►
From YouTube: City Council Briefing (09/13/2021)
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
Thank
you
mike
this
one.
I'm
going
to
be
pretty
brief
on.
You
guys
have
the
information
as
part
of
the
of
the
memo,
but
back
in
june
the
cra
expressed
some
interest
in
construction,
fencing
in
the
downtown
area.
We
have
a
few
things
going
on
a
few
projects
right
now
and
one
of
the
cra
members
provided
some
information
that
he
got
from
some
research
that
he
went
ahead
and
did
which
is
in
your
packet.
B
He
met
with
both
me
public
works
and
the
building
official,
and
you
know
we
basically
all
had
the
same
answer
with
was
we
didn't
really
have
anything
in
our
current
codes
or
policies
that
required
or
regulated
construction
fencing
and
that
it
would
be
something
that
would
require
a
change
to
the
land
development
code.
So
I've
provided
to
you
guys
the
actual
section
34406
for
fencing,
that's
in
our
land
development
code
and
the
additional
attachment
is
some
one
of
the
research
items
that
the
cra
member
provided
to
us.
B
So
since,
since
this
would
require
a
change
to
land
development
code,
we're
looking
for
direction
from
council
on
your
interest
in
something
like
this.
We
don't
have
anything
really
specific
to
go
towards,
except
you
know
the
question
of,
if
you
guys
consider
this
a
priority
or
not
to
develop
some
regulations
or
requirements
for
construction
standards,
and
if
so,
where
would
that
be
so
again
we're
really
looking
for
direction
from
you
guys
on
this,
I'm
obviously
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
have
on
the
cra's
discussion
on
this
topic.
C
Heather,
I
kind
of
agree
with
the
cra.
I
know
the
fence
that's
in
place
right
now
in
front
of
us.
C
And
the
ones
to
the
to
our
building,
it's
it's
a
pretty
nice
fence,
it's
to
have
a
green
sheet
over
it,
but
I
I
think
this
is
something
that
we
could
do.
I
think
this
is
a
good
idea.
I
know
the
company
that's
building
the
hotel
next
door.
They
fired
a
company
from
orlando
from
the
the
private
fencing
they
had.
C
It
was
kept
falling
down,
hit
break
in
and
it
was
taking
weeks
for
them
to
get
it
repaired,
so
they
got
a
local
company
to
do
the
fence
and
they
had
they
have
24-hour
service.
So,
oh-
and
I
don't
know,
if
you
guys
noticed
the
fence
at
by
ruby
beach,
it
had
the
back
to
the
future
car.
D
So
it's
been
my
professional
experience
over
the
years.
I've
worked
many
construction
and
industrial
accidents
and
incidents
in
my
term
with
the
sheriff's
office
that
most
of
that
is
handled
and
regulated
by
osha.
They
they'll,
if
you,
if
you're,
going
to
dig
a
pit
or,
if
you're,
going
to
put
in
fuel
tanks
if
you're
going
to
have
any
kind
of
hazardous
material.
D
Things
like
that
osha
regulates
that
they're
going
to
require
them
to
have
some
kind
of
fencing
on
that,
and
I
I
feel
that
sometimes
I'm
a
big
fan
of
smaller
government,
so
I
don't
want
to
get
too
much
in
an
overreach
and
what
we
should
be
regulating.
What
we
shouldn't
be
regulating,
I
don't
mind
it
for
commercial
use
in
our
cra.
D
I
would
I'd
probably
go
along
with
that
to
a
certain
degree,
but
I
don't
think
we
should
dive
into
the
minutia
whether
fencing
is
required
or
not,
because
that's
already
that's
already
being
done
for
the
most
part.
I
mean
it
would
be
more
of
an
aesthetic
thing.
I
think,
if
a
requirement
you
know
beyond,
what's
required
by
osha
standards
or
construction
company
standards,.
E
Yeah
I
mean
they're,
not
it's
not
easy
to
maintain.
I
think
it's
imperative
that
we
do.
We
have
the
opaque,
covering
of
the
of
the
fence
on
the
construction
sites
in
the
downtown
business
district.
E
You
know
they
can
do
some
pretty
creative
things
on
those,
but
I
I
think
it
is
something
that
if
we
don't
require
it,
we
need
to
have
and
we
need
to
make
sure
they
maintain
it.
But
looking
at
the
lot
across
from
me,
they've
got
they've
done
a
pretty
good
job
with
the
with
the
fencing
that
they
have,
but
they
don't
want.
You
know
they
don't
want
people
in
the
construction
side
anyway.
E
F
I
agree
I
could
see
asking
or
requiring
this.
What
would
happen
would
be
requiring
businesses
to
expend
a
cost
to
make
their
fences.
Look
pretty
and
yeah
we've
seen
some
pretty
fences,
the
original,
oh
fence,
with
the
the
covering
of
what's
right
behind
the
band
shell.
That
was
really
nice.
It
gave
us
an
idea.
F
What
was
there
and
I
kind
of
like
that,
but
that
is
an
expense
that
we're
then
adding
on
to
the
developer
versus
just
putting
up
a
fence
or,
as
our
code
currently
has
it
not
having
to
put
up
a
fence
at
all.
I
would
I'm
agreeable
to
putting
up
a
fence
and
having
some,
I
really
do
like
the
visual,
so
people
can
be
people
can
anticipate
what
is
coming
to
that
area.
They
can
visualize
it.
They
can
kind
of
see
it
in
that
field,
but
only
in
the
downtown
area.
F
I
don't
see
a
need
for
that
in
a
neighborhood.
I
don't
need
to
know
at
the
house
next
door
if
they
were
to
ever
knock
it
down.
What
the
new
one
would
be.
What
what
the
new
one
would
look
like
with
my
little
place
on
the
side?
F
I
have
no
need
for
that
on
the
fence,
but
I
think
that
it
helps
businesses
downtown
because
it
markets
the
business
one,
the
business
that's
going
to
be
coming,
but
it
also
markets
the
area
to
future
businesses
that
may
be
thinking
about
purchasing
or
renting
in
that
area
to
give
them
a
better
idea.
F
That
said,
I
would
love
for
the
cra
to
be
able
to
help
ameliorate
the
cost
of
the
netting
on
the
fences,
with
the
picture
of
what
the
future
business
would
be
in
some
kind
of
a
grant
or
something
like
that,
so
we're
not
pushing
the
cost
fully
onto
a
developer,
to
add
to
an
already
heightened
cost
for
doing
anything
in
our
downtown
area.
G
So
having
having
listened
to
the
cra
meetings
and
followed
what
the
cras
train
of
thought
on
this,
you
know
they
have
been
saying
for
quite
some
time,
and
so
has
mr
marsh
that
we
want
our
downtown
area
to
be
like
disney
world.
They
want
it
to
look
great,
be
kept
up
and
be
an
area
that
is
very
appealing
for
people
to
come
to.
So
I
can
understand
that
this
is
why
they
are
interested
in
in
adding
some
some
regulations.
G
With
regard
to
the
fencing
I,
like
ms
dumont's
idea
about
the
cra,
helping
with
the
cost
to
you
know,
provide
some
kind
of
visual,
and
I
also
agree
that
I
I
would
support
it
in
the
downtown
area,
mainly
because
you
know
of
what
we're
of
the
focus
that
we
have
on
the
downtown
and
how
we're
wanting
to
make
the
downtown
a
more
appealing
area,
and
I
certainly
have
seen
how
terrible
some
of
the
construction
fencing
has
looked
in
the
past,
and
you
know
that's
definitely.
G
You
know
for
anybody
who
lives
in
the
downtown
area
or
anybody
who
visits
the
downtown
area.
That's
not
giving
a
a
a
very
good.
You
know,
a
good
presence,
I
guess
is,
is
what
I
would
say,
but
I
def
I
would
support
it
and
then
the
other
thing
I
think
would
be
important
would
be
to
include
something
about,
because
I
think
one
of
the
one
of
the
cities
that
was
included
in
the
research
had
some
information
about
how
it
needed
how
fencing
needed
to
be
handled.
G
If
there's
like
a
hurricane,
that's
something
that
you
know.
I
know
we've
gotten
citizens
who
that
have
expressed
concern
about
construction
sites
and
how
construction
sites
are
being
handled
when
there's
a
storm
approaching.
So
I
would
be
I'd,
be
supportive
of
including
something
to
give
them
some
guidance
on
what
we
would
want
them
to
do.
With
regard
to
fencing,
if
there
is
a
storm
approaching.
E
I
guess
my
only
other
comments
are
well
two
things.
If
you
get
into
a
a
piece
of
property
like
dolphin
depot
that
goes
unconstructed
for
a
long
time
and
has
it
up
it's
gonna,
you
gotta
make
sure
they
maintain
it.
But
could
we
potentially
get
into
an
issue
with
our
in
conflict
with
our
sign
ordinance
if
they
do
a
if
they
do
a
wrap?
That
is
looks
more
like
an
advertisement
for
all
kinds
of
stuff.
Is
that
potential
could
that
potentially
be
in
conflict
with
our
side,
ordinance.
A
E
A
It
comes
down
to
that
definition
of
signage
versus
art,
and
obviously
we
would
want
the
attorney
to
look
at
it
from
the
perspective
of
signage.
To
make
sure
that
whatever
is
put
on
decorative
fencing
is
compliant
with
our
sign
ordinance
so
that
it
doesn't
jeopardize
the
integrity
of
the
ordinance
itself.
H
Thank
you
for
me
to
answer
the
question:
is
this
a
priority?
I
it
wouldn't
be
a
priority
for
me
personally.
I
think
the
overall
question,
though
that's
being
asked,
is
just
the
aesthetic
and
the
the
look
and
feel
of
our
downtown,
and
I
think
that
we
already
have
in
place
enforcement
mechanisms.
H
If
fences
are
in
disrepair
that
we
should
already
be
enforcing
that,
we
should
be
making
sure
that
construction
sites
and
vacant
lots
are
kept
to
a
certain
standard.
So
I
feel
like
there's,
probably
a
few
steps
that
we
should
be
ensuring
that
we're
doing
a
hundred
percent
of
the
time
before
we
add
this
on.
I
also
think
that
maybe
we
could,
just
as
we're
talking
to
developers
and
building
plans,
are
being
submitted,
that
maybe
we
suggest
this
or
offer
this
as
an
opportunity
that
they
would
voluntarily
do
it.
H
I
can't
I
just
can't
imagine
changing
our
land
development
code
for
something
like
this,
where
I
think
we've
just
got,
there's
a
lot
of
steps
that
I
think
we
can
hit
before
this.
That
would
make
maybe
even
more
and
a
more
immediate
approval
improvement.
I'm
sorry
improvement
to
our
aesthetic
and
our
landscape
downtown.
F
Thank
you.
How
I
read
the
ordinance
is
we
currently
don't
have
anything,
so
we
can't
make
them
do
squat,
so
we'd
need
to
be
able
to
amend
the
ldc
to
have
them,
put
up
a
fence
and
do
things
such
as
that
and
I
think,
while
we're
there
we
might
as
well
make
it
look
pretty.
F
I
understand
the
argument
as
to
whether
it's
a
priority
or
not,
but
I
just
think
that
right
now
we're
at
the
tipping
point
for
our
downtown
area
and
any
development
and
future
development
should
be
able
to
visually
note
to
the
casual
observer,
because
before
you
invest
in
any
area,
you're
going
to
go
through
the
area
to
like
just
look
around
and
if
you
see
fencing,
just
regular
chain
link,
six
foot,
fences
or
eight
foot
fences
versus
seeing
the
image
of
what's
going
to
be
there
in
the
future
or
just
an
empty
lot
and
overgrown
weeds.
F
I
just
think
that's
going
to
be
far
more
appealing
to
somebody
who
will
invest
in
property
or
a
business
downtown
than
what
they
are
currently
looking
at.
That's
kind
of
how
I'm
viewing
it
from
a
a
developer
or
a
business
perspective.
F
I
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
commercial
properties
that
are
under
construction
are
required
to
have
fencing
outside
of
our
local
thing.
I
think
it's
it's
either
an
osha
like
council,
member
janssen
said
or
something
as
well.
I
think
this
is
more
requiring
standards,
I'm
with
council
member
jansen
and
the
mayor
that
I
I
don't
feel
it's
it's
a
huge
need
and
a
huge
govern.
You
know
a
thing
to
to
extend
more.
I
You
know:
government
reach
on
fencing
standards,
it's
already
a
requirement,
but
if
we
do
go
down
the
road
I
would
suggest
something
along
the
lines
of
a
combination
of
boca
and
coral
gables.
I
like
the
way
that
those
are
kind
of
written.
So
you
know
I
don't
really
want
to
go
down
that
road,
but
I
like
those
two
roads
because
it's
you
know
it
says
it
may
be
placed
on
the
property
lines
and
it
does
say
all
zoning
districts,
which
is
an
interesting
little
twist.
I
And
then
I
like
that,
if
we
do
it
that
it
shall
be
covered
with
a
visual
dust
barrier,
so
I
think
a
good
combo
of
those
two,
but
I
do
like
the
point
of
if
we're
gonna
require
it
in
the
downtown
cra
that
we
should
be
pitching
in
as
well,
because
I
don't
like
creating
an
undue
burden
on
the
developer,
who
is
already
trying
to
spend
a
lot
of
money
in
our
downtown?
I
think
it's
an
additional
cost
that
it
just
we
could
be.
I
You
know,
I
think
it's
a
good
aesthetic,
but
it's
a
kind
of
an
undue
burden
on
the
developer.
He's
already
spending
a
lot
of
money.
So
if
we
do
do
something
in
the
cra
like,
I
think
it
was
council
member
dumont
who
made
the
suggestion
of
having
the
cra
pitch
in.
D
Yeah
to
your
point,
councilmember
dumont.
D
If
we
did
that
if
we
regulated
that-
and
it
was
only
in
the
downtown
central
business
district
or
the
cra,
if
you
have
commercial
properties
along
beach,
boulevard
or
just
outside
that
cra
area,
then
you're
back
to
the
chain
link
fence,
that's
six
feet
tall
and
it's
unregulated.
So
it's
either
got
to
be
kind
of
city-wide
with
commercial
properties
or
then
it
becomes
a
moot
point,
because
if
you're
only
doing
it
in
the
cra
or
the
central
business
district,
no
great.
It
looks
good
in
that
one
little
area.
But
it's
not
the
only
main
corridors.
D
A
couple
of
people
that
I
talked
to
said
that
they're
very
keen
on
putting
that
up
for
various
reasons:
one
they
don't
like
to
have
the
property
traversed
by
individuals
when
construction
is
going
on
also
for
theft,
prevention
and
a
myriad
of
other
reasons
that
they
put
their
on
our
own
accord.
They
put
the
fencing
up.
F
So
I
I
you
know
yeah,
there
are
rocks
and
things
that
a
person
can
hurt
themselves
on
and
we
all
know
the
you
know
burglars
breaking
into
a
house
or
falling
through
a
skylight
and
they
win
the
suit,
but
I'm
not
sure
where
osha
would
stop
at
stop
and
where
a
business
like
insurance
would
pick
up.
So
there's
two
things:
there's
the
ocean
making
you
do
things
and
then
there's
what
your
insurance
company
will
make.
You
do
things
that
far
outseed.
F
What
osha
is
asking
for.
So
there
might
be
a
little
bit
more
clarity
needed
in
that
realm.
That
said,
I'm
still
looking
at
the
downtown
as
a
marketing
area,
and
I
don't
see
it
to
be
an
onerous
burden
on
a
developer.
F
If,
and
only
if,
the
cra
is
willing
to
fund
the
let's
say
offense
is
needed,
fund
the
wrap
on
the
fence
to
say
you
know
this
is
what's
going
to
be
coming
here,
so
pay
for
that
level
of
printing
to
make
sure
that
it's
it's
it's
more
than
just
aesthetics.
It's
marketing,
it's
pr!
It's
getting!
People
excited
about
what
is
coming
to
our
downtown.
That's
what
we're
trying
to
do
we're
trying
to
get
people
excited
and
engaged
about
our
downtown
area
and
and
channeling
fences.
Don't
do
it
raps?
Do
they
start
the
conversation?
F
People
start
talking
about
what
they
saw.
They
think
that's
cool.
They
can't
wait
or
you
know.
They're
always
gonna
have
comments.
There'll
always
be
negative
comments,
but
you
know
it
helps
to
get
the
conversation
going
and
the
excitement
building
as
to
why
others
should
want
to
start
looking
at
investing
or
opening
businesses
in
our
downtown
area.
G
I'd
like
to
just
add
that
I
I
realize
there
probably
is
an
osha
requirement
and
I
believe
that
the
intent
of
the
cra
is
to
take
this
beyond
the
osha
requirement.
Maybe
mr
gilmore
could
add
some
add
some
additional
information,
but
or
ms
ireland
either
one,
but
the
discussions,
I've
heard
have
all
been
about
aesthetics
and
I
don't
believe
osha
regulates
aesthetics.
I
think
osha
just
strictly
regulates.
You
know
this.
G
You
need
to
have
a
fence
to
protect
this
area
right
and
to
keep
people
safe
and,
and
that
sort
of
thing,
so
my
understanding
is
the
intent-
is
to
improve
the
aesthetics
of
the
downtown
area
and
and
that,
if
that's
the
case
and
if
mr
gilmore
or
mr
ms
ireland
would
like
to
expand
on
that
any
I.
I
can
certainly
see
that
it
would
be
it'd
be
advantageous
for
us
to
to
look
at
doing
something.
G
It
doesn't
have
to
be
extreme
by
any
means,
but
but
something
to
give
the
cra
some
tools
that
they
can
use
to
help
with
the
with
the
look
of
the
downtown.
J
I
was
just
going
to
concur
with
council
golding's
statement.
The
cra
discussion
about
it
has
been
about
aesthetics
and
safety,
certainly
but
aesthetics
aesthetics
as
well.
That's
what
they
wanted
to
have
explored.
That's
that's
what
I
came
and
believed
from
the
statements,
especially
from
cra
member
paytow
who's,
the
one
that
brought
this
up
and
was
talking
about
it,
and
there
again
was
consensus
from
the
cra
that
be
brought
to
you
for
discussion.
I
Rowan
just
so
we're
all.
On
the
same
page,
I
did
google
it
real,
quick,
osha
does
have
fence
requirements
for
construction,
fencing,
it's
pretty
broad
to
council
member
golding's
point,
but
it
is
commercial
construction.
I
Construction
property
is
required
to
have
a
fence,
and
I
agree
this
is
this
is
about
aesthetics,
but
I
go
back
to
council
member
dumont's,
great
idea
that,
if
we're
going
to
require
something
above
and
beyond
what
is
required
that
the
cra
should
be
willing
to
pitch
in
and-
and
you
know,
pay
for
part
of
it-
I
think
that's
you
know-
I
think-
that's
pretty
fair
to
both
sides.
I
H
So,
instead
of
again,
I'm
hesitant
to
put
this
into
our
land
development
code,
but
would
this
be
something
that
could
fit
into
our
incentive
toolbox
so
that
we
are
actually
offering
an
opportunity
for
a
new
business
or
a
business?
That's
remodeling
or
whatever
downtown,
to
get
funding
from
the
cra
on
their
own
free
will
they're
voluntarily
entering
into
this.
For
all
the
reasons
that
we've
said,
they
want
their
construction
site
to
look
good
too.
H
F
I
agree
with
the
mayor.
I
just
hope
that
any
business
in
the
cbd
is
going
to
grab
on
to
this,
because
it
really
does
it
helps
them
and
it
helps
the
city
as
well
in
the
whole
area,
the
cra
and
the
downtown
area
in
the
city
as
a
whole
to
ensure
that
they
will
want
to
grab
onto
it.
We
should
make
the
application
process
as
easy
as
possible
for
them.
F
A
F
Of
course,
my
question
ends
up
being
is
this?
Is
this
a
line
item
budget
wise
that
has
to
go
back
through
council
to
have
x
amount
of
dollars
appropriated
to
wraps
through
the
cra.
A
My
guess
is,
and
jim
or
heather
can
chime
in,
but
we
would
be
developing
this.
The
the
procedure
and
the
in
the
template
in
concert
with
the
rest
of
the
incentives
that
the
cra
is
currently
working
on
finalizing
and
that
whatever
the
incentive
pot
is,
it
may
be
broken
into
some
sub
pots,
or
it
may
be
one
large
pot
of
money
that
can
be
drawn
from
drawn
from,
or
a
multitude
of
benefits
to
provide
to
the
business
owners.
F
F
Fiscal
year
budget
which
this
isn't
in
that
budget,
so
will
we
have
a
line
item
like
mid-year?
That's
the
adjustment,
or
will
we
have
to
immediately
address
this
beforehand
to
ensure
that
the
cra
has
the
budgeted
amount
to
be
able
to
cover
the
cost
of
the
wraps
for
any
businesses
who
are
doing
development
downtown.
A
It's
jim,
you
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
here,
but
but
as
we
bring
forward
a
pool
of
incentives
to
be
utilized
by
the
cra,
there
will
likely
be
a
pot
of
money
that
needs
to
be
approved
to
go
along
with
that,
because
if
we
try
to
say
what
is
the
dollar
amount
that
we're
going
to
put
in
just
for
wraps
we'd
have
to
first
have
to
make
an
estimate
of
how
many
businesses
we
think
are
going
to
go
through
a
renovation
project
during
the
course
of
the
year
or
through
demolition
and
rebuild
and
create
an
estimate
of
what's
needed.
A
My
guess
is:
it
will
likely
be
a
six-figure
pot
of
money
that
can
be
used
for
not
just
wraps
but
other
incentives
for
the
businesses
as
well,
and
that
would
all
likely
have
to
come
back
to
council
for
approval
of
creating
that
pot
of
money.
J
We're
actually
working
now
on
those
incentive,
hopefully
easy
applications
and
what
those
formats
will
be
and
we're
going
to
be
discussing
that
with
the
cra
in
the
next
month
or
so.
We've
miss
ireland
and
I
and
taylor,
mobs
and
taylor
maher
have
been
working
on
that
even
last
week.
Talking
about
the
formats,
including
what
the
percentage
participation
should
be
from
the
private
owner
to
the
public
owner,
and
it's
all
what
you're
talking
about
wraps
perfectly
into
the
pun,
intended
for
wraps
for
the
incentive
toolbox
that
we're
working
on.
E
F
Quick
little
follow-ups
so,
therefore,
if
this
were
to
get
passed
before
the
mid-year
budget
adjustment,
the
the
cra
can
spend
beyond
what
their
budget
is
for
us
to
be
able
to
okay
it
on
the
back
end,
correct.
I
F
Let's
say
the
cra
in
their
meeting
on
wednesday
says:
yeah
we're
totally
into
this,
and
this
is
how
much
we
want
to
allocate
to
this
before
we
get
to
our
our
mid-year
adjustment,
because
we
we
haven't
even
started
the
next
year,
they
will
be
able
to
kind
of
like
deficit
spend
because
they
have
enough
in
their
pot.
F
A
E
E
Mike
it's
the
different
we're
looking
at
the
differential
between
the
cost
of
a
plain
dust
screen
which
is
already
required,
and
the
cost
of
the
dust
screen
with
the
with
whatever
printing
on
it
that
we
want
to
do
we're
not
we're
not
going
to
pay
for
all
of
it.
Right.
A
We'll
have
to
take
a
look
at
what
the
osha
code
currently
calls
for.
You
know,
as
I
sit
here
and
look
out
my
window
right
now.
There
is
construction,
fencing
at
the
beaches,
town
center,
that's
currently
under
construction
they're,
currently
no
screening
or
dust
control
on
that
fence.
So
clearly,
there
are
some
some
areas
where
the
control
may
be
required
in
some
areas
where
it
is
not.
A
I
think
our
intention
is
to
try
and
incentivize
the
developer
to
make
sure
that
there
is
an
opaque
screen
and
that
the
opaque
screen
provides
a
benefit
for
the
visual
of
what
the
person
sees
when
they're,
walking
or
driving
past
it.
So
we'll
have
to
figure
out
what
that
differential
is
whether
or
not
the
screen
is
mandated
or
there
is
no
screen
mandated,
and
we
want
the
full
wrap
to
go
up,
not
just
a
decorative
wrap.
Okay,.
A
B
I
think
so
and
again
you
know,
like
jim,
said,
we're
working
on
the
the
different
incentive
packages
right
now.
One
of
them
we've
discussed
is
just
kind
of
a
overall
beautification.
B
So
if
I
would
consider
this
to
fall
in
that
category
of
facade,
improvements,
landscaping,
painting,
etc,
obviously
we
have
to
make
sure
what
the
cra
can
and
can't
pay
for.
So
that's
research
that
we'll
do
on
this
topic
as
we
build
out
those
different
incentive
programs.
B
To
find
my
my
memo
here,
okay,
so
back
when
you
guys
met
in
july
end
of
july
to
talk
about
cra
objectives
and
priorities.
B
One
of
the
things
that
came
up
was
the
possibility
of
investigating
expanding
the
downtown
cra
boundaries.
So
we
it
kind
of
was
left
there.
There
wasn't
much
further
discussion
on
where
exactly
to
expand
the
boundaries.
You
know
we
did
meet
with
our
consultants
with
southern
group
to
talk
about.
You
know
what
that
process
would
entail.
Obviously,
the
findings
of
necessity
is
first
step
in
this
process.
To
determine
is
the
area
that
you're
looking
to
add?
B
Does
it
fall
into
the
florida
statute
163
which
I've
given
you
a
copy
of,
so
you
can
see
what
the
state
considers
a
blighted
area
from
the
cra's
perspective,
and
we've
got
obviously
mr
gilmore
here
to
answer
any
detailed
questions
about
the
findings
of
necessity
process,
but
we're
looking
to
get
your
feedback
on
if
this
is
a
priority
for
you
for
staff
to
spend
time
and
resources
on
and
if
so,
what
would
the?
What
would
the
boundaries
potentially
look
like
for
that
area?.
D
Jansen
yeah,
so
since
that
that
last
meeting
the
one
thing
that
I
did
do
was,
I
went.
I
drove
down
fourth
street
from
beach
boulevard,
all
the
way
to
fletcher
middle,
and
I
think
I
counted
roughly
about
15
businesses
that
would
be
affected
that
were,
would
fall
into
that
boundary.
If
we
set
the
boundary
on
the
east
side
of
fourth
street,
I
didn't
go
any
further
south
and
then
beach
boulevard,
but
I'm
in
favor
for
the
expansion.
I
just
don't
know
that
we
meet
the
requirements
there
that
are
laid
out
here.
H
Well,
since
I
was
the
one
who
brought
it
up,
I
didn't
want
to
not
speak,
but
I,
when
I
look
at
the
list
of
requirements,
I
I
can
say
I
I
can
make
an
argument
for
quite
a
few
of
them
and
if
you
and
I
would
actually
want
to
go
further
than
fourth
but
I
I
think
that
overall
for
me
it
was
just
the
fact
that
third
street
is
like
a
river
going
down
the
middle
of
what
I
would
consider
our
downtown,
and
I
think
if
we
can
provide
some
continuity
and
to
bring
this
side
of
third
street
up
to
the
level
in
infrastructure.
H
For
one
thing,
we
have
some
terrible
drainage
problems
over
here.
There's
a
lot
of
unpaved
street
parking
that
I
don't
even
know
if
it's
really
parking,
but
it
it
just
looks
really
shabby
and
for
that
to
be
along.
You
know,
alongside
of
our
community
redevelopment
agency,
just
doesn't
make
sense
to
me,
so
I
personally
would
like
to
see
us
go
a
little
further,
maybe
even
to
6th
street,
and
if
you
really
look
at
what
is
included
there,
there's
actually
a
lot
of
property.
That
would
not
be
a
tax
benefit
at
all.
I
think.
H
H
I
have
no
idea
what
the
valuation
would
be,
but
we
also-
and
I've
mentioned
this
before-
have
a
tremendous
amount
of
our
more
historic
and
older
buildings
that
are
in
really
crazy
sized
lots
and
are
you
know,
a
threat
of
destruction,
because
we
can't
really
get
creative
where
they
are,
and
one
of
them
is
that
big,
pink
building
where
that
old,
tattoo
place
used
to
be
there's
the
a1a,
lock
and
key
there's
caffeinated
cat,
there's
all
sorts
of
little
tiny
businesses
over
here
that
I
think,
would
really
be
able
to
benefit
from
being
brought
under
the
sierra
umbrella.
F
I
don't
disagree
with
the
mayor
that
there
are
a
lot
of
buildings
and
businesses
that
could
benefit
from
it.
But
then
why?
Wouldn't
you
go
south
of
beach,
so
you
have
the
road
of
martin
american.
You
know
it's
like
with
the
oldest
african-american
school
at
the
beach.
Why
wouldn't?
Why
would
you
just
be
looking
north
instead
of
also
looking
south?
You
know,
based
on
the
criteria
just
given
gingers
would
be
a
historic
building
and
and
business
the
I'm
not
sure.
F
If,
because
of
specifically
the
cost
of
renting
any
square
footage
of
property
at
the
beach
right
now
is
so
high
if
it
would
pass
the
blighted
test
because
it
it's
it's
not
like.
The
prices
are
lower,
comparatively
speaking
in
that
area
versus
south
of
jack's
beach
and
such
the
real
estate's
at
a
prime
right
now
at
the
beach
I'm
kind
of
tossed
on
this,
and
it
really-
and
I
appreciate
also
mayor
hoffman's-
nod
towards
historic
buildings.
F
That
is
very
important,
but
then
who
decides
what
a
historic
building
is
and
who
decides
what
a
historic
building
is
not
considering?
We
don't
have
a
historic
preservation
at
the
beaches,
type
organization
and
they're,
not
state
or
specifically
nationally
noted
as
historic
buildings
they're.
Just
you
know
old
buildings.
The
house
has
brought
it
up
in
is
it
was
built
in
1900,
so
it's
over
100
years
old
and
there's
no
way.
I
would
consider
that
a
historic
building,
so
it's
it's
all
relative
to
how
one
wants
to
look
at
the
the
area.
F
If
we,
if
there's
an
analysis,
done
and
the
analysis
shows
that
we
have
a
strong
argument
to
be
made
for
why
we
should
expand
the
cra
fine,
but
I
personally
don't
see
it
specifically
because
property
values,
regardless
of
what
is
on
that
property,
noting
specifically
that
there
are
no
historical
properties
designated
off
of
the
museum,
the
museum
property
that
I
think
you
know
it
couldn't
be
sold
sold
in
and
because
it
doesn't
have
that
historic,
designation
sold
and
turned
into
that
is
a
multi-family
residential
property
turned
into
townhouses.
H
I
just
want
to
backtrack
a
little
bit
if
I
use
the
word
historic
that
was
in
error.
I
should
have
used
the
word
older,
so
shame
on
me,
because
I
certainly
work
in
this
line
of
conversation
on
a
daily
basis,
but
we
do
have
many
older
homes,
or
most
of
them
are
homes
that
have
been
turned
into
businesses
and,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
we
can
utilize
the
cra
to
incentivize
and
give
people
the
ability
to
keep
older
buildings
that
we,
you
know
that
we
can
justify
keeping.
H
I
don't
have
the
details
on
that.
Just
throwing
that
out.
There
is
one
of
the
benefits
I
wouldn't
be
opposed
to.
Looking
on
the
other
side
of
beach
boulevard,
however,
the
conditions
over
on
that
side
are
much
better.
Probably,
I
would
suspect
having
to
do
with
the
fact
that
there's
a
lot
of
city-owned
property
over
there,
the
streets
are
in
much
better
condition.
H
So
that's
I
mean
I'd,
be
all
four,
including
the
rhoda
martin
center
and
obviously
the
historic
gingers,
but
in
terms
of
the
greater
need
and
where
I
would
look
around
and
just
drive
around
and
say
this
is
not
what
you
know:
downtown
jacksonville
beach
should
look
like
it's
it's
on
the
north
end
of
beach,
so
that's
or
the
north
side
of
beach.
So
that's
why
I
would
focus
on
that
area
because
I
think
it's
an
area
that
we
could
make
a
pretty
immediate,
dramatic
improvement.
H
I
guess
I'll
also
add
the
question
is,
and
I
think
in
georgette's
comments,
she
said
that
she
would
want
to
see
what
the
consultants
found
out.
What
would
it
cost
look
like
to
do
this
type
of
work
to
even
see
if
we
can
make
an
argument.
A
Don't
know
we
we
haven't
asked
for
a
for
a
scope
of
services,
yet
because
we
don't
know
if
we
were
talking
about
one
block
west
of
a1a
or
going
all
the
way
down
beach
boulevard.
A
Obviously
there's
a
lot
of
information
that
needs
to
be
looked
at
and
the
larger
the
area,
the
more
effort
that's
going
to
take.
So
that's
why
we're
looking
for
some
direction
from
council
to
see
if
this
is
a
priority
for
us
to
be
doing
right
now?
If
council
says
yes,
then
the
question
becomes.
What
does
that
boundary?
Look
like
for
analysis?
A
Clearly,
if
there
are
some
areas
that
you
target,
or
you
include
that
are
areas
that
have
been
redeveloped
with
good
infrastructure
in
a
solid
development
pattern.
That
may
actually
detract
from
your
analysis
if
your
area
is
small
and
compact
and
tends
to
hit
more
of
the
markers
that
are
in
that
list,
then
there's
a
higher
probability
of
success,
but
we
won't
know
until
council
tells
us
a
that.
You
want
to
do
this
and
b
what
the
boundary
for
consideration
would
look
like
vice
mayor,
nicholls.
E
Yeah,
I
guess
my
question
refers
to
if
it's
an
expansion
of
the
existing
downtown
cra
as
opposed
to
a
new
cra
area,
they'll
be
getting
benefit
from
the
businesses.
Have
that
have
continued
to
put
money
into
the
tif
funding
based
off
of
the
I
guess,
tax
increment
that's
increased
over
the
years
since
the
cra
has
been
existent,
so
I
guess
my
concern
is
we
would
open
it
up
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
build
a
you
know,
put
a
lot
of
money
into
that
side,
or
I
don't
know.
J
I
will
talk
well,
multiple
questions
there.
First
off,
you
can
indeed
expand
the
boundaries
and,
if
you're
going
to
bring
another
area
into
it,
it's
much
easier
to
do
that
than
to
establish
a
new
and
separate
cra.
J
The
expansion
again
must
be
examined
to
make
sure
you're
getting
maximum
impact,
but
it
is
true
that
when
that
is
brought
into
the
area,
the
tax
base
is
frozen
at
the
time
that
you
bring
into
it.
So
there
may
not
be
any
really
incremental
increase
in
tax
increment
financing
from
the
expanded
area,
and
you
would
be
looking
at
the
funding.
That's
in
the
current
cra
to
help
pay
for
the
cost
of
correcting
the
body
condition
in
the
expanded
area,
and
that's
that
that
is
an
important
point.
J
If
you
look
at
a
whole
new
cra
and
try
to
create
a
new
one
aside
from
the
technical
legal
difficulties
of
even
doing
that
anymore,
you're,
starting
again
at
ground
zero
in
terms
of
the
tax
base
and
having
depended
on
being
dependent
upon
increased
development.
If
you
know
it's
going
to
occur,
so
if
you're
going
to
add
it
into
it,
it's
it's,
it's
would
be
assuming
finding
a
necessity
works
and
we
have
a
redevelopment
plan
that
can
be
amended
to
to
accomplish
what
we
want
to
do
over
there.
J
It's
nice
to
know
that
we
have
a
lot
of
funds
that
are
being
generated
in
the
current
downtown
cra
that
can
go
to
solve
those
problems.
D
I
just
want
to
say
that
I'm
in
favor
of
looking
into
it-
I
guess
my
question
be
what
what
the
boundary
would
be.
That's
more
of
the
exploratory
that
I
want
to
look
a
little
bit
further
into
councilmember.
Dumont
brings
up
some
great
points
about
the
south
side
of
beach
boulevard
that
I
didn't
travel,
so
I
could
see
us
going
a
little
bit
south
on
beach
boulevard,
but
not
a
great
distance,
but
I'm
in
favor
for
at
least
exploring
it.
I
I've
been
looking
at
the
the
map
and
I
I
think
if
we
are
going
to
explore
it,
I
would
can.
I
would
like
to
consider
going
down
beach
boulevard,
possibly
to
ninth.
It
includes
the
beach
bowl
property
which,
if
you
talk
about
older
and
relevant
buildings
that
are
going
to
you,
know
that
one's
already
going
to
be
redeveloped.
But
you
know
that
one,
the
sonic
that
includes
the
sonic
building
and
then
you
could
go
if
you
went
over
even
to
like
first
avenue
south
there's
quite
a
bit
of.
I
I
think
you
could
make
a
case
for
the
blighted
elements
over
there.
I
think
that's
where
I
got
bit
by
a
dog.
So
it's
definitely
more
of
the
well,
I
think
would
fit
the
requirements,
but
I
would
like,
for
you
know,
north
and
south,
if
we're
going
to
do
it.
I
North
and
south
is
fine
and-
and
I
would
consider
going
down
beach
towards
9th,
I
think
once
you
get
to
9th,
it
starts
to
improve
some
of
the
blighted
conditions,
but
there
is
a
little
strip
center
right
there
between
eighth
and
ninth,
that
could
use
some
work
and
a
few
other
areas.
I
E
Are
you,
including
shedder,
in
your
analysis,.
I
Yeah
I
was
singing
cheddar
till
and
then
maybe
even
to
like
first
avenue
south,
maybe
those
first
two
blocks
and
then
I
think
to
the
mayor's
point.
I
think
she
was
considering
like
the
first
and
second
avenue
on
the
north
side
to
include
the
players
and
by
the
sea
and
some
of
those
other
buildings.
So
I
think
you
could
do
like
one
or
two
blocks
on
each
side
of
beach.
To
ninth
would
be
my
consideration.
F
Okay,
so
if,
if
we
are
going
to
vote
on
this,
I
could
agree
with
this,
but
it
has
to
be
able
to
encapsulate
the
road
to
martin
cultural
heritage
center,
just
because
that
really
is
a
critical
park,
and
that
is
north
of
4th
avenue,
south
west
of
4th
street.
F
So
I
could
see
this
drawing
like
us.
Drawing
a
line
kind
of
like
our
district
lines
are
at
least
mine
kind
of
zigzags
all
around
the
south
end.
Sometimes
it's
up
by
13th
other
times,
it's
way
down
south,
so
that
would
need
to
be
included.
I
could
see
including
shutter
ave
because
of
the
historic
nature
of
shetter
ave
first
avenue.
First
avenue
also
has
a
historic
nature
to
it.
However,
that's
also
a
lot
of
public
housing,
and
so
there
isn't
much
to
be
able
to
do
there
outside
of
jacksonville's
aspect.
F
That
said,
you
know
if
we
wanted
to.
If
you
want
to
look
at
trying
to
improve
the
infrastructure
of
jack's
beach,
I
would
encapsulate
all
of
san
pablo
south,
which
is
that
area
into
a
cra
to
ensure
that
they
have
drainage
and
sidewalks
and
all
of
the
stuff
that
so
many
other
cras
are
able
to
enjoy,
but
they
are
not
and
they
haven't
been
able
to,
because
that
never
came
out
of
the
general
fund,
which
is
what
would
have
to
come
out
of
that.
For
that
area
it
is
a.
F
F
Oh
where's,
the
I
lost
the
church.
F
F
I
would
encapsulate
that
as
well,
because
if
we
want
to
look
at
an
institution
that
is
near
and
dear
to
the
history
in
jacksonville
beach,
that
would
be
part
of
it
as
well.
It's
not
just
3rd
street
in
beach
boulevard,
there's
a
lot
of
culture
and
history
going
on
in
the
african-american
community
within
our
beaches,.
C
I
can't
I
can't
agree
looking
into
this
and
expanding
the
cra,
especially
how
chet
explained
it
right
to
you
know
beach
ball
and
there's
we
have
the
pablo
sign
that
says:
welcome
to
pablo
beach
that
one
probably
needs
some
love,
so
I
can
agree
with
everyone's
point
right
now.
E
A
I
I
don't,
I
don't
think
you
you
wouldn't
be
voting
on
this
today.
This
is
just
to
get
some
direction
from
you,
but
what
it
sounds
like
is.
This
is
something
that
you
want
to
explore.
There
seems
to
be
some
ideas
of
moving
the
boundary
at
least
one
block
west
of
a1a,
bringing
it
down
beach
boulevard
and
then
you've
had
some
caveats,
both
north
and
south
of
beech
boulevard.
F
Me
and
sandy's
sandy's
hand
and
my
hands
up
and
chet's
hand's
still
up.
I
don't
know
if
he
wants
to.
B
I
think
so,
like
councilwoman
dumont
said,
it'll
it'll
have
zigzagged
lines,
as
you
described
kind
of
capturing
some
of
these
properties
that
you
guys
have
mentioned.
You
know
one
of
my
concerns
from
staff's
perspective
with
getting
started
with
something
like
this
is
that
the
cra
has
somewhat
of
a
backlog
of
projects
that
we're
trying
to
get
caught
up
on,
in
addition
to
wanting
to
fast
track
projects
that
are
in
our
future
years,
cips
trying
to
do
stuff
instead
of
in
five
years,
but
in
two
years,
so
we've
got
a
lot
on
our
plate.
B
Right
now,
and
thankfully,
we've
got
southern
group
on
board
to
help
us
move
all
of
these
things
forward,
but
just
from
a
staff
resource
perspective.
That
would
be
my.
My
one
concern
would
be
really
when
we
could
actually
get
moving
forward
with
something
like
this,
considering
all
the
things
that
are
currently
on
steph's
plate
that
we're
moving
forward
with.
But
I
do
think
we
have
enough
information
to
start
looking
at
what
some
possible
boundaries
could
be.
G
Yeah
so
heather
heather
touched
on
a
concern
that
I
have,
and
you
know
I
I'm
I'm
willing
to
be
extremely
open-minded,
but
the
my
concern
is
that
you
know
we
want
the
cra
to
do
some
pretty
miraculous
things
with
our
downtown
area
and
try
to
get
our
downtown
area
to
where,
where
it
needs
to
be,
and
it's
been
it
you
know,
I
don't
know
if
anybody
has
seen
it
but
there's
a
video,
that's
on
youtube
and
mr
gilmore
is
in
that
video
and
I
think
the
video
is
probably
from
the
80s
when
the
when
the
the
cra
was
first
started
and
a
lot
of
the
things
that
were
being
said
in
that
video
then
are
still
being
said
now,
and
I
think
we
can
easily
say
that
you
know
there
was
I
I
went
back
and
and
I'll
maybe
I'll
share
that
link
with
mike
and
he
can
share
it
with
everybody
if
you
haven't
seen
it,
but
it
just
felt
like
we
haven't
gotten
very
far.
G
G
My
only
hesitation
is
in
taking
the
focus
off
of
the
downtown
and
not
getting
not
getting
where
we
need
to
go
with
the
downtown,
and
so
I
I
I
just
I
don't
want
that
to
happen,
and
so
yeah
I
I'm
willing
to
be
open-minded,
but
it
does
concern
me
a
little
bit
that
we're
going
to
start
spreading
our
cra
kind
of
thin.
F
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
concern,
but
I'm
not
sure
how
much
the
cra
board
needs
to
be
involved
in
figuring
out
how
much
it's
going
to
cost
for
a
an
estimate
on
what
we're
looking
at
possibly
doing.
F
Mr
gilmore
now
has
like
kind
of
brought
out
lines
of
where
we're
looking
at,
and
I
I
think,
you'd
get
the
the
I
think
you'd
be
able
to
incorporate
the
larger
cost
of
per
block
into
a
cost
of
how
much
it
would
be
to
be
able
to,
or
at
least
an
estimate
as
to
how
much
it
would
be
if
we
chose
to
move
forward
and
look
at
a
true
analysis
of
incorporating
that
these
areas
that
have
been
discussed
into
extending
the
cra.
F
So
I'm
not
as
concerned
about
that
part.
The
cra
board
is
what
we
are
concerned
about,
and
I
think
that
they
should
still
be
focused
on
the
direction
that
we
gave
them
over
the
last
month,
and
I
think
that
this
falls
outside
of
their
purview.
This
is
us
asking
a
consultant.
F
What
would
how
much
would
you
charge
us
to
look
deeper
into
this?
It
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
cra
board.
I
could
be
mistaken.
It
could
be
that
the
cra
board
is
the
one
that
needs
to
give
you
direction
and
they're
going
to
figure
out
which
road
and
which
turns
to
take
on
all
of
those
things.
But
I
I
I
see
this
as
two
separate
entities
once
it's
decided
that
this
we
should
go
out
and
look
at
expanding
the
cra
and
it
gets
expanded.
F
H
I
just
wanted
to
say
I
agree
with
that.
I
would.
I
would
like
the
next
step
to
be
for
jim's
group
to
provide
a
preliminary
review.
I
don't
think
that
any
of
us
are
nearly
as
skilled
at
figuring
out
where
these
lines
should
be
drawn,
as
as
he
certainly
is,
but
I
do
and
and
if
the
recommendation
is
that
this
does
not
make
sense
for
our
city
at
this
time.
I
I
I'm
fine
with
that.
H
There's
nothing
on
this
list
that
I
would
follow
my
sword
for,
but
I
do
think
it's
worth
looking
into.
I
will
say,
though,
the
description
of
a
cra
that
includes
saint
andrew
ame,
carver,
center,
etc,
is
not
what
I
would
consider
an
expansion
of
the
downtown
cra.
That
is
what
I
would
consider
a
new
cra
that
would
be
a
south
pablo
beach,
neighborhood
cra.
H
So
so
I
will
say
with
adding
all
of
that
that
almost
sounded
like
an
attempt
to
overload
it
and
and
kill
it,
because
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
well
maintained
streets
and
sidewalks
and
things
over
there,
so
that
that's
one
that
gives
me
pause
that
I
think
that
that
might
be
the
the
straw
that
breaks
the
camel's
back
in
terms
of
of
the
size
and
scope
of
this.
So
to
me
it
would
be
if
we
were
to
expand
the
downtown
cra.
H
What
would
make
sense
to
have
these
contiguous
areas,
whether
it's
it's
north
and
south
of
beach
boulevard?
I
don't
know,
but
I'm
not
an
expert
in
this,
but
also
we've
people
talk
all
the
time
about
having
supportive
parking
and
things
like
that
on
this
side
of
third
street.
So
if
we're
gonna
potentially
years
to
come,
do
things
that
we're
gonna
support
our
downtown
with
you
know,
then
that
should
be
part
of
the
cra.
So
I
think
there's
some
more
homework
to
be
done.
H
I
wouldn't
hope
that
this
would
take
up
a
ton
of
staff
time,
but
that
we
can
enlist
our
very
skilled
and
experienced
consultant
to
make
some
recommendations
to
us
before
we
decide
if
we're
going
to
go
further
and
before
we
draw
draw
the
lines.
I
don't
think
that
that's
you
know.
I
have
my
ideas
about
that,
but
I
certainly
am
no
expert
in
this
area.
E
Obviously,
you
know
you
all
know:
I've
been
very
involved
with
cra
over
the
last.
I
don't
know
six
and
a
half
seven
years
at
this
point
in
time,
but
I'm
not
a
fan
of
hearing
set
staff
does
not
have
the
availability.
We
have
funds
in
this
downtown
business
district
and
we
need
to
invest.
We
need
to.
We
can
piggyback
on
other
contracts.
Let's
go
get
the
best
consultants
in
the
state
that
have
transformed
areas
in
two
or
three
years.
I
mean
we're
at
this
30
years
and
it
is
frustrating
and
disappointing.
E
Let's
go
get
the
people
that
know
how
to
do
it.
We
can
piggyback
on
other
contracts
on
and
saint
pete
anywhere
else
to
get
these
consultants
in
so
heather,
and
our
cra
administrator
has
the
support
they
need.
They
shouldn't
have
to
be
trying
to
figure
this
out.
We
should
be
able
to
go
get
the
best
people
that
have
already
proven
success
in
this
process,
because
once
we
invest
to
get
this
stuff
going,
the
the
tax,
the
the
value
of
the
properties
go
up.
E
We
generate
we're
going
to
generate
infinitely
more
tax
revenue
by
getting
this
done
quickly
than
than
taking
forever
to
do
it,
so
I
don't
think
the
the
additional
cost
of
bringing
in
consultants
in
in
order
to
to
move
our
cra
forward.
Finally,
would
I
mean
it
we're
going
to
recoup
all
of
that
all
of
that
expenditure
with
the
increase
in
future
tax
revenue.
H
Last
thing,
and
then
I'm
done
the
original
urgency
for
me
of
looking
into
this
was
that
if
we
are
going
to
give
up
funds
on
the
south
end
that
we
should
be,
we
have
an
ability
to
negotiate
at
that
point.
So
I
I
don't
think
we
should.
If
we
have
the
opportunity
to
do
a
little
bit
of
a
trade
out
on
cra
funding
versus
expanding
a
district.
I
think
we
need
to
be
prepared
to
do
that.
F
I
can
see
mayor
hoffman's
strategic
move
here,
but
then
we
have
to
decide
what
is
the
value
of
each
individual
neighborhood
that
we're
looking
at
expanding
into.
A
B
Some
changes
to
the
outdoor
seating
regulations
in
the
land
development
code,
specifically
increasing
the
ratio
of
allowable
outdoor
seating,
whether
or
not
to
include
outdoor
seating
into
the
calculations
to
qualify
for
a
for
cop
special
restaurant
license,
which
the
code
currently
does
not
allow,
potentially
looking
at
increasing
the
area
for
bars,
but
maybe
at
a
future
date.
B
B
B
Answer
questions
you
guys
have
but
again
looking
for
direction
on
proceeding
with
some
amendments
to
the
land
development
code
and
what
that
process
would
entail
is
you
guys
know
would
be
you
know
putting
together
an
application
in
an
ordinance
taking
it
to
the
planning
commission
first,
since
that
the
changes
to
the
land
development
code
start
with
them,
and
then
it
would
come
before
you
guys
for
two
readings.
So
looking
from
direction
for
direction
from
you
guys
at
this
time
to
move
forward.
C
Heather
I
appreciate
you
putting
this
together.
It's
very
well
put
together
and
I
appreciate
your
second
bullet
by
the
way.
So
that's
just
the
comment
that
I
have,
and
I
think
that
is
all
for
me
on
this,
but
yeah
good
job
on
this.
I
agree
with
it.
Thank
you.
E
I
almost
missed
that
I
am
still
interested
in
looking
at
reducing
the
seating
for
the
for
the
srx.
The
fourth
cop,
like
we
did
in
downtown
downtown
jacksonville,
is
done.
I
believe,
riverside
avondale
I'd
like
to
continue
to
pursue
that
option,
so
we
can
have
small,
locally
owned
restaurants
that
can
compete
with
these
large
seating.
Restaurants,
anything
that
we
can
do
to
help
small
locally
owned
businesses,
and
I
think
everything
else
looks
everything
else
looks
fine.
Thank
you.
Heather.
A
And
heather,
I
think
the
only
thing
you
were
looking
for
some
guidance
from
council
on
was
on
number
four
of
your
suggestion
at
the
bottom
amend
the
outdoor
ratio
from
25
to
somewhere
between
50
and
100,
so
you'd
be
looking
for
some.
I
guess
in
theory,
if
we
had
some
guidance
coming
out
of
this
great
and
if
not,
we
could
take
a
guess
in
terms
of
final
percentage
to
put
in
there
and
council
could
always
amend
would
be
brought
in
front
of
them.
I
Thanks
mike
you
caught,
the
point
that
I
was
just
about
to
make
is
that
that
was
what
heather
was.
I
thought
heather
would
be
looking
for
guidance
on.
I
I
like
I'm
overall,
I
would
love
to
see
us
get
to
75
100.
I
I
think
first
steps
we
should
go
to
50
and,
like
you
said
we
can
always
amend,
but
I
worry
about
you
know.
I
would
love
to
see
us
one
day
be
at
100,
where
you
could
have
a
a
full
rooftop
bar
directly
on
top
or
even
roof.
Stop
not
what's
it
not
bar
but
seating
directly
on
top
of
your
building
and
have
the
whole
top
patio
similar
to
what
is
it
black
sheep
over
in
five
points?
If
I'm
not,
is
it
five
points?
Avondale
chris
knows
I'm
not
good
with
my
geography
yeah.
I
So
I
would
love
to
get
to
that
100
one
day,
but
I
think
going
to
50
as
a
start
is
a
good
start
that
already
doubles
it.
So,
let's
not
go
and,
like
you
know,
do
like
100
or
200
300.
So
thanks.
F
Things
that
we
should
be
considering
the
first
one
outdoor
to
add
language,
that
mirrors
I'm
fine
with
that.
If
it's
going
to
be
outdoor
seating,
it
should
be
included
in
the
indoor
seating
calculations
for
number
two.
F
When
we
start
looking
at
where
alcohol
is
not
served,
I
am
very
comfortable
with
them
going
up
to
50
to
75
percent.
If
no
alcohol
is
being
served
specifically
because
there
aren't
many
areas
in
jack's
beach,
where
a
business
can
actually
have
an
indoor
restaurant
and
get
up
to
a
75
outdoor
seating
area
that
reflects
their
inside
without
bopping
into
where
number
three
is
the
parking
requirements,
as
our
code
currently
sits,
I
don't
want
to
unfairly.
F
Advantage,
businesses
that
are
trying
to
take
up
outdoor
seating
for
outdoor
park
take
up
parking
to
add
outdoor
seating,
so
there
needs
to
be
a
balance
between
the
parking
and
the
seating
and,
as
we
work
through
our
ldc,
I
think
we
need
to
be
very
cautious
about
a
restaurant
starting
to
take
up
outdoor
parking
to
be
able
to
add
outdoor
seating
if
they
have
a
land
area
available
on
their
lots.
F
I'm
perfectly
fine
with
them
using
that
for
outdoor
seating,
but
it
it
gets
hairy.
When
you
start
looking
at
the
parking
to
add
seating,
that's
the
remove
the
parking.
I
am
happy
to
go
between
50
and
75.
F
F
Again,
the
I'm
fine
with
that
part,
the
the
liquor
license
if
you're
going
to
have
outdoor
seating,
you
need
to
have
the
the
high
fence.
I
am
more
favorable
that
to
if
you
have
that
liquor
license.
I
think
this
was
it,
maybe
at
the
last
or
the
meeting
before
the
last
cra
meeting,
that
if
you
are
a
restaurant,
you
should
stop
service
at
10
p.m
or
11
p.m.
There
is
some
debate
as
to
10
to
11.
F
Oh,
this
is
for
the
home
depot
parking
lot.
When
do
you-
and
this
is
completely
out
of
the
cra
out
of
the
downtown
area.
When
should
you
start
search
stop
service
if
you're
serving
outdoors
so
you're
not
intruding
on
the
surrounding
neighborhoods
quality
of
life?
So
I
would
say
that
you
know
you
should
stop
service
by
10
sunday
through
thursday,
11
or
12
friday
to
saturday,
and
I
do
like
the
harder
vegetative
buffer.
F
It
not
only
helps
to
alleviate
some
of
the
noise.
It
just
makes
it
more
aesthetically
pleasing
we
all.
You
know,
we've
been
to
places
that
you're
sitting
in
the
middle
of
a
parking
lot
with
a
little
fence
versus
you're
sitting
in
a
parking
lot
with
greenery
on
the
inside
of
the
fence,
and
the
part
that
has
the
greenie
greenery
on
the
inside
of
the
fence
is
more
appealing
and
inviting
than
just
sitting
in
a
parking
lot
with
a
little
piece
of
fence
and
some
two
by
fours.
F
So
I
am
for
the
city
have
asking
for
some
kind
of
a
harder
vegetative
buffer,
and
I
have
spoken
to
businesses
who
are
fighting
for
these
outdoor
seating,
and
this
is
an
easy
one
for
them,
because
they
said
yeah
people
want
to
be
able
to
sit
in
an
outdoor
environment
being
not
a
parking
lot
environment,
a
more
outdoorsy
natural
environment
while
patronizing
their
businesses
and
that's
my
six.
E
Okay
for
the
percentage,
because
I'm
a
fan
of
smaller
businesses,
I'm
a
fan
of
small
businesses.
I
would
like
to
consider
potentially
doing
like
a
sliding
scale
to
where
you
know.
Even
if
you're
a
you
know,
400
square
foot,
you
could
have
up
to
100,
you
could
have
up
to
100,
but
the
larger
you
get,
the
smaller
your,
the
smaller
your
percentage
is
or
just
cap
it
at
like.
You
know
six
700
square
feet
or
something
for
outdoor.
There
needs
to
be
some
limit,
so
we're
not
having
huge
outdoor
areas.
E
The
next
one
I
think
I
brought
it
up
before,
but
if
somebody's
gonna
choose
to
have
the
the
outdoor
seating
increased
that
they
should
either
they
sh
they
shouldn't
be
allowed
to
have
both
to
be
open
at,
have
the
ability
to
be
open
after
12
o'clock
and
have
this
increased
seating
that
they
should
choose
one
or
the
other,
because
I
think
the
outdoor
noise,
mixed
with
alcohol
after
midnight
is
probably
is
not
a
good,
is
not
a
good
thing.
So
I
think
that
those
restaurants
should
choose
one
or
the
other.
E
As
for
parking,
I'm
less
concerned
about
parking,
because
just
for
example,
at
the
corner
with
neptune
beach
and
atlantic
beach,
they
have
a
they
have
a
challenge
for
parking.
The
people
find
a
way
to
get
there
if
the
restaurants
are
good
and
it's
quaint
and
you
get
a
lot
more
residents,
utilizing
those
those
areas
so
a
little
less
concerned
about
the
parking.
A
And
vice
mayor
nicholls
just
to
clarify,
I
think
I
think
what
you
had
said
at
a
previous
meeting
was
that
if
a
business
was
taking
advantage
of
the
indoor
and
outdoor
seating
to
get
there
to
get
their
srx,
then
they
should
be
held.
E
A
Okay,
just
wanted
to
clarify
that.
Thank
you,
council
member
golding,
followed
by
councillor
janssen.
G
B
Yes,
ma'am,
I
was
really
looking
for
some
guidance,
so
the
reason
I
put
this
range
is
150
square
feet
is
about
equivalent
to
one
parking.
Space
and
300
square
feet
is
about
two
parking
spaces,
so
I
know
we
have
some
outdoor
seating
areas
currently
that
have
expanded
out
into
parking
spaces
in
parking
lots
and
primarily
the
reason
they
were
able
to
do.
That
was
because
there
was
an
excess
of
parking
spaces
in
those
areas.
B
There
may
not
be
many
excess
parking
spaces
in
some
of
these
commercial
centers
anymore,
because
the
restaurants
that
are
there
now
have
already
expanded
out
to
the
parking
lot.
So
you
know
I
could
comfortably
say
we
might
not
get
a
lot
more
of
those
without
parking
variances,
but
this
was
really
more
of
you
know
just
to
give
you
kind
of
some
perspective
on
how
large
each
of
these
numbers
would
be.
B
You
know
one
parking
space
versus
two
parking
spaces
large,
for
example,
so
you
might
be
able
to
fit
two
small
two
top
tables
in
one
parking
space,
whereas
if
you've
got
two,
you
could
do
maybe
a
couple
of
four
tops,
but
still
a
pretty
small
area,
but
really
was
looking
on
a
little
more
direction
from
you
guys
on
that
on
that
range
there
well.
G
I
I
definitely,
I
definitely
think
that
whatever
we
do,
the
tables
need
to
be
able
to
stay
in
place
and
not
be
removed.
So
we
don't
have
any
issues
with
people
just
piling
into
that
area.
G
You
know
late
at
night
and
I
agree
that
that
there
do
need
to
be
some
time
limits
on
the
outs
on
the
outside
areas,
because
because
of
the
impacts
that
they
would
have
on
potential
neighbors
or
you
know
like
residential
neighbors
or
you
know,
whoever
whoever
you
know
they're
going
to
be
close
to
also
would
this
include,
because
I
didn't
see
anything
anything
about
safety
and
ada
requirements
for
these
for
these
outside
areas.
G
B
We
would
automatically
review
just
like
we
do
now
any
outdoor
seating
areas
that
are
proposed.
We
would
review
them
to
ensure
that
ada
access
is
maintained
and
that
that,
if,
if
alcohol
is
served
even
just
currently
in
our
code,
there
is
a
required
42
inch
tall
fence
that
has
to
be
put
around
it,
which
isn't
required
for
non-alcoholic
establishments.
B
G
You
know
some
kind
of
fence
or
buffer
or
whatever
so
and
and
my
understanding
was
that
part
of
the
reason
for
that
is
for
safety,
so
that
you
know,
if
you
do
have
somebody
in
an
outside
area,
you
know
you
don't
it's
well,
I
don't
know
how
how
much
it
may
protect
people,
but
at
least
you
have
something
that
delineates
what
that
area
is,
and
so
hopefully
you
don't
have
cars
or
whatever
you
know
going
into
that
area
where
they,
where
they
shouldn't
be.
You
know
I'm
I'm
with
chet
on
the
percentage.
G
I
you
know
I
would
support
starting
with
50
and
then
we
could
increase
it.
I
definitely
want
to
see
us
have
some
of
those
rooftop
places
where
we
could
have
more
space
outside
dining
space.
But
my
concern
is
the
impact
of
making
the
space
large.
G
G
I
do
like
the
buffer
that
you
mentioned,
and
I
think
I'm
fine
with
the
with
the
minimum
seating
to
compute
the
number
or
sorry
the
seating,
allowing
the
outdoor
seating
to
contribute
to
the
seating
required
for
the
the
cop
license.
G
G
B
So
so
I
would
answer
that
with
our
best
tool,
for
that
would
be
code
enforcement
and
then
again,
obviously,
if
it's
a
noise
issue
that
would
be
you
know
the
police,
department
and
you're
hitting
on
something
I
think
that
was
discussed
back
in.
I
think
that
ordinance
originally
was
from
2017
and
exactly
that
question
was
with
you
know.
How
would
we
enforce
it?
So
I
think
we
could,
as
far
as
regulating
how
the
outdoor
seating
is
set
up.
D
Heather
I'll
just
get
to
the
point
of
my
position
on
it.
I
I
agree
with
the
300
square
feet
end
of
if
they
have
the
fees
the
space
eligible
for
it,
if
they
can
expend
that
amount
of
space.
So
I'm
I'm
in
favor
for
the
two
parking
spots
again.
If
they
have
it
and
then
I
also
agree
with
councilman
stokes
on
the
50
percentile
as
a
good
platform
to
jump
from
and
and
build
upon.
A
My
guess
is,
she
might
be
doing
a
legal
review
of
the
final
language.
That's
drafted.
C
A
B
I
do
thank
you
guys
and
just
to
clarify
too
the
way
our
code
is
written.
Now,
when
we
talk
about
the
25
ratio
of
outdoor
seating
to
indoor
seating,
it's
25
of
the
gross
restaurant
area,
so
it's
not
just
25
of
the
seating
area.
So
when
you
talk
about
going
up
to
50
of
the
entire
indoor
restaurant
area,
as
you
all
know,
there's
a
front
of
the
house
in
the
back
of
the
house,
you're
you're,
probably
going
to
get
more
of
an
equivalent
area
of
indoor
seating
to
outdoor
seating.
B
Even
at
50,
your
outdoor
seating
will
almost
be
the
same
size
as
the
indoor
seating
area.
Just
to
give
you
some
perspective,
as
opposed
to
a
ratio
of
the
seating
area
which
is
going
to
be
harder
for
restaurants
and
staff
to
calculate
so
using
that
gross
total
area
of
a
restaurant
is
going
to
be
a
lot
easier
for
for
everyone.
When
we
tell
them,
you
know
what
they
can
have
in
terms
of
outdoor
seating.
So,
yes,
thank
you
mike.
A
Excellent,
thank
you
heather.
Well.
That
concludes
the
first
three
items
on
the
agenda:
a
b
and
c
before
we
dive
into
d
future
briefing
topics.
I
did
want
to
ask
council
if
you
would
be
amenable
to
holding
a
council
briefing
on
either
november
22nd,
which
is
the
monday
before
thanksgiving
or
november
29th.
The
monday
after
thanksgiving.
A
Well,
every
count
every
briefing
from
here
through
the
end
of
the
year
is
currently
booked
with
topics,
and
I've
still
got
a
few
that
I'm
trying
to
get
on
before
the
end
of
the
calendar
year
and
so
right
now.
I
I
can't
find
any
room,
so
I'm
either
going
to
have
to
start
bumping
some
items
until
after
the
first
of
the
year
or
I've
got
to
see.
If
I
can
add,
a
council
briefing.
A
Good,
okay
and
just
so
you're
aware
items
that
will
likely
be
on
that
council
briefing
will
be
the
review
of
the
arpa
funding
and
opportunities
for
how
to
spend
those
funds.
We'll
also
probably
review
the
beaches
energy
strategic
plan.
A
I'm
sorry,
not
the
beaches,
energy
strategic
plan
gonzales
park
redesign,
which
is
something
that
you
all
have
been
looking
at
and
we
may
have
another
commercial
project
associated
with
the
gonzales
park
area
that
we
would
also
be
looking
for
some
council
direction.
For
so
those
will
likely
be
the
three
items
on
that
meeting.
A
D
So
I
would
like
to
it
tying
into
gonzales
park
and
our
urban
trail
plan
maybe
consider
a
feasibility
study
of
the
city-owned
property
at
670,
north
and
holly
to
see
if
we
can
incorporate
that
into
a
park.
There'd
have
to
be
some
water
mitigation
studies
done
and
what
have
you,
but
just
maybe
as
a
topic
somewhere
down
the
road,
doesn't
have
to
be
immediate,
but
I
don't
want
to
lose
sight
of
the
grand
park
plan
that
we
have
and
not
be
able
to
include
this
as
a
possibility.
F
D
No,
we
already
own
the
property,
it's
it's.
Basically,
it
ends
up
being
a
water
basin
for
the
pine
grove
neighborhood,
it's
kind
of
a
little
sloppy
and
swampy
right
now
it
used
to
be
houses,
but
they
flooded
all
the
time,
so
they've
removed
the
homes
and
we
owned
the
property.
Now
the
city
does
so
there'd
have
to
be
some
water
mitigation
and
some
studies
done
on
it
to
see
if
it's
even
possible,
but
I'd
like
to
sounds
wonderful.
G
My
understanding
was
that
the
city
bought
it
because
of
the
issues
and
I'm
I'm
kind
of
concerned
that
we
should
not
be
doing
anything
with
it,
because
it
may
impact
the
the
houses
around
it
and
we
we
may
want
to
just
leave
it
there
to
be
kind
of
that.
Stormwater
retention
pond
area
that
it
becomes
at
times.
D
Well,
but
yeah,
it's
not
a
pond
yet,
and
I'm
not
all
I'm
asking
is
to
take
a
look
and
see
if
there's
something
that
we
can
do
without
affecting
the
homes
around
it,
I'm
one
of
the
homes
around
it.
So
obviously
I
don't.
I
don't
want
the
homes
around
it
being
affected,
but
right
now
it's
just
a
land
mass
and
there's
no
design
to
it
whatsoever.
F
I
could
see
like
there
are
some
basic
things
you
can
do
swings
benches
and
such
that
won't
impact
water
drainage,
but
can,
when
we
don't
need
it,
it
still
makes
it
enjoyable
for
the
people
who
live
around
the
area.
F
So
if
that's
what
you
mean
by
a
park,
I
can
see
that,
if
you're
looking
at
a
splash
pad,
I
know
that
that's
a
bad
example,
because
water
and
such
but
any
kind
of
a
concrete
pavement,
I
could
see
that
that
being
more
of
a
issue,
but
if
you're
looking
at
just
kind
of
oh
gosh,
you
know
a
swing
or
benches
and
things
like
that
without
some
kind
of
a
impervious
pervious
service
that
would
be
impervious,
oh
gosh,
concrete
service,
the
I
could
see
that
being
fine
in
any
of
those
areas.
G
Thank
you
mike,
first
of
all,
speaking
of
that
piece
of
property,
it's
a
good
segue.
G
So
when
several
of
us
went
to
the
league
of
cities
conference,
there
was
a
guy
there,
alec
bogdanoff
who's
the
florida
director
with
the
american
flood
coalition,
and
he
was
talking
about
the
fact
that
florida
now
has
a
resilient
florida
grant
program,
and
that
got
me
going
in
the
direction
of
talking
to
some
people
with
the
american
flood
coalition
and
I'd
like
to
I'd
like
to
so.
The
american
flood
coalition
is
a
non-partisan
coalition
and
they
basically
are
working
nationally
to
try
to.
G
Funding
and
investments,
and
things
like
that
with
regard
to
flooding
and
sea
level
rise
and
resilience,
and
they
basically,
you
can
become
a
member
of
the
american
flood
coalition
and
it
doesn't
cost
anything
but
gives
gives
us
access
to
their
resources
and
they
definitely
are
they're
they're
an
impressive
organization.
They
did
a
presentation
to
beach's
watch
for
the
september
meeting.
G
If
anybody
would
be
interested,
you
could
watch
the
september
beaches
watch
video,
which
is
on
the
beacheswatch.com
website,
but
they
would
also
be
willing
to
talk
to
us
and
maybe
she's.
She
said
that
anna
who
is
the
primary
contact.
I've
spoken
with
the
most
she
said
they
can
do
a
five
to
ten
minute.
Brief
summary
about
their
organization:
atlantic
beach,
the
city
of
atlantic
beach
and
the
city
of
neptune
beach
are
both
members
of
the
american
flood
coalition.
G
John
rutherford
is
also
a
member
of
the
american
flood
coalition
mayor
glasser
and
mayor
brown
are
also
members
of
the
coalition.
G
So
I
just
feel
like
it's
an
opportunity
for
us
to
consider
a
membership
as
well,
because
it
may
be
beneficial
to
us
going
forward
with
with
any
of
the
issues
that
we
are
are
going
to
try
to
be
addressing
with
flooding
resiliency
sea
level
rise.
So
I'd
like
to
suggest
that
we
maybe
invite
a
representative
to
one
of
our
briefings
so
that
they
can
do
a
five
or
ten
minute
introduction
about
their
organization
and
the
benefits
of
member
membership.
And
then
that
way
our
council
can
decide.
G
G
They
have,
they
have
pre-prepared
materials,
but
they
could
also
do
she
said
she
could
also
do
five
or
ten
minutes,
and
that
would
be
you
know,
and
an
opportunity
for
people
to
ask
questions
is
the
value
in
that?
I
think.
F
I'm
fine
with
it:
it's
free,
it's
five
minutes.
If
we
get
the
materials
beforehand,
we
can
watch
it
at
our
leisure
and
then
you
know
listener
for
five
minutes
and
ask
questions
to
decide
what
we
want
to
move
forward
with.
I
I
see
that
as
a
five
minutes
of
our
collective
time
and
then
whatever
the
time
is
for
the
materials
that
are
sent
beforehand.
G
I
do
I
don't
know:
did
everybody
receive
an
email
from
a
mr
palk
pouk?
G
I
brought
this
up
at
one
of
our
previous
briefings.
He's
a
gentleman
that
lives
on
waterway
island
lane.
He
and
several
other
residents
that
live
on
the
marsh
side
of
waterway
island.
Lane
would
like
to
do
some
dredging
and
he
he's
it's
the
email
he
sent
me
sounded
like
he
had
sent
an
email
to
all
the
council
members,
and
so
you
guys
haven't
seen
any
email
from
him.
J
I
I
I
haven't
seen
an
email,
but
I
did
talk
to
him
a
while
back.
I
think,
last
time
we
had
this
conversation.
Okay,.
G
Yeah
he's
he's
sent
an
email
with
some
with
some
attachments
to
try
to
explain
what
they
are,
what
they
would
like
to
do
with
regard
to
the
dredging-
and
you
know
we
talked
about
it
briefly
before
because-
and
I
believe
mike
had
said
well,
you
know
this
is
something
that
maybe
we
want
to
wait
until
we've
done
our
strategic
planning
and,
at
this
point
mike
pointed
out
that
our
strategic
plan
priority
for
goal
two
objective,
two
to
maintain
and
improve
existing
natural
assets.
G
G
The
property
is
currently
owned.
The
marsh
property
is
currently
owned
by
the
city
of
jacks
beach.
So,
for
anything
to
happen,
it
would
have
to
go
through
us,
and
so
at
this
point
I
wanted
to
bring
this
forward
to
see
if
we
would
be
interested
in
discussing
this
further
in
a
briefing.
F
I'm
uncomfortable
with
setting
precedent
for
people
to
be
able
to
dredge
from
their
property
into
the
intercoastal,
because
you
do
it
for
one.
That
means
that
you
can
do
it
for
all
of
them
along
the
intercoastal,
and
then
we
start
getting
into
affecting
the
ecology
and
the
water
flow
and
the
drainage
for
the
rest
of
the
city.
G
Well,
mr
powell's
position
is
that
he
doesn't
believe
that
that
this
would
be
setting
a
precedent
because
they
they
don't
feel
that
there
are
that
many
properties
in
jack's
speech.
That
would
be
able
to
do
what
they're
requesting
to
do.
G
I
don't
you
know,
that's
not
something
that
I've
been
able
to
put
enough
time
into
myself,
but
to
see,
if
that
you
know,
if
that's
true,
but
again,
it's
something
that
we
would
need
to
look
at
further
and
as
a
council,
we
would
need
to
make
that
decision
that
we
would
want
to
look
at
that
further.
So
I'm
asking
to
see
if
anybody
would
be
interested
in
taking
this
further.
I
F
I
would
suggest
that
we
wait
until
our
city
attorney
gets
her
legs
under
her
when
she
gets
here
and
have
her
look
deeper
into
whether
this
is
going
to
set
a
precedent,
because
I
know
I
have
a
lot.
You
know
everybody
on
the
west
side
of
the
island
who
could
make
an
a
similar
argument
that
it's
just
a
drainage
going
to
their
property
and
they
want
water
access
for
their
boats
and
such
so.
F
A
Would
would
council
benefit
from
me
sending
to
all
council
members
the
information
that
councillor
golding
received,
so
you
can
take
a
look
at
it
so
that
way
we
can
have
a
more
cognizant
discussion
at
a
later
point
as
to
whether
or
not
it's
something
you
want
to
have
a
full
full
conversation
on,
but
I
think
right
now,
with
speaking
about
it
without
any
of
the
details,
makes
it
a
little
difficult
to
do
so.
I
have
a
copy
of
the
the
email
that
councillor
golding
received.
A
That
has
a
couple
of
pictures,
along
with
a
summary
that
was
put
together
by
the
request,
and
that's
mr
pout
I'll,
send
that
to
you
all
and
you
can
at
least
take
a
look
at
it
and
then
we'll
bring
it
up
at
a
future
briefing
to
see
if
it's
a
topic
that
you
want
to
actually
add
as
a
formal
briefing
at
that
point,
does
that
make
sense.
F
Okay,
thank
you.
We
add
some
kind
of
an
environmental
expert
in
that,
so
it's
not
just
the
property
owner
who
sees
a
stream
that
it's
also
the
st
john's
riverkeeper
unf
has
an
environmental
thing
that
they
look
at
the
property
and
the
flow
of
water
and
such
and
they
provide
their
expert
opinion.
Just
so,
it's
balanced.
A
If
you
all
got
to
the
point
that
you
wanted
to
consider
what
this
request
is,
then
at
that
point
in
time
we
would
talk
about
what
types
of
professionals
we
would
need
to
bring
in,
but
I
think
the
question
is:
do
you
even
want
to
have
formal
consideration
of
his
request
and
from
what
I'm
hearing
since
many
of
you
haven't
seen
his
email
or
don't
know
specifically,
what
he's
asking
for
you
can't
say
whether
or
not
it's
something
you
would
consider
or
you'd
want
to
shut
down
before
it
even
gets
out
of
the
box.
A
So
let
me
send
everyone
the
information
to
look
at
and
at
one
of
our
next
briefings,
we'll
put
a
little
note
to
say:
did
everybody
read
it?
What
are
your
thoughts
and
if
you
do
want
to
schedule
it
for
a
full
briefing
discussion
at
that
point,
we
can
talk
about
whether
or
not
we
need
to
have
a
legal
review
and
or
some
type
of
environmental
input
from
neighboring
ages,
neighboring
agencies.
At
that
point,.
A
Okay,
were
those
your
two
items
and
now
we
go
to
councillor
dumont.
F
Thank
you
in
light
of
the
fee,
simple
properties
that
we
have
had
to
well,
that
by
our
current
ldc
we've
been
approving
and
those
that
are
coming
in
the
future.
F
In
addition
to
our
strategic
plans,
priority
one
which
is
quality
of
life,
goal
to
sustain
and
improve
communi
and
community
character
and
a
diversity
of
neighborhoods
objective
one
so
priority
one
goal:
two
objective:
one
update
the
ldc
references
to
support
communities,
desired,
character,
intensity
and
mixed
use.
I
would
propose
that
we
float
the
idea
of
possibly
putting
a
moratorium
on
either
townhouses
and
or
fee
simple
properties.
Making
properties
in
the
future
be
non-conforming
when
I
believe
it
was
neptune
beach.
F
My
concern
and
the
reason
why
I
said
town
houses
and
or
fee
simple
property
is
the
planning
director
and
I
had
this
conversation
and
she's
like
well.
When
we
do
fee
simple,
they're
townhouses,
I'm
like
what
happens
if
the
townhouses
get
knocked
out
and
they
have
to
be
rebuilt
and
the
response
was
well.
F
We
know
that
they're
townhouses
and
I
pondered
that
at
three
in
the
morning
as
any
middle-aged
woman
does
at
three
in
the
morning-
and
I
was
pondering
it
going,
but
then
you
possibly
have
two
to
six
based
off
of
our
code,
different
property
owners
who
then
need
to
be
in
agreement
to
a
contractor,
the
price,
the
layout,
the
materials
and
all
that
stuff.
And
I
just
see
that
as
infusible
to
use
the
that
famous
movie
quote
that
I
can't
remember
the
movie
it
I.
H
F
H
F
It's
inconceivable
that
six
pro
up
to
six
property
owners
are
going
to
agree
on
all
of
the
same,
the
the
the
same
aspects
that
are
going
to
be
needed
to
build
six
individual
properties
on
fee,
simple
homes,
and
this
is
if
they
were
to
be
wiped
out.
So
I
would
like
to
look
at
the
legal
ramifications
of
us
putting
a
moratorium
on,
and
this
is
the
part
that
I'm
more
than
happy
to
to
elaborate
on
discussion,
townhouses
and
or
be
simple.
I
understand.
F
When
you
have
town
houses
which
can
be
up
to
six
and
you
do
fee
simple,
you
now
have
six
individual
owners
who
then
have
to
somehow
agree
on
a
reconstruction,
a
remodeling
or
anything
like
that.
So
I
I
think
it
would
help
if
we
started
thinking
further
into
the
future,
not
just
how
our
neighborhoods
are
going
to
look
next
year.
But
how
they're
going
to
look
in
40
years
or
in
50
years
to
make
sure
that
we
make
decisions.
I
I
think
it's
a
something
that
we
should
have
our
new
city
attorney
look
into.
I
don't
know
if
it's
a
needs
to
be
a
briefing,
but
you
just
it's
a
legal
question
that
I
think
we
should
ask
our
new
city
attorney
in
a
couple
very
short
weeks.
F
I
just
like
to
note
that
the
longer
we
wait
on
this,
the
less
control
we
have
of
the
development
within
the
city
that
has
a
long-term
negative
impact
on
neighborhoods
in
the
city
and,
like
I
noted
it's
priority,
one
objective
one.
So
these
are
the
two
top
things
that
we
think
are
the
most
important
within
the
city
and
we
are
willing
to
let
this
go
for
at
least
a
a
year
or
two.
F
E
All
right,
I
know
these
two
items
might
take
a
little
while,
but
I'll
do
my
best
to
keep
them
short
first
of
all
for
the
city.
Just
thank
you
very
much
for
keep
pushing
to
get
more
trees
and
more
trees
in
that
program.
I
think
it's
fantastic.
Thank
you
very
much
and
the
second
one
I
you
know
I
still
want
to
consider.
E
I
don't
know
if
it's
a
briefing
topic,
but
east
and
west
mixed-use
paths
through
our
neighborhoods,
to
allow
people
from
the
other
side
of
penman
the
other
side
of
ninth
or
to
get
to
to
get
into
our
downtown
just
like
asphalt,
paving.
We
have
the
right
of
way.
I
don't
know
if
we
just
start
with
start
with
one
and
try
to
do
more
after
that
to
tie
in
to
all
of
our
greenways
that
tie
the
tie
our
parks
together,
but
I'd
like
to
see
something
I
mean
they
did.
E
They
did
it
up
on
florida
and
neptune
beach.
I
don't
think
concrete.
I
like
asphalt
better,
but
I'd
really
like
to
figure
out
a
way
to
get
one
of
those
get
one
of
those
moving.
Thank
you.
G
Would
that
not
be
part
of
what
we're
doing
with
the
the
urban
master
trail
plan
mike.
A
For
council,
we
will
probably
have
a
briefing,
just
after
the
first
of
the
year,
related
to
the
urban
trails
planned
development
with
some
policy
questions
that
we
need
to
get
answered
by
council
before
fantastic.
A
Okay,
mayor
hoffman.
H
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
say
I'm
very
glad
that
we
have
a
robust
schedule
of
briefings,
because
there
was
a
time
not
too
long
ago,
where
briefings
were
haphazard.
They
kind
of
popped
up
as
needed
and,
as
you
can
tell
when
the
city
council
is
really
doing
its
job,
they're
needed
a
lot
and
an
extra
one
on
thanksgiving
week.
So
thank
you
guys
all
for
helping
bring
up
these
topics.
I
would
say,
though,
during
the
the
council
briefings
when
we
get
to
the
idea
the
item
of
future
briefing
topics.
H
We
we
need
to
be
a
little
more
concise
in
how
we're
communicating
that.
I
feel
like
we're
taking
this
time
to
advocate
on
the
particular
issue
when
we
haven't
even
decided
if
it's
something
the
city
council
wants
to
bring
up.
So
I
would
just
ask
for
the
sake
of
everyone's
valuable
time
that
we
come
with
a
little
more
concise
and
direct
request.
When
we
get
to
this
item
on
the
agenda.
H
That
being
said,
we
haven't
seen
the
gantt
chart
in
a
while,
and
I
think
that
that
would
probably
hit
on
a
lot
of
things
to
see
the
updated
gantt
chart
that
you've
done,
since
that's
got
a
lot
of
the
items
that
that
we've
talked
about
today
and
have
mentioned
even
in
this
in
this
item
on
the
agenda.
G
No,
I
do
have
mine
up
I,
so
I
to
the
mayor's
point.
I
totally
I
totally
agree.
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
for
us
to
have
more
information
when
we're
talking
about
future
briefing
topics,
but
my
question
would
be:
how
do
we
want
to
do
that
because
you
know:
should
we
be
sending
things
to
mike
and
ask
mike
to
distribute
things
to
the
rest
of
the
city
council
prior
to
a
briefing
where
we
want
to
bring
this
up?
G
You
know,
because
I
mean
I
certainly
I
certainly
could
have
done
that
with
the
american
flood
coalition,
but
had
but
was
just
hopeful
that
you
know
with
five
minutes
from
from
them.
You
know
that's
not
too
big
of
an
ask,
but
but
I
understand
the
other,
the
other
item
I
brought
up.
I
honestly
thought
all
the
council
members
had
received
the
email
from
from
this
gentleman,
so
I
thought
we
would
be
talking
about
something
that
we
all
had
seen
but
would
like
to
know.
H
Well,
I
would
think
at
this
point:
it's
just:
do
we
have
a
consensus?
Are
there
four
people
that
agree
to
put
this
on
a
council
briefing,
so
we
don't
have
to
have
all
of
the
information,
but
what
I
feel
is
doing
is
trying
to
solve
the
problem
in
this
discussion
and
that's
not
what
this
is
for.
This
is
to
decide.
Yes,
we're
going
to
take
it
forward
to
a
briefing.
So
I
think
that's
when
you
would
decide
and
work
with
mike
on
distributing
the
information
to
us.
H
That
would
be
relevant,
but
I
think
we
just
need
to
figure
out
how
to
make
a
convincing
case
in
a
minute
and
get
three
other
people
to
nod
their
head
to
say.
Yes,
this
is
something
that
we
want
at
a
briefing
and
to
to
chet's
point.
You
know
some
things
go
would
need
to
go
to
legal.
Some
things
could
can
stop
at
staff
or
or
talk
to
staff
and
and
plenty
of
things
that
are
on
the
agenda
for
briefings
that
that
we
don't
talk
about
in
this
forum.
H
They
just
go
there
automatically
because
they're,
obviously
of
full
council
interest.
So
I
don't.
I
don't
think
I
I
think
each
issue
is
going
to
be
different
sandy,
but
I
think
at
this
point
is
you
just
got
to
get
three
other
heads
to
nod.
So
once
you
get
three
other
heads
nodding
and
if
you
don't,
we
move
on.
F
Well
then,
I'm
confused
because
more
than
three
other
heads
have
actually
spoken
at
council
meetings
regarding
townhouses
and
fee,
simple
properties
when
we
are
approving
them
and
how
they
are
detrimental
in
the
long
term
of
our
community.
Yet
nobody
moved
an
inch
when
I
mentioned
it,
so
I
I'm
just
confused
as
to
do.
I
need
to
read
verbatim
what
they've
all
stated
at
the
council
meetings
after
I
bring
up
this,
this
very
important
piece
for
a
lot
of
people
who
live
in
the
neighborhoods,
where
at
a
briefing
it's
it's
no
longer
critical.
Well,
I'm.
H
Just
a
little
confused:
well,
you
mentioned
a
moratorium
on
buildings
and
I
think
that
that
was
the
question.
Do
you
want
to
bring
a
moratorium
to
consider
to
a
council
briefing
and
that's
probably
why
you
didn't
see
head
snotting?
I
think,
and
my
point
of
bringing
up
the
gantt
chart
is
we
need
to
look
at.
Where
are
we
on
moving
through
the
projects
that
we
have
on
there,
one
of
which
is
the
ldc?
So
I
think
I've
been
walking.
F
Ask
mike
I've
been
asking
about
that
gantt
chart
for
months
and
there's
the
ldc
and
then
there's
what
we
can
do
before
we
get
to
the
ldc,
because
the
ldc
comes
after
the
comprehensive
plan.
C
F
It
could
be
me
that
I
did
not
okay.
I
just
think
that
everybody's
thinking
that
that
way,
but
it
so
it's
probably
my
explanation
of
why
I
was
asking
for
the
moratorium
so
I'll
put
that
on
me.
But
it's
there
is
a
process.
And
yes,
we
all
agree
that
we
need
to
do
the
comp
plan.
We
need
to
do
the
ldc,
but
before
we
can
get
to
the
ldc
there's
a
lot
of
development
going
on
or
that's
being
thought
of
going
on,
specifically
because
of
the
the
availability
of
land
at
the
beaches.
I
And
georgetown
I
I've
I
I've
agreed
with
you
in
council
and,
like
I
said,
I
think
it's
a
legal
question
that
we
need
to
ask
an
attorney.
Instead
of
us,
none
of
us
are
our
legal
people.
I
think
we
need
to
to
look
at
legal
ramifications
before
we
start
talking
moratoriums,
and
so
that's
my
point,
I'm
not!
I
No,
that's
why
I
said.
I
think
this
is
a
great
first
topic
for
our
new
city
attorney
and
if
it's
something
that
we
want
to
put
into
one
of
our
you
know
using
our
current
attorney
pool,
then
I
I
100
think
we
should
have
mike
have
that
conversation,
but
there's
just
the
legal
ramifications
could
be,
could
be
huge
and
you
know,
let's,
let's
let
an
attorney
delve
in
on
okay.
This
is
what
we
want
to
do.
I
What's
the
next
step,
because
none
of
us
are,
you
know,
legit
have
jd's,
and
I
think
that
we
should,
you
know,
be
take
these
moratoriums,
not
just
throw
them
around.
C
G
H
A
Can
I
throw
out
a
topic
for
future
reading?
Do
you
all
want
to
have.
A
It
doesn't
include
moratorium,
but
do
you
do
you
all
want
me
to
start
working
with
the
incoming
city
attorney
on
having
possibly
either
briefing
time
or
a
special
meeting
with
council
and
the
city
attorney?
So
you
can
all
talk
about
your
priorities
because
right
now,
there's
nothing
on
the
calendar
between
now
and
the
end
of
the
calendar
year.
G
A
Maybe
that's
the
monday
after
thanksgiving
just
kidding,
council
member
stokes,
your
hand
is
still
up.
Did
you
have
something
else
or
are
you
my
apologies?
No
problem.
H
So
we're
going
to
invite
kurt
dewitt,
who
you
guys,
are
all
familiar
with
his
name
at
least
to
come,
attend
one
of
those
and
there
is
a
new
restaurant,
downtown
called
goat.
If
you
haven't
been
there,
it's
really
good.
So
we've
added
them
to
our
distribution
list
to
invite
to
that
meeting
too.
So,
once
once
they
get
their
feet
on
the
ground,
hopefully
they
will
be
able
to
start
attending.
I
Yeah,
I'm
going
to
defer
the
blue
zones
update
to
another
meeting,
because
it's
time
but
chris
and
mike
were
there
and
we
did
have
an
update
but
we'll
defer
when
it's
not
7
30.
I
A
Well,
thank
you
all
for
your
time
this
evening.
Just
a
reminder
that
next
monday,
we
have
our
second
reading
of
the
budget
adoption
in
the
millage.
That's,
I
believe,
at
5
45,
followed
by
our
regular
council
meeting
at
six
o'clock,
so
look
forward
to
seeing
you
all
there.
Thank
you
rest
of
the
night.