarding
the
height
they're,
not
comfortable
with
it.
I'm
not
saying
that
there
there
is
no
room
for
education.
Both
sides
give
and
take
between
council
and
residents
before
something
is
developed
in
a
way,
that's
more
along
the
lines
of
what
our
residents
are
comfortable
with,
but
we're
not
there.
Yet
and
again
we
we
are
butt
and
up
against
that
timeline
to
get
it
onto
the
ballot.
K
So
this
would
be
another
thing
that
we
might
want
to
do
in
a
separate
election
cycle
on
a
separate
ballot.
So
we
can
have
more
conversation
with
our
residents
about
what
it
is
that
they
like
what
it
is
that
they
don't
like.
We
know
that
the
larger
thing
one
so
a
couple
things
that
I
noted
from
that
meeting.
K
One
one
thing
that
you
heard
often
was
that
we
don't
want
to
be
fort
lauderdale
and
we
we
all
agree
on
that
and
I
and
how
we
look
at
it
is
55
feet
is
not
a
skyrise.
However,
what
I
feel
I
believe,
what
they
are
saying
is
we
don't
want
to
be
a
city
city.
We
want
to
keep
our
coastal
beachside
community
feel
and
so
there's
a
different
vibe
in
both
types
of
areas.
So
that's
one
piece
that
I
heard
another
one
that
oh
gosh,
I
don't
know
if
I
can
pull
it
up.
K
Quick
enough
was
a
quote
that
one
of
the
residents
community
meeting.
K
One
person
on
that
council
is
bringing
this
up
for
discussion.
She
noted
that
it
was
a
slap
in
the
face
and
a
kick
in
the
gut
to
anyone
who
has
been
trying
to
stop
us
from
becoming
miami
beach
and
so
like.
That
is
that's
a
guttural
type.
Emotion
again,
I
don't
think
it's
we're
not
going
to
be
miami
beach.
K
There's
we
have
to
work
on
better
understanding
of
where
slippery
slopes
can
happen,
because
that
wasn't
mentioned
a
lot,
but
also
the
the
feel
of
the
community
that
the
residents
want
and
how
we
can
do
that,
while
still
attracting
businesses
downtown,
which
is
the
whole
purpose
of
the
to
attract
development,
which
is
the
whole
purpose
of
the
possibility
of
increasing
the
height
limit.
K
That
said,
we
have
already
done
a
lot
and
we
haven't
had
a
chance
to
actually
see
the
results
of
the
changes
that
we've
already
made,
and
one
of
the
developers
said
that
you
know
the
downtown
is
dead,
it's
horrible,
it
hasn't
changed
in
10
years
or
it's
gotten
worse.
I've
lived
here
for
10
years,
it's
changed
a
lot
and
it
hasn't
gotten
worse
and
we
have
oku
restaurant
coming
in.
K
We
have
the
jacks
beach
town
center
moving
in
development
is
happening,
and
some
of
the
adjustments
that
we've
made
at
the
edges,
for
example
outdoor
seating
being
able
to
be
included
for
a
restaurant
to
be
able
to
get
a
little
license.
We
haven't
been
able
to
see
what
the
fruits
of
those
changes
are
for
our
downtown.
K
So
I
think
that
this
is
a
highly
sensitive
topic
and
one
that
it's
going
to
take
a
lot
of
give
and
take
with
the
residents
or
the
voters
to
get
them
to
a
place
where
they
are
comfortable
with
it,
and
we
are
comfortable
with
it
for
it
to
even
get
to
the
ballot.
C
C
C
These
developments
didn't
come
in
or
these
restaurants
didn't
come
in
dumont
brought
a
good
point
last
week
was
about
the
parking
they
brought
it
neptune,
beach
and
atlanta.
Beach
is
always
brought
up
about
downtown
jacksonville
beach.
People
always
say
that
they
don't
want
to
go
to
downtown
jacks
beach,
because
there's
nothing
to
do
it's
only
for
the
kids
at
nighttime,
I
go
to
neptune
beach
and
they
don't
have
any
parking
restrictions.
C
Have
we
looked
into
that?
Maybe
that's
another
issue,
that's
holding
back
on
to
where
we're
trying
to
get
to
as
a
vibrant,
downtown
community
without
being
fort
lauderdale,
and
obviously
I
don't
want
downtown
to
be
downtown
fort
lauderdale
or
miami
beach,
so
when
a
resident
says
that
obviously
that's
their
that's
their
their
passion
and
that's
how
they
should
feel.
But
I
just
want
them
to
know
that
we
as
council,
I
believe,
we're
not
trying
to
be
miami
beach,
we're
trying
to
be
jacksonville
beach
and
be
unique.
C
The
only
thing
is
we're
trying
to
come
with
a
good
solution
for
downtown
jacksonville
beach,
because
it's
some
restaurants
are
coming,
but
I
think
there's
so
much
potential
for
downtown
jacksonville
beach.
So
I
think
there's
a
conversation
we
should
still
continue
to
have
and
I
could
go
either
way,
but
I
just
want
downtown
to
thrive.
That's
all.
H
You
know
I
I
was
not
surprised
that
that
there
was
some
vocal
people
that
in
that
meeting,
that
were
against
it
that
were
very
instrumental
in
in
establishing
the
35
foot
height
restriction
throughout
honestly.
I
know
the
76
percent
keeps
coming
up,
but
you
know
you
sell
something
as
we
don't
want
to
be
daytona
beach.
I'm
surprised
I
didn't
get
100
of
the
vote.
H
I
think
that
what
we're
doing
I,
I
don't
think
you
can
really
take
much
from
that
workshop,
because
the
people
that
are
there
are
vested
in
this
highly
vested
in
this
specific
issue,
I
think,
as
a
city,
we've
done
a
lot
to
really
hone
down
a
very
reasonable
request
to
be
able
to
do
this.
I
disagree
that
we'll
open
up
a
can
of
worms
to
stuff
higher
than
55
feet.
It
would
have
to
go
back
to
another
referendum.
H
I
think
the
we
have
had
the
mayor
and
everybody
else
has
done
a
lot
of
community
meetings
and
this
actually
came
directly
out
of
community
meetings
on
how
we
we
fix
and
enhance
our
downtown
business
district,
to
make
it
a
vibrant
community
for
our
residents.
H
I
I
think
that
that
there
was
a
couple
statements
made
by
those
that
were
opposed
to
this.
That
were
just
just
absolutely
incorrect
and
I
you
know
I
feel,
like
you
know.
H
I
think
the
way
to
get
the
consensus
of
the
residents
is
to
put
it
on
the
ballot
and,
let's
see
what
the
residents
say,
I've
been
working,
you
know,
prior
to
being
on
council,
I
was
on
the
cra,
and
this
is
one
of
the
big
limiting
challenges
that
were
placed
on
our
downtown
and
we
really
have
not
had
very
much
development
at
all
over
the
last
17
years.
H
So
I'm
not
opposed
to
putting
it
on
the
ballot
with
minor
tweaks
to
it.
I,
if
we
kick
it
down
the
road,
you
know
we're
gonna,
be
in
the
same
situation
years
from
now,
and
our
cra
has
an
expiration
date
on
it
and
we
need
to
get
this.
We
need
to
get
this
moving,
it's
what
you
know.
We
need
to
get
this
going.
Otherwise,
it's
going
to
be
looking
almost
the
exact
same
17
years
from
now.
E
H
J
Thank
you.
So
this
was
brought
up.
J
This
was
brought
up
in
some
of
our
previous
discussions
and
it
was
brought
up
in
the
community
meeting
or
the
open
house
and
and
mr
meza
brought
it
up
as
well,
and
that
is
is
height
really
the
thing
that
is
going
to
fix
the
issues
in
our
downtown
area
or.
J
And
parking
keeps
coming
up
and
there
were
references.
You
know
too
about
the
atlantic,
beach,
neptune
beach
town
center,
and
how
and
and
I
you
know-
I
go
there-
I
know
a
lot
of
other
people
who
go
there
because
you
know
there
are.
There
are
places
there
that
we
want
to
go
to
and
in
all
honesty,
the
neptune,
beach
and
atlanta
beach
town
center
has
nowhere
near
the
parking
that
we
have
in
our
central
business
district.
So
how
is
it?
J
Now
I
know
that
we
did
reduce
the
parking
requirements
for
the
central
business
district
several
years
ago.
This
was
prior
to
charlie
latham,
I
think,
being
on
being
the
mayor.
So
this
was
back
in
the
you
know
before
2012.
J
and
neptune
beach.
Their
code
does
reduce
the
parking
requirement
in
the
central
business
district
by
50
percent,
and
what
I
found
interesting
too,
is
that
their
parking
requirement
for
restaurants
is
based
off
of
seats
and
not
based
off
of
square
footage.
So
and
whereas
ours
is
based
off
of
square
footage
versus
seats,
so
anyway,
there's
definite,
there's
definite
differences
there,
and
my
thinking
is
that
you
know
again
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
the
land
development
code.
Updating
the
land
development
code.
J
Benefit
the
central
business
district
and
maybe-
and
maybe
it
is
parking
related
and
maybe
but
but
the
question
is:
is
it
really
height?
Is
it
really
height
that
needs
to
change
what
what
needs
to
change?
Now?
I
understand
that
there
was
a
survey
done
and
I
don't
know
has
anybody
gone
over
the
results
of
that
survey
from
the
businesses
to
you
know.
I
think
that
heather
was
going
to
find
out
from
the
businesses
what
they
felt
the
roadblocks
were,
and
so
I
would
like
to
hear
that
as
well.
J
But
personally
for
me
you
know
I
I
I'm
I'm
not
sure
that
we
should
hang
our
hat
on
one
thing:
that
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
have.
J
We
have
more
information
and
I'm
not
sure
that
the
height
is
you
look
at
neptune,
beach
and
atlantic
beach.
All
of
their
development
in
that
town
center
is
less
than
35
feet,
yet
they
stay
busy.
They're
thriving
they're,
it's
active
all
times
of
the
day,
so
you
know
again.
I
can't
you
know.
I
can't
justify
that
height
is
really
what
makes
the
difference,
because
it
certainly
isn't
isn't
anything
that's
affecting
atlantic
beach.
J
Neptune,
beach,
town
center
area
so,
and
the
only
other
thing
I
would
bring
up
is
that
that
I
heard
at
the
at
the
community
meeting
is
that
you
know
there
was
some
concern
about
the
criteria
and
the
criteria
changing
and
that
being
something
that
you
know
is,
I
I
don't
know
it
seems
like
citizens
would
would
be
concerned
that
any
time
down
the
road
that
the
cra
or
the
city
council
could
totally
revise
that
criteria
and
and
really
the
and
that
could
be
done
by
a
vote
of
four
people.
J
So
that's
another
thing
that
I
think
we
need
to
put
out
on
the
table
as
well.
G
So
a
few
things
one
when
it
comes
to
the
change
of
the
criteria.
Right
now
you
know
you're
you're,
saying
a
vote
of
four
people.
We
could
always
make
a
super
majority
if
you
wanted
to,
and
that
way
most
the
council
agrees
with
it,
but
weighing
in
on
the
comment
of
it's
just
height,
I
I
think
it's
not
just
height.
I
think
it's
the
it's
a
it's
a
symbiotic
relationship
between
a
developer
and
the
city,
so
you
want
to
go
up.
You
have
to
give
the
city
something
in
return.
G
If
it
was
just
height,
then
we
would
put
a
referendum
out
there
saying
hey.
We
want
to
increase
the
height
to
this
limit.
I
think
the
the
verbage
that's
in
place
that
sits
on
its
own.
The
restriction
is
still
35
feet
unless
you're
providing
something
an
incentive
to
the
city,
and
it's
that
incentive
that's
going
to
help
build
our
downtown
one
of
the
few
council
members
sitting
right
now,
that's
been
here
since
19.
I
think
we
moved
down
here
in
1972.
G
I
think
we're
on
the
cusp
of
an
opportunity
to
do
something
with
our
downtown
that
has
been
stale
for
the
past
17
years,
and
I
do
agree
with
council
member
dumont
in
the
in
the
case
of
education,
because
my
takeaway
from
the
meeting
the
other
night
was,
I
hear.
Well,
we
don't
want
high
rises
and
again
I
don't
agree
that
55
feet
is
as
a
high
rise.
B
To
answer
kind,
somewhat
answer:
counselor
golding's
question
the
current
cra
agenda
packet.
I
don't
remember
the
meeting
date.
I
can
look
at
it.
What
I
don't
know
if
it's
on
the
page-
I
don't
know,
but
here
it
is
the
one
for
monday
january
24th
has
the
survey
results.
I
was
just.
I
was
actually
looking
at
it
earlier
this
week.
Whenever
it
got
posted
and
the
height
isn't
in
there.
B
The
height
question
is
that
was
wasn't
in
the
survey
couple
other
things,
but
also
just
to
note
they
didn't
get
a
great
response.
It
only
got
about
five
percent
response,
so
I
I
don't
say
I
guess,
take
the
whole
survey
for
what
you
will
with
such
a
small
response
rate,
but
yeah.
It
does
mention,
there's
a
lot
of
great
knowledge
in
there
about
what
the
respondents
would
like
to
see.
Even
at
such
a
small
respondent
base.
B
B
I
think
that's
something
that
we
really
need
to
look
at,
but
I
think
we
really
need
to
look
at
a
lot
of
this
comprehensively
of
the
whole
downtown
and
not
just
one
project
but
the
whole
downtown
and
creating
a
mixed-use
environment.
And
why
is
that
not
happening?
And
I
said
it
way
back
when
when
we
started
talking
about
this,
but
I
think
two
of
our
best
resources
that
I
don't
think
we've
tapped
into
is
nefa
and
nephar
and
the
people
that
are
in
the
industry.
B
I
personally
have
a
lot
of
contacts
with
developers
because
my
dad's
been
doing
it
since
1968
or
so
been
been.
You
know
owned.
His
own
development
company
did
projects
all
over
jacksonville
from
apartments
to
golf
course:
communities
we
owned
a
home
building
company,
so
I
personally
have
a
lot
of
contacts,
but
I
think
I
think
it
would
be
beneficial
for
all
of
us
to
hear
from
those
people
and
not
just
me
hearing
from
those
people,
because
I
I
can.
B
I
talk
to
them
a
lot
and-
and
I
know
what
they're
saying,
but
I
I
think
it
would
be
beneficial
for
them
to
talk
to
all
of
us.
One
thing
that
I
really
it
just
it
just
hurt
it
hurt
for
the
couple
weeks
until
the
workshop
was
just
the
misinformation
that
was
out
there
on
facebook,
the
emails
that
we
all
received
on
the
misinformation
I
mean
everybody
thought
like
they
didn't
realize
that
this
was
a
the
central
business
district
b.
B
It's
an
incentive
and
it's
not
just
a
blanket,
and
I
don't
know-
and
I
think
that's
something
that
you
know
the
the
community-
I'm
not
surprised
that
so
many
people
were
opposed
at
the
community
open
house
based
on
all
the
misinformation
that
I
saw
out
there.
I
saw
it
on
facebook.
I
saw
it
everywhere,
you
could
imagine
half
of
half
the
people
didn't
know
that,
or
I
would
say
more
than
half
the
people
didn't
know
that
this
is
a
community
vote
and
not
the
seven
of
us
voting,
which
is
super
important.
B
They
think
they
they
think
we're
just
going
to
make
this
change
and
and
when
it's
actually,
they
have
the
power.
The
community.
The
residents
have
the
power
in
this
vote,
so
I
think
well,
I
do
think
height
and
parking
are
two
of
the
biggest
ones.
I
think
community
support,
which
is
also
a
perceived
hurdle
to
development
redevelopment
or
growth
downtown
based
off
the
survey
is
huge,
I
think
the
community,
the
will.
It
says,
willingness,
slash
community
support.
I
think
this
or
the
our
organization.
B
The
people
here
are
willing
to
to
try
to
improve
the
city,
we're
all
willing
and
in
supporting
of
improving
the
city.
That's
why
we're
all
here
on
this
on
the
zoom
tonight,
but
I
think
we
and
and
the
whole
city
and
as
a
whole
needs
to
get
community
support
to
make
our
downtown
the
epicenter
of
jacksonville
beach.
I
think
that's
one
of
the
big
things
that
is,
that
is
lacking,
and
it's
it's
very
apparent
by
all
the
misinformation.
B
That's
out
there,
so
I
I,
while
I
still
support
the
bonus,
I
think
that
we
really
need
to.
I
don't
think
I
don't
think.
Personally,
I
don't
think
it's
right
for
this
election.
I
personally
think
we
really
need
to
take
a
hard
look.
Get
the
experts
involved
parking,
how
to
create
a
mixed-use
environment.
B
It's
in
our
comp
plan,
it's
in
the
downtown
plan,
it's
in
the
shepherd
plan,
which
is
about
the
only
plan
that
we
have
for
the
downtown
and
also
we
need
to
look
at
our
cra,
I'm
sorry
for
being
long-winded,
but
we
need
to
look
at
our
cra
for
the
future
because
in
you
know
this
two
two
more
to
I
guess
three
more
to
seven
more
to
x,
number
of
years
more
all
of
us
will
not
be
on
this
body
and
there
will
be
more
counselors.
B
There
will
be
different
cra
members
and
do
do
they
have
the
vision
and
do
they
have
these
the
strategic
plan
that
we've
developed?
Will
they
continue
that
and
really
enhance
the
downtown,
like
the
seven
of
us
want
and
like
the
seven
of
us,
have
talked
about
and
really
invested
a
lot
of
time
into?
B
So
I
I
I
think
the
future
yeah
is
is
uncertain.
Years
ago
we
talked
about
atlantic
beach
years,
that's
that
was
developed
years
ago
because
they
had
the
vision
and
the
people
at
that
time
wanted
to
create
a
really
nice
epicenter
growing
up
here
I
remember
owls,
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
All
that
was
down
there
and
and
now
that
now
we're
kind
of
sitting
here
wondering
how
to
do
the
same
when
property
values
have
skyrocketed
when
the
whole
identity
of
the
beaches
has
changed.
So
I
I
really
am
it's
more.
B
Does
the
cra
have
the
ability
to
really
implement
this
as
we
want
and
and
all
of
those
kind
of
other
things?
How
do
we
get
the
community
behind
creating
the
downtown
that
they
all
say
that
they
want
based
on
the
community
visions?
How
do
we?
How
do
we
really
get
everybody
bought
in
on
that
when
we
know
that
that's
a
desire,
but
the
misinformation
is,
is
out
there.
A
Oh,
you
guys
have
probably
heard
enough
out
of
me
on
this
issue.
Thank
you
for
attending
and
participating
in
the
workshop
a
couple
of
things
that
I
came
away
with,
not
really
any
big
surprises,
but
one
I
think
I've
heard
it
already
is
that
the
message
is
already
lost.
We
saw
that
with
our
with
our
email,
inboxes
and
things
that
people
thought
we
were
just
gonna
turn
this
into
daytona
and
don't
undo
what
we
did
and
it's
really
hard
to
overcome
such
an
emotional
issue.
A
There
was
a
lot
of
emotion
in
that
room,
a
lot
of
slippery
slope
arguments,
and
I
just
that
just
the
fear
and
really
distrust,
and
I
I
you
could
tell
that
there
was
suspicion
that
well
you
say
that
now,
but
that's
not
what
it's
really
going
to
be,
and
one
thing
I
was
glad
that
we
were
able
to
do
at
that
workshop
was
to
list
out
the
properties
that
sued
the
city
after
the
height
amendment
was
passed
and
won,
because
a
lot
of
people
have
used
margaritaville
as
an
example
of
what
will
come
if
we
do
this
and
margaritaville
is
not
an
example
of
that.
A
It's
not
even
close
margaritaville
is
an
example
of
what
happens
when
you
sue
and
win
and
you're
going
to
build
to
the
height
that
you've
been
given
by
a
judge.
So
that's
not
at
all
what
we're
talking
about.
The
other
argument
was
that
we
were
just
giving
you
kind
of
giving
away
the
farm
to
developers.
I
also
don't
subscribe
to
that.
A
I
think
this
is
giving
us,
as
the
governmental
entity,
an
opportunity
to
bring
developers
to
the
table
to
have
them,
invest
in
the
kind
of
projects
that
we
want
to
see,
and
not
just
we
seven,
but
we
as
representatives
of
our
community
and
what
we
are
hearing
and
what
we
were
talking
to
people
about
every
day
that
they
want
our
downtown
to
look
like.
I
was
very
glad
that
sunny
bika
was
there
because
I
think
his
hotel
at
beach
and
third.
A
I
have
never
heard
more
comments
on
a
building
structure
in
our
community
than
that
one,
and
I
think
it's
a
perfect
example
of
what
else
could
he
have
done
with
two
more
floors?
He
could
have
really
made
that
a
special
place
and,
and
it's
beautiful
on
the
inside
and
I'm
sure
it's
going
to
be
a
wonderful
enhancement
and
place
for
people
to
stay,
but
that's
all
it
is
there's
nowhere
to
go
eat.
A
There's,
there's
no
public
amenities
so
and
he's
the
type
of
property
owner
that
would
have
been
perfect
to
sit
down
at
the
table
with
and
figure
out
how
to
make
a
more
creative
project.
If
we
had
something
to
offer
offer
him,
I
don't
really.
I
I've
always
looked
at
town
center
in
neptune
and
atlantic
beach
is
as
something
that
I
want
us
to
be,
but
more
and
more
the
more
I
see
our
community
and
look
at
other
communities.
A
It's
apples
and
oranges
and
those
are
those
are
tiny
restaurants,
tiny
parcels
compared
to
what
we're
dealing
with
in
jacksonville
beach.
You
also
in
that
redevelopment
chad
alluded
to
it.
There
were
very
few
property
owners
that
were
involved.
There's
a
couple
couple:
major
property
owners
that
were
able
to
kind
of
make
make
the
calls
and
set
things
up
how
they
wanted
to.
So
I
just
don't.
I
think
it's
it's
apples
to
apples
to
compare
us
to
to
the
beaches
town
center,
so
we
have
several
different
developers.
A
We
have
big
pieces
of
property,
we
have
a
much
larger
square
footage
in
our
downtown
area
and,
and
we
have
an
opportunity
more
be
more
creative.
I
don't
think
height
is
what
makes
a
difference.
I
think
height
can
make
a
big
difference
in
helping
draw
in
what
we
want.
I
think
parking
is
also
a
big
part
of
that.
A
If
we,
however,
we
go
forward
if
we
do
want
to
keep
pushing
forward
with
this,
I
would
say
that
we
definitely
need
to
do
another
public
workshop
and
fill
in
some
of
the
blanks
that
we
had
on
our
slides
as
far
as
the
criteria,
because,
again
that
distrust-
and
that
you
know
well,
who
fills
in
those
blanks
when
do
those
get
filled
in
is,
is
an
issue,
and
I
think
it's
going
to
be
a
challenge
to
overcome,
not
just
with
the
the
people
who
are
who
are
interested
enough
to
come
in
and
attend
a
meeting,
but
also,
ultimately,
the
voters
should
go
there.
H
H
You
know
a
lot
of
people
keep
saying
that
look
at
atlantic
beach
and
neptune
beach
they've
been
successful
without
height,
and
I
you
know
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
one
ocean
is
their
largest
economic
generator
and
they're
about
100
feet
without
one
ocean.
I
think
it
would
be
and
previous
I
believe
it
was
oh
gosh,
sea
turtles
there
you
go
that
without
that
that
they
would
have
more
of
a
challenge
they
do.
H
They
are
able
to
get
a
lot
of
residents
to
that
area,
and
I
think
you
know
trying
to
figure
out
how
we
get
our
residents
from
acro
on
the
other
side
of
third
street.
To
here
I
think
that's
important
for
us.
I
think
that
you
know
back
to
the
small
locally
owned
businesses
where,
if
you
have
a
neighbor
that
has
a
restaurant
or
ice
cream
shop
or
any
kind
of
store
in
our
downtown
business
district
that
do
the
cra
we
are
able
to
incentivize
and
some
in
some
ways
to
help
determine
what
goes
down
there.
H
H
If
this
does
pass,
it
would
still
have
to
go
before
multiple
entities
and
to
where
the
the
community
would
have
multiple
times
to
be
able
to
voice
their
opinion
at
about
each
individual
project.
That
came
up.
H
So
it's
disheartening
to
me
that
I
get
the
feeling
that
the
residents
are
so
distrustable
of
counsel
that
that
and
the
cra
and
the
process
that
we
put,
I
mean
I
put
hundreds
and
hundreds
of
personal
hours
into
what
is
going
to
make
our
downtown
business
district
a
a
a
light
for
our
community,
and
I
think
this
is
one
of
the
tools
that
needs
to
be
used.
H
It
is
the
misinformation
like
council
member
stokes
put
out,
there
is
dramatic
and
I
think
messaging
has
to
be
has
to
be
created
that
will
properly
inform
the
the
our
constituents
of
what
we
are
really
trying
to
do.
I
agree
with
often
that
we
do
need
to
have
you
know
more
meetings.
It
might
not
be
this
next
election
that
it's
on
I
mean
I
mean
we
may
have
an
august
election.
H
We
may
have
a
november
election,
we'll
have
a
november
election
we'll
have
a
march
election
there's
plenty
elections
to
get
it
on,
but
I
really
feel
like
this
is
a
critical
key
to
moving
forward
and
I
think
at
55
feet.
It
is
not
asking
much
and
it's
something
that
I
would
like
to.
I
would
like
the
residents
and
voters
to
have
it
have
a
say
on
if
this
is
something
they
want
to
do.
C
Yeah,
I
agree
with
chad.
I
think
there
was
a
lot
of
misinformation
and,
with
the
mayor
said
that
the
message
was
lost.
I
think
we
all
and
even
mayor
hoffman
she's
made
everyone
agree
that
no
more
high
rises
and
everybody
you
know
not
on
their
head.
Yes,
we
don't
want
any
more
of
this,
and
I
and
also
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
people
got
lost
once
she
started
explaining
that
it's
not
going
to
be
straight
up
up
and
down
square
block,
a
big
box
of
55.
C
I
just
there's
some
things
here
that
just
immense
information,
it's
just
horrible
we're,
definitely
not
the
body
of
government
that
we're
trying
to
take
over
and
make
this
place
worse.
We
want
to
make
it
better
and
I
know
I'm
con
we're
listening
to
to
the
citizens
of
jacksonville
beach,
so
yeah.
That's
it.
K
Thank
you.
I
don't
know
if
it's
it's
not
misinformation.
It's
misunderstanding.
The
information,
it's
not
as
though
reputable
sources
of
information
are
saying
we're
going
to
go
into
high-rises
and
it's
going
to
be
throughout
the
city
or
anything.
I
know
when
I
let
them
know
that
this
is
happening.
I'm
like
it's
in
the
central
business
district,
second
to
the
second
south,
to
sixth
north
east
of
third
and
maximum
55,
with
four
incentives.
K
So
it
it
it's
how
people
are
interpreting
it,
so
that
goes
back
to
the
message
is
lost
and
when
you're
looking
at
the
messages
lost
in
the
cycles
that
you
have
to
go
through
november
would
not
be
a
good
time.
So
there
are
a
couple
issues
here
between
so
I
I
personally
don't
think
that
it
can.
It
should
go
on
a
november
ballot
if
we
push
it
to
a
spring
ballot.
The
jacksonville
elections,
an
issue
that
we
have
is
extremely
low
voter
turnout.
K
On
the
flip
side,
we
might
get
a
high
voter
turnout,
so
it
depends
on
who
you
want
to
win
the
mayoral
race
and
who's
going
to
show
up
to
our
election.
That,
I
think,
is
what
we
need
to
actually
not
our
mayor,
the
the
jacksonville
one
that
you
need
to
be
thinking
about.
K
Because
we'd
be
pushing
this
off
to
2324
we'd,
also
be
at
that
time.
Looking
at
the
ldc
and
the
parking
issue
and
being
able
to
make
adjustments-
and
we
don't
have
to
wait
to
the
full
revisal
for
the
the
full
revision
of
the
ldc
to
ask
planning
and
development
to
really
look
at
how
we
can
adjust
the
parking
requirements
in
this
downtown
business
district
to
try
and
promote
businesses
and
development.
K
It's
it's
maybe
once-
and
this
is
you
know-
maybe
once
I
heard
height
has
been
the
issue.
The
issue
I
have
heard
repeatedly
has
always
been
parking,
so
we
brought
up
the
mayor
brought
up
sonny's
property,
the
element,
and
he
also
agrees
that
if
he
didn't
have
to
provide
as
many
parking
spots,
he
would
have
been
able
to
do
a
lot
more
with
that
property
than
what
he
was
able
to
do.
So
it
wasn't
just
height.
It
was
the
parking
that
hemmed
them
in.
So
it's
the
double
whammy
of
parking
and
height.
K
That's
really
constraining
a
lot
of
development.
How
we're
hoping
to
how
we
hope
it
would
be
so
since
this
meeting
is
really
about
the
charter
revision.
For
the
2022
ballot,
what
I'm
hearing
is
a
lot
of
us
think
that
we
are
not
ready.
We
as
council,
and
we
as
a
city
and
as
voters,
are
ready
to
address
this
issue
in
november
and
to
bring
it
up
in
the
spring
summer
or
the
fall
might
be
a
better
time.
K
So
we
can
get
more
input
from
citizens
and
get
them
to
understand
a
lot
of
what
it
is
that
this
proposal
really
has
so
councilmember
golding
noted
there
was
concern
about
the
criteria
that
could
change
and
that's
something
that
I
brought
up.
So
we
are
the
the
way
the
ballot
language
currently
stands
is
it
would
go
to
the
ballot
that
the
criteria
you
know
based
on
the
criteria?
The
only
part
in
the
amendment
as
currently
proposed
is
the
the
boundaries
for
the
cra
are
tied
to
2022
january
1.
K
I
mean
it's
emblematic
of
the
distrust
of
people
and
government
throughout
the
country,
but
what's
unique
here
and
sad
here
is
that
so
many
times
it
because
and
it's
not
because
of
you
know
dark
forces
or
anything
else.
It's.
It
was
lack
of
clear
communication
between
government
and
residents
that
people
thought
things
were
going
to
go
one
way
and
then
something
it's
built.
K
So
we
really
need
to
work
with
our
residents,
get
them
to
get
them
to
one
comment
on
what
it
is
that
they're
worried
about.
So
we
all
agree
that
it's
not
going
to
be
daytona
beach
or
miami
beach,
but
what
is
it
that
they
mean
when
they
say
that
we
don't
want
to
be
miami
beach
or
daytona
beach?
I
it's
not
that
the
high
rises
they
mean
a
different
feel
for
a
community
and
and
that's
something
that
really
takes
a
lot
more
time
than
one
workshop.
H
I'm
going
to
have
to
disagree
with
council
member
dumont
for
a
couple
different
reasons.
I
think
we
have
shown
as
a
council
over
the
last
since
mayor
stavopoulos
is
here
that
we
have
inc
dramatically
increased
transparency
within
our
within
our
government
with
our
youtube
channel,
we
their
social
media.
If
you
go
back
to
2004
or
whatever
the
height
restriction
put
in
there
was,
there
was
no.
There
was
very
little
trust
of
the
of
the
council
at
the
time
and
there
was
no
transparency.
H
You
know,
I
think
we
are
able
to
message
out
to
the
community
better
through
our
facebook
pages
and
other
other
information
with
I.
I
do
not
agree
that
that
november
is
off
the
is
too
soon
to
have
this
that's
10
months
away
we
could
potentially
have.
H
We
can
have
multiple
open
houses
to
discuss
this
issue
between
now
and
then
I
guess
my
question
for
the
city
manager
is:
when
is
the
drop
dead
date
that
we
would
have
to
have
in
order
to
make
a
decision
to
put
this
on
the
on
the
november
ballot?
Because
I
do
agree
that
one
thing
I
do
agree
is
that
you
know
I'd
like
to
see
it
at
a
one
where
there's
higher
voter
turnout.
I
think
that
that
would
be
a
positive,
but
I'm
not
concerned,
I
mean
in
10
months.
H
F
Yeah
I'll
chime
in
and
the
good
news
is,
I
know,
we've
got
the
city
clerk
on
the
line
too
sherry
gosselin.
She
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
believe
the
supervisor
of
election
needs
the
ballot
initiative
language
by
the
beginning
of
may
now,
keeping
in
mind
that
that
language
also
needs
to
be
adopted
by
ordinance
by
the
city
council.
F
F
The
city
council
would
need
to
be
quote
unquote
done
with
all
their
conversation
with
the
community
and
locked
in
on
what
the
language
of
the
ballot
is
going
to
look
like,
given
that
it's
currently
january
20th
you're
talking
about
a
60-day
window
to
hold
conversations
with
the
community
and
try
to
hone
that
language
a
little
bit
tighter
or
or
or
get
it
to
a
point
where
it
reaches
community
support.
F
I
do
not
know
if
60
days
is
the
right
amount
of
time
to
have
the
level
of
conversation
with
the
community.
That's
needed
to
really
understand
what
their
concerns
are
and
make
sure
that
the
language
of
the
ballot
initiative
is
sculpted
in
such
a
way
that
not
only
do
they
understand
it,
but
that
it
meets
their
needs
to
be
able
to
vote
in
the
affirmative
on
it.
F
So
with
that
being
said,
I
know
that
some
of
you
have
talked
about
a
future
ballot
instead
of
the
one
in
november.
I
think
that
may
be
more
plausible,
based
on
the
level
of
conversation
that
might
be
needed.
This
last
works.
This
last
workshop
or
open
house
that
we
held
did
not
have
what
I
would
consider
to
be
a
high
turnout
from
the
community.
F
I
do
not
know
how
many
individual
communications
you
had
with
with
residents,
either
in
person
by
email,
phone
etc,
but
clearly,
when
you
talk
about
a
community
of
23
000
having
a
room
with
maybe
25
to
30
people
in
it
to
talk
about,
the
topic
is
just
starting
to
scratch.
The
surface.
H
And
living
and
living
in
pure,
I'm
sorry
and
living
in
pure
point,
I
mean
there
was
a
quick
push
with
some
information
that
people
were
against
it
and
once
I
explained
it
to
them
like
oh
okay,
that
makes
sense
that
makes
sense.
So
I
think
that
there
would
be
support
there
would
be
support
from
here.
H
I
would
like
to
if,
if
we
don't
do
november,
I
think
our
goal
should
be
spring
of
2023,
which
would
give
us
an
additional
four
months,
so
that's
six
months
to
develop
a
a
kind
of
an
addendum
to
a
ballot
initiative.
I
think
that
is
substantial,
substantial
amount
of
time
to
be
able
to
resolve
this
at
least
get
it
on
ballot
and,
like
I
said
by
getting
on
ballot,
that
means
we're
letting
our
we're
letting
the
residents
vote
on
it.
We're
not
we're
not
saying
we're
going
to
do
this
or
not.
H
F
K
I
I'm
sorry
if
I
did
not
state
this
clearly
when
I
said
that
lack
of
communication-
I'm
not
talking
about
our
current
time
I
mean
historically,
and
that
historical
distrust
is
what
we
see
or
what
we
saw
on
that
in
our
last
community
meeting
on
height
there
it's
a
historical
issue
and
if
you
can't
go
back
and
change
that
we
are
working
on
making
it
better
and
we're
doing
a
great
job,
but
you
could
send
out
a
message
saying
we
want
to
do
this
people
because
of
their
past
experiences
are
thinking
yeah,
that's
what
they
say,
but
then
this
is
what's
really
going
to
happen,
and
that
is
not
what
we
are
trying
to
do
here.
K
We
really
want
to
engage
the
community.
We
want
to
hear
your
input.
We
want
you
to
understand
what
some
of
these
proposals
are
and
how
you
see
some,
what
you
see
as
some
issues
that
concern
you
and
what
you
are
comfortable
with
and
how
we
get
to
that
middle
ground.
So
I'm
not
talking
about
with
us
right
now
not
provide
like
where
we're
making
them
distrustful.
I'm
saying
that
there
is
this
historic
distrust,
that's
amplified
by
the
state
and
the
national
distrust
of
government,
and
that's
something
that
we
really
have
to
work
hard
on.
D
D
Okay,
so
I
think
I
mentioned
this
last
time,
but
I
have,
I
think,
it'd
be
fair
to
say,
substantial
experience
in
this
area
regarding
bonuses
and
incentives
and
what
I
would
say
picking
up
on
miss
dumont's
comments
and
like
I
apologize,
I
think
if
someone
call
you
doctored
him
on
it,
if
I'm
screwing
that
up,
I
apologize,
I
want
to
whatever.
D
I
appreciate
that
yeah,
my
my
wife
doesn't
really
like
being
mrs
cliff
shepard
either.
So
her
name
is
mary,
so
here's
the
thing
first,
the
distrust
that
you
see
on
a
national
basis
or
a
statewide
basis
is
absolutely
in
every
locality.
It
is
not
unique
to
jack's
beach
if
this
was
atlantic.
If
this
was
in
the
neptune,
it
was
in
fernadina
if
it
was
in
ponce
inlet
trust
me,
distrust
is
everywhere,
so
I
I
point
that
out
to
you
so
that
you
don't
feel
like.
D
Oh
it's
just
something:
that's
happened
by
our
predecessors
to
create
it.
I
don't
know
where
it
came
from,
but
it
ain't
unique
and
the
second
thing
I
I
think
that
that
you
need
to
understand
about
specifically
this
area
is
the
misunderstanding,
and
I
will
go
ahead
and
say
it
if
nobody
else
here
can,
because
I'm
not
running
for
anything.
D
The
willful
misunderstanding
of
what
is
actually
being
done
is
a
factor,
and
it
is
a
factor
in
every
jurisdiction
where
this
has
come
up,
because
people
who
have
inherent
vices
against
an
idea
are
not
willingly
going
to
be
changed
by
someone
telling
them
they're
mistaken.
It
is
impossible
to
do
that.
It
is
a.
It
is
a
fool's
errand
to
try
to
think
that
someone
who
says
height
is
bad
can
have
their
mind
changed
by
saying.
No,
you
don't
get
it.
D
That's
not
going
to
happen,
but
what
might
happen
if
you
can
agree
on
what
the
message
is
not
on
what
the
outcome
should
be,
but
on
what
the
message
is:
there's
at
least
a
chance
that
you
can
do
some
re-education
in
a
way
that
is
non-threatening.
So
people
have
a
more
of
an
opportunity
or
willingness
to
listen.
What
do
I
mean
by
agreeing
on
the
message?
Well,
one
of
the
things
that
mr
nichols
said
that
is
100
accurate
is
whether
it's
a
bonus
or
incentive
for
height
or
density.
D
D
I
hope
I
never
have
to
pick
them
up,
but
I
have
a
toolbox
and
they
have
hammers
because,
frankly,
I
don't
like
banging
my
finger
so
having
the
tool
is
not
the
enemy
not
knowing
how
to
use
the
tool
properly
is
the
enemy
and
that's
what
the
people
should
fear
as
opposed
to
the
tool
itself.
D
Now,
when
I
say
agreement
on
the
message,
then
what
I
hear
and
what
is
very
standard
in
this
conversation
when
it
comes
up,
is
that
what
we're
thinking
is.
We
want
something
special
for
our
community
and
the
best
way
to
pay
for
it
without
raising
tax
dollars
to
pay,
for
it
is
to
incentivize
a
developer.
Who
has
an
economic
incentive
to
give
us
something
of
value
to
us
worth
x
in
exchange
for
something
to
the
developer?
That
is
worth
why,
and
so
you
monetize
the
thing
that
you
want
and
then
essentially
say.
D
If
you
give
us
a
park,
if
you
give
us
a
rooftop
restaurant,
if
you
get
well,
I
don't
know
what
it
is
that
you
want,
and
that's
going
to
be.
My
next
point,
then,
if
you
will
do
this
thing,
maybe
you
need
a
regional
retention
pond
again,
I
don't
know
what
you
need
or
what
you
want,
what
the
goal
is
or
the
vision,
but
whatever
it
is.
D
In
order
to
get
that
thing,
you
incentivize
the
developer
to
provide
it
at
the
developers
cost,
because
over
the
long
term,
they
can
monetize
their
development
by
greater
height,
more
density,
more
commercial
space
or
whatever.
The
issue
is
so
that's
when
I
say
agreement
on
the
message.
That's
the
thing
that
you
all
need
to
agree
on.
You
do
not
have
to
agree
whether
it's
a
good
idea,
but
in
order
to
accurately
get
an
assessment
from
the
public,
but
what
the
public
wants.
D
The
second
thing
is
again:
it
is
completely
okay
to
disagree.
That's
what
you're
elected
to
do
to
disagree
about
whether
it's
good
or
bad,
not
about
what,
if
you
want
the
actual
community's
input
for
what
the
community
actually
thinks.
You've
got
to
present
the
message
as
the
same
message
and
then
feel
free
to
disagree
about
whether
it
should
be
done
or
not
so
in
in
delivering
this
to
you
in
this
way,
I'm
not
telling
you
it's
good
or
bad.
D
I'm
telling
you
at
least
understand
what
it
is:
you're
trying
to
get
people
to
understand
so
that
you're
not
giving
mixed
messages.
We
can
agree
on
whether
eight
o'clock
is
a
good
bedtime
for
children
or
nine
o'clock,
but
at
least
we
know
we're
talking
about
bedtime
and
that's
what
I'm
saying.
So,
if
you
want
to
then
start
repackaging
this
in
a
way
that
will,
I
think,
perhaps
bear
fruit
to
get
to
the
root
of
what
does
the
community
actually
want?
D
If
you
haven't
already
done
so,
and
maybe
you
have
you
need
to
talk
about
what
it
is
that
you
want,
but,
most
importantly,
what
it
is
the
community
wants
without
regard
to
bonuses.
So
if
the
community
says
one
workshop
might
go
like
this,
what
would
you
like
to
see
in
the
downtown
business?
We
would
love
water
pad.
What
do
they
call
those
things
where
the
water
that
shoots
up?
D
You
know
whatever
that
thing
or
we
would
love
some
rooftop
restaurants
or
we
would
love
more
green
space
or
we
would
want
what
whatever
fill
in
the
black.
I
don't
know
what
your
your
wish
list
is,
but
what
your
wish
list
is
needs
to
mirror
what
the
public's
wish
list
is
in
order
for
you
to
get
them
to
understand.
Okay,
we
we
see
that
we
hear
you
we
like
that.
We
want
the
same
thing
too.
Here's
the
thing.
D
D
The
developer
builds
us
this
thing,
this
this
splash
pad
or
this
park,
or
this
restaurant
or
this
whatever
this
thing
is,
but
instead
of
having
three
stories,
they
can
have
four
and
again
just
because
we
have,
we
can
go
up
to
five
doesn't
mean
we
have
to.
D
But
the
first
thing
is
to
agree
on
what
are
the
things
that
we
want
and
then
how
much
is
that
worth
in
incentives?
Is
it
worth
12
more
units
one
more
floor,
two
more
floors,
24
more
units-
I
don't
know,
but
if
you
start
with
we're
talking
about
heights
without
talking
about
what
it
is,
we're
going
to
get
back
first
so
that
they
can
say
well,
yeah,
you
know.
If
I
knew
I
was
going
to
get
this
here,
then
I
could
live
with
an
extra
floor.
D
That's
where
you're
going
to
mess
up
your
messages
and
then
again
it's
critical.
That
b
be
provided
also
as
the
option,
because
citizens
say
they
don't
want
their
tax
raised,
but
if
they
really
want
this
thing
and
they
have
the
option
to
pay
for
it
out
of
their
own
pockets
versus
pay,
have
a
developer
pay
for
it.
If
they
really.
D
F
No
problem
with
that
being
said
and
not
seeing
any
more
hands
raised.
I
think
we've
got
a
couple
things
here.
The
first
is
city
clerk
is
going
to
check
on
the
date
for
the
spring
election
2023,
and
we
will
get
you
some
information
as
to
the
deadline
date
for
ballot
initiatives
to
make
that
election.
F
It
sounds
like
the
two
issues
that
we
were
talking
about
tonight
will
not
go
for
the
november
election,
which
means
cliff.
I
think,
you're
in
good
shape,
to
move
forward
with
the
ordinance.
D
Yeah,
let
me
comment
on
that
real,
quick
mike.
What
the
the
council
does
not
know
is
tonight.
Just
before
the
meeting
I
sent
over
a
revised
version
of
the
ordinance
having
it
had
already
been
reviewed
once
by
staff,
along
with
the
actual
long
text
form
of
the
amendments
themselves.
So
if
the
consensus
is
at
least
for
this
next
election
what's
left
is
to
consider
the
ordinance
it
is
done
and
the
amendments
as
they
read
and
and
simply
to
determine
as
it
sits
now,
there
would
be
15
ballot
questions.
D
So
do
we
put
all
15
they're,
not
that
complicated
two
of
them
are
gender
and
sex
stuff
and
the
others
are
mis
outdated.
The
other
is
outdated
language,
that's
updated
that
doesn't
change
the
substance.
It
just
changed
the
language
and
those
are
amendments,
one
and
two,
and
then
three
through
15
are
specific
to
sections
of
the
charter
which
we
had
detailed
discussions
on,
and
they
all
meet
the
limitations
on
titles
and
words
and
all
that
stuff,
so
they're
ready
to
go
and
can
present
it
as
early
as
whenever
you
want
them
on
your
ballot.
D
That's
not
how
the
ordinance
is
written
it
would.
It
would
be
better
for
them
on
first
reading
to
say
we
want
to
cherry-pick
and
so
that
by
second
reading
we
would
eliminate
the
ones
that
they
don't
want
on
this
particular
ballot.
So
it's
a
good
on
the
first
reading
to
see
them
all
and
if
you
want
to
send
them
all
15,
that's
fine!
But
if
you
say
yeah,
let's
lay
on
these
three
or
four
and
and
kind
of
push
them
down
the
road
with
the
other
stuff.
Then
on
second
reading,
you
can
do
that.
D
F
Gotcha,
so
for
for
marion
council
we'll
try
to
get
you
that
ordinance
well
in
advance
of
the
first
reading,
so
that
you
have
plenty
of
time
to
read
it
and
that
if
you
have
questions
you
know
you
can
ask
those
of
of
either
sandy
or
cliff,
we'll
make
sure
that
you
get
answers
to
those
so
that
when
you
go
into
the
first
reading,
you
can
clearly
either
adopt
them
all
and
then
take
the
two
weeks
to
to
widow
some
of
those
out
or
you
can
actually
winnow
it
down
on
first
reading
and
come
up
with
those
that
you'd
like
to
move
forward
with
for
the
election
that
sound.
F
I
see
heads
nodding.
Okay,
I
think
we
have
our
direction
coming
out
of
this
meeting.
If
there's
nothing
else,
I'd
like
to
thank
you
all
for
your
time
this
evening
and
cliff
sandy,
and
I
will
be
in
touch
with
you
about
finalizing
the
ordinance
and
moving
forward.