East of 951 Minutes 04/15/2025 (Draft)
1
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
EAST OF 951 ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(E951AC) HERITAGE BAY GOVERNMENT CENTER
15450 Collier Blvd, Naples, FL
April 15, 2025
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County East of 951 Advisory Committee, in and
for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:06 pm, in
REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Heritage Bay Government Center 15450 Collier
Blvd, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
Mark Teaters, Sr., Chairman
Robert Raines, Vice Chairman
Michael Ramsey
Kim Ellis
Douglas Rankin
Bruce Hamels
Aaron Zweifel
Also Present:
Lorraine Lantz, Transportation Manager
Trinity Scott, Department Head Transportation and Planning
Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director, Metropolitan Planning Organization
Parker Klopf, Planner III Zoning
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of This Board, you will need a record of the
proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of
the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor This Board shall be responsible for
providing the record.
1. Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance
The meeting was called to order at 6:06 p.m. by the Chairman, Mark Teaters, Sr.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Chairman, Mark Teaters, Sr.
2. Roll Call
Chairman, Mark Teaters, Sr., did a roll call advised that a quorum was met with all members
present. Two new members: Bruce Hamels and Douglas Rankin.
3. Approval of Minutes from March 18, 2025
• Chairman, Mark Teaters, Sr. asked if there were any changes to the minutes. Michael
Ramsey had amendments to the meeting and provided a red-lined version to Parker
Klopf, Planner III. The amendments were under Number 5 “North Collier Fire
Discussion”. After discussion regarding fire hydrants, it was agreed that further
discussion was needed, talking to both county and city water. Asked Parker to reach
out and get the best person to come in and provide needed expertise. There was
discussion on what was on the agenda for next meeting- Dave Farmer from CIGM. It
was agreed that it would not be discussed at the next meeting, but the following.
2
General discussion on future topics for meetings—libraries, FPNL TICO and LCEPE.
Indicated that funding was allocated for Stormwater and the Stormwater program is
done. Motion was made by Michael Ramsey and seconded by Robert Raines to
approve the March 18, 2025 with suggested amendments made by Michael
Ramsey.
• In order to bring new members up-to-speed, we have the minutes plus position points
that we have started to develop. We will review and get everyone on the same page,
then determine what needs additional discussion. Then we will prioritize and get into
each of the topics at next meeting.
• Further discussion on meetings at County Commissioner affecting East of 951. The
Commissioner is working with Commissioner of Dade County to put an incinerator in.
That is because Lee County is working with Charlotte County to build a second
incinerator at North Cape Coral, and they are not interested in working with us and we
really don’t have a choice. Understanding that City of Naples is shipping to the
incinerator, but we need to verify that.
4. Transportation/Metropolitan Planning Organization Discussion/Presentation
a. Lorraine Lantz, Transportation Planning Manager: Transportation Management
Services Capital Projects Update (Slide Show Presentation)
• Chairman Mark Teaters, Sr. asked that Ms. Lantz give her presentation, then we can
go into topics and information about some opportunities for new roads and new
pathways, allowing us to get everything documented and have some good
discussion.
• Snapshot of the adopted work plan of transportation projects in the East of 951
corridor anticipated for the years 2025-2029. Geared toward capital projects and
their status, what we are working on based on our AUIR and capital budget.
• Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, Phase I - completed in one year with completion
date of April 27, 2026.
• Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, Phase II - Right-of-way acquisition in progress
with construction anticipated for mid-2026; design phase about 90% complete.
• 16th Street NE Bridge/Surtax - design completed with anticipated construction in
late 2025.
• Everglades Blvd & 43rd Ave NE Intersection Improvements – NTP for Design
completed January 20, 2025. Signal materials order (long lead times); contractor
having issues with utilities and currently coordinating with utility owners to have
them removed or relocated.
• Everglades Blvd N Shoulder Improvements at Oil Well Road and Immokalee Road
- Design is complete but starting the procurement process for construction. More
of a safety project – adding pig shoulders to both sides for safety reasons.
• Everglades Blvd 4-Laning from Oil Well Rd to Vanderbilt Beach Road - BCC
approved on April 8, 2025 to start for design in fall of 2025.
• Wilson Blvd Four-Lane Widening – design in early stages; ROW acquisition to
begin at 60% design stage; construction not funded in 5-year program, but it is a
need that will be moving forward. Wilson and Immokalee Rd Intersection changes
to be included.
3
• Randall Blvd & Immokalee Road Intersection/Surtax – which is the at-grade
intersection improvement. 60% design submittal due April, 2025; working on
agreement with developer in the area for stormwater detention and right-of-way.
• Oil Well Rd 4-laning Everglades Blvd to Oil Well Grade – design consultant
procurement in progress; FDOT grant for FY 2025 for design.
• Four-Point Roundabout – Out on Immokalee Road, Camp Keals, Ava Maria area.
Procurement for design consultant in progress; construction funds are not
programmed yet.
• Collier Blvd Widening Phase III – Only section of Collier Blvd that is not 6 lanes.
Construction to start in early 2026; formalizing ROW boundaries with the county’s
projects on the golf course property; anticipated 100% plans submittal by May,
2025; April 22, 2025 BCC meeting for construction contract City Gate N for
intersection improvements/advanced signal.
• Pine Ridge Road Improvements – Not necessarily in your corridor. 30% design
plan submittal in progress; working with FPL on relocation design agreement to
accommodate the Jughandle; FDOT in construction on I-75 Diverging Diamond
funded by Moving Florida Forward for a virgin drive and interchange at Pine Ridge
and I-75.
• Livingston Road/Immokalee Road Flyover – procurement started selection process
for a design consultant. Alleviates traffic for the estates and anything off of
Immokalee Road. Suggested an overpass at Livingston and Immokalee whereby
Livingston goes over Immokalee. Also suggested I-75 Diverging Diamond at
Immokalee and I-75.
• Immokalee Road from Livingston Rd to Logan Blvd Shoulder – recommended
optimizing the right turn lanes moving westbound from Logan to Livingston. From
Northrop to I-75 that was restriped and repaved so that you can either go straight to
make it onto I-75 or right turn lane and that will be continued through up to and
around Logan, adding another lane to Immokalee to help capacity. FDOT grant
funding for design in FY 2026; October, 2025 projected BCC approval for design
grant agreement.
• Five Bridges in Golden Gates Estates/Surtax/LAP – In the Immokalee area
southeast, 62nd, Northeast, 13th Street & 47th Ave are all moving through the design
process which will actually allow more interconnectivity and opportunities for
response times and allow them to better network for transportation systems. Project
scheduled to be coordinated with other capital improvement projects in the Golden
Gate Estates area.
• Immokalee Road at Oil Well Road N.B. Dual Right Turn Lane – smaller projects
that are intersection driven or safety projects creating a dual right turn lane on the
northbound to allow for more capacity at that intersection. Currently working with
ROW acquisition on utility relocations, easements, and other accommodations as
needed for existing utilities. Through design already.
• Immokalee Road (CR-846) at Catawba Street Median Improvements – NTP for
construction issued March 17, 2025; project almost completed; contractor waiting
for friction course material to be delivered and continue working on placing signs
and thermoplastic.
4
• Immokalee Road (CR-846) at Naples Academy U-Turn Median Improvements –
Preconstruction meeting on 2/14/25 and contractor, Quality Enterprise, USA was
issued an LTNP letter to purchase material for the project; NTP will be issued by
end of April, 2025.
• Immokalee RD Shoulders – The SCOP 1-5 projects are small county opportunity
programs to help safety projects and several moving out from Immokalee on
Washington Grove. They are grant funded in Design and with construction. SCOP
1 – NTP for construction issued 3/12/25; contractor, Thomas Marine Construction,
working on placing base rock material and asphalt for the 2-foot widening at the
south side of CR-846E. SCOP 2 – Sent FDOT Solicitation Package on 3/25/25;
received BNTP from FDOT on 3/26/25; project will go to procurement for formal
bidding. SCOP 3 – Design underway; survey work. SCOP 4 – Design survey work
and 60% design. SCOP 5 – Design has not been started.
• Oil Well Road Shoulders – Also have some safety projects for some shoulder
projects to create a safer area. Segment 3 & 4 (Camp Keals Rd to SR29) – FDOT
funding for construction programmed; coordination and repacking Oil Well
Segments 3 & 4 into one project; newly packaged project to procurement in April,
2025. Segment 5 (Camp Keals Rd to SR29) – 100% design completed July, 2023;
project letting start to be determined; pending construction funding. Segment 6
(Camp Keals Rd to SR29) – Project letting to be determined; 60% design to be
completed by May, 2025; pending construction funding.
• Conclusion: Provide overview of current projects, strengthen relationships, receive
comments from your community, ask for involvement, learn what is going on in
your community, be responsive and show planning consistency. All of our
programs have to be consistent with the long-range transportation plan. Current
Long Range Transportation plan goes out to the year 2045. To move that forward,
the Collier MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan is updated every 5 years and
must maintain a minimum time horizon of 20 years. By 2025, they have to adopt
the 2050 long-range transportation plan. Our program and our projects lead into
Anne McLaughlin and what she is working on. If it is not on the long-range plan
as a need, then it is not on as a capacity project in our work programs.
• Opened up for questions: In response to work at Wilson Blvd, currently working
on a study for the Wilson Blvd Extension; there will be a bridge to cross over and
Wilson Blvd South is one of the bridges that is in design. The connection from
where that bridge lands and then connecting to City Gate is being studied currently.
Did not mention because it’s not a design, but in study.
• Comment and discussion on villages at North Belle Meade. The long-range
transportation plan in 2035 or 2030 had a bridge over I-75 right at Green to connect
over Marbella Lakes and it was removed from the Long Range Transportation Plan
and it is not in the 2040 or 2045 plan. There is room for four villages, but none
have come in.
• Comments and discussion on Big Cypress Creek area. Note: All of these things
will be covered by Anne McLaughlin.
• Comment and discussion on DeSoto – long-range plans with the rest of the
associations on DeSoto. Nothing in the work plan at this time, but it would be long
range because it is an immediate need; comment that it is a safety need rather than
5
long-range plan. The Town of Big Cypress is having to do some improvements
based on their impacts, so there are some projects that are moving. Contends that
there is a width issue and damage to the road. Asked for feedback from the
department. County needs to have money in their budget to maintain roads in need
of repair. Agreed to look into a safety project or scheduling for maintenance on
DeSoto from 6th to Golden Gate Blvd.
• Comment and discussion on Greene intersection. It is a study area from Greene to
extend all the way from 16th all the way down to Wilson. It is a study area as to
where that corridor exactly would be. Requested a copy of the study – not currently
studying it.
• Comment and discussion on process for length of time to get project approved and
completed. For a capital budget to be in the long-range plan, takes optimistically
20 years to get a study to a design to right-of-way acquisition to funding. If it is
fast-tracked, if there is funding already available and we know right away, 5-10
years may be more accurate. The short-term intersection improvement, short-term
safety projects are quicker cases. Examples of safety projects: intersection
improvements, stop projects, shoulder projects which move internally; no need for
large consultant and sometimes done in-house. 16th Street Bridge was not a safety
project, more of an operational project; may have had some surtax funding.
• Comment and discussion on the 4 branches project (47). Developed by committee
for the eastern magnitude 1 horizon study and all part of the interconnectivity
responses. That is how they got funded. They work into the long-range
transportation plan and funded through RU funds services for bridges.
• Comments and discussion on Randall Blvd intersection at Immokalee – intersection
with some capacity and it is long range with FDOT funding. FDOT did the PDA
on that.
• Comments and discussion on Oil Well Road to Golden Gate – looks like it has some
FDOT grant funding on it. That was probably the long-range plan.
• Comments and discussion on difference between short-term projects and long-
range. All of the major projects are going to go through long-term planning. Solar
would be more of a safety project. The shoulder, lighting is part of the county’s
budget that comes through with the budgeting and the project for traffic operations
by the staff. Short term fixes, intersections and safety projects would come out of
the county’s operations budget. They don’t have the planning study. We are trying
to figure out how to NOT wait 20 years for short-term fixes and we have a list for
consideration for short-term projects.
• Anne McLaughlin comes up with her needs assessment for the long-range
transportation plan. We have to be consistent with the long-range transportation
plan. Anne actually has to forecast out into the future to project that growth and
where it is going to be. Anne’s presentation really does answer some of your
questions or at least explain how she has come up with that.
• Comments and discussion on needed Northville study. In 2008, there was a Wilson-
Banfield study for that area that came up with two alternatives for the Wilson
Corridor and then the Banfield, south of the I-75. Came up with two potential
alignments. Those have not been restudied. It is in the long-range plan or at least
it was in the 2040. It is not active at this point.
6
• Comments and discussion on whether there is a review grid to classify the project.
If it is not in the long-range plan, it is not going to be a long-range transportation
project. As a smaller project – look at what the problems are in the area, what else
is a priority, how it moves forward and how it is budgeted. The two classifications
are safety and intersection. I believe that those are the two most common for local
projects. Anne can weigh in a little bit on that because she talks to Trinity all the
time – when is it going to be a county project or an NPO project.
b. Anne McLaughlin, MPO Director, Metropolitan Planning Organization: 2050
Long Range Transportation Plan (Slide Show Presentation)
• The MPO gets involved when the local government wants state or federal funds.
MPO has to be involved unless there is some category, some state money that goes
straight to the counties. It is the bigger, more expensive projects and it also tends
to be challengeable for federal funding. We discuss whether the county wants the
federal government involved on one of their projects – faster without federal
involvement. State mirrors the federal requirements when they are partnering with
the federal government in combining tons of money.
• Long-range plan. The schedule we are on through the 2015 long-range plan touch
upon all the little steps and building blocks who was financially involved in
developing it (reason – focused on needs). We need your input. And we work
through a process to go from needs to a cost feasible plan and that rules the day in
terms of the project. Right now, in our process, it takes about two years to develop
a long-range plan. They go out 50 years. We update every five with only a year and
a half before we finish one and start gathering data for the next one. It is a
continuous process. Positive: If we don’t get something right, it can be revisited
again in three years. We have identified system needs but we are still getting input
and we want to know if we need to add to those and then we are going to break
some projects.
• Explanation of how we identify needs. We use socioeconomic data, starting with a
base year. This time around the base year was 2019, only because of the pandemic,
which really messed up traffic patterns in 2020. So veteran forecasting models and
the county interacting throughout the model to assign that 2019 data to the traffic
analysis zones (shown on map). FDOT looks over our shoulder every step we take
and they do some adjustments because they run the travel demand model. It is a
back and forth between us, our technical people, citizens and FDOT at every step
of the way on the long-range plan. Note: East of 951 did the original CIG work
and we were the oversight committee for the CIGM when it went to the Board of
County Commissioner. Very powerful tool. For the 2050 population, we get
projections from Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research-medium
population because that is consistent with the county for managing a management
plan medium. We use the CIGM again to assign population growth to traffic
analysis zones and then at WHS. We don’t make it up; we are using a model
developed for the county that has all the rules and rights in it. So that is what traffic
analysis does look like. There are 729 in Collier County. They are mostly
configured around beach roads and then land uses. Gets detailed enough that it
actually shows what road certain development area is connecting to.
7
• Graph detailing estimated growth in Collier County, estimating permanent
residence by acres for the 2019 base year and 2050 projected year. The circles show
the major growth that is happening. Answers questions on where and why we see
the growth occurring and we plan roads for that growth.
• Graph showing this substantial growth projected areas east of County Road 951
and north of I-75. I don’t have actual numbers, but if you would like that
information, we do have a technical middle on our social economic data, which I
can provide to Parker. The darker numbers are at the greater concentration of people
per acre.
• Table of estimated growth in Collier County from single family dwelling, multi-
family, hotels, schools, travel demand model. Between 2019 and 2050 we are
predicting 146,000 growth in people over a 30-year timeframe.
• Start building long-range plans; all about different forms of transportation roads.
Start with existing and committed projects through needs, get information from
county (in place now or program to be constructed by 2028), and run a model of
2050 population. Keeping the existing and committed projects, we include a few
roads from the last long-range plan that did not get built and maybe pull some of
the needs that never got funded. Repeat this 5-7 times with different road networks
for most effective increase in road capacity which is why we need community input.
• Working on the safety plan: Transit Development Plan, Bicycle & Pedestrian
Master Plan, Safety Action Plan, Freight, Commuter Rail & Airports addressed in
the LRTP and the Joint Lee-Collier Congestion Management Plan. Very interested
in your concerns about safety. Have mapped a high entry network, what does it take
to get something funded for safety and we are looking at where there have been
fatalities and serious injuries. Mentions a commuter rail feasibility study that they
are trying to get funded and a joint congestion management plan.
• One we clear the needs plan down to what is affordable, the cost feasible plan, it
identifies a roadway network. The priorities we agree to by continuing your
increments up to 2050. Every year we issue needs for more projects. Some of
those are smaller projects like the county incentive growth plans, the transportation
regional incentive program, which we have to work in concert with, and
transportation alternatives. This is when things go from a long-range plan, to cost
feasible to maybe a funded project. We issue an annual call for SU box funding
(that someone funding has a lot of say in) and it is not very large, about $7 million
a year. That rotates between bicycle/pedestrian, congestion management, safety &
new bridges. When we issue a call for projects, the county, City of Marco Island,
Everglade City, City of Naples are all part of the MPL, and they submit projects.
The committees vet them according to plans that have been adopted, they get lined
up for funding and the MPO board adopts new priorities as of June. It goes to
FDOT, and we try to get it done. Takes 9 to 10 years with MPO money. Sometimes
with smaller projects, you get lucky. As Lorraine stated larger projects take 20 to
30 years.
• Next Steps – continued stakeholder outreach; finalize roadway needs plan; project
evaluation and ranking; finalize revenue projections; develop Cost Feasible Plan
(CFP); 2050 LRTP adoption by 12/11/25. Suggests that committee review the Cost
Feasible Plan.
8
• Discussion and comments on whether the needs were ranked – no. All of the needs
identified are lining up to possibly get funded through the cost feasible plan;
however, the county may be pursuing some of the bridges by themselves. Want to
make it very clear that this is a need plan and what actually gets funded takes a lot
of input from a lot of people, including county staff and the public. Noted that the
bridge study was reprioritized. Clarification: The first study was redone, and the
Projects were funded with surtax funding. The additional projects we said we
would cut the East 951 Verizon. We had additional bridges, including 23rd that was
remaining on the bridge study. We said we would come back after everything was
fully constructed and implemented and then do a research study to see if any of
those regions still remain.
• Clarification, when I said safety and shoulder projects, it is capacity projects
through MPO and then non-capacity projects. Those non-capacity projects are not
just safety. For safety, we look at all projects. Those done for traffic operations,
looking for volume, looking for quicker fixes.
• Discussion and comments on monitoring of the road condition. There are many
cycles of analysis, the counties annual update inventory report, which looks at roads
on an annual basis, tends to look at 5- & 10-year horizons and then we step in every
five years with no more than a 2-year break in between. So there is constant looking
at the roads, and since the 2040 or 2045 plan, this road review seems to work
beautifully. Only one amendment had to be done. The long-range plan has been
getting things pretty well.
• Discussion and comments about Mark Strain meeting about work to be performed
at Immokalee Road 5-7 years ago and whether MPO was aware of the needed work
back then. Trinity advised that Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension had been put on
hold based on the great recession and it took some time for us to get that project
permitted once the board gave us authorization. So when Lorraine talks about time
for a project, yes 100% we knew what was coming on Immokalee Road, but it took
the board getting out of that great recession and it took the sales surtax to be able
to put some funding towards these projects for us to be able to get them up and
moving. We were aware of what was coming out of Immokalee Road, but we had
to wait on a permit. I had my people sitting in Fort Myers trying to get permits.
Working with the Army Corps and the flip flop with projects going back and forth
from state to Army Corp did take some time and we get stuck in that sometimes.
• Trinity commenting on long-range plans. Anne is literally programming projects
in two five-year increments and then a 10-year increment and what is feeding those
early years is the annual update and inventory report, so it is a cyclical thing. The
long-range plan feeds the AUIR, which is just in our capital program, but the AUIR
feeds that long-range plan specifically for the timing parts of it.
• Have had these needs discussions over the years – has gone on for a long time. First
time we have had a chance to get with you to be able to talk about some of the
opportunities. Discussions with Parker revealed that engaging communities is a real
problem. Also with the fire department, law enforcement and first responders. As
a result, we want to limit gated communities and require that they have a spine road
to be able to have that transportation and have connectivity. An excellent example
is the spine road running through the Vineyards that moves traffic. The county did
9
not require the developers to do it. We still have to go through the planning process.
Always agreed that not any one neighborhood was going to bear the brunt of the
traffic that was going to have to be filtered out of Golden Gate. Pointed out some
options that would allow for spine roads; information supplied to Parker. Concern
that no action has been taken regarding this. Also concern expressed about having
gated communities with two entrances. Suggest no use restrictions on the two
gates. Agreed that the spine road and gated community issue would be taken before
the Board of County Commission.
• Discussion about zig-zag mess of a road put through for main drainage which
resulted in damaged roads and inability to put in a sidewalk.
• Discussion related to budget and rural construction and whether those same types
of evaluations are communicated back to the county commission when they
approve these large new developments with the understanding that the developer
has to address the area within their community including the feeder and boundary
communities. Noted that the special district programs that were put together when
they started to build major developments spelled that out including the effect that
you have on neighboring communities and infrastructure. There is also the impact
piece (health aid) or some of the impacts on that specific development does to the
road network, the specific intersections that it impacts – we look at what the impacts
are so that impact can be paid for by that developer. All that language and verbiage
was put in the 2002 rule document that the Board of County Commissioners
approved.
• Discussion and comments on the interchange not included in the long-range
planning. It is in the cost principal plan for 2045. Commissioner McDaniel has been
an adamant supporter of getting it studied. There has been some pushback from the
Department of Transportation because new interchanges are going to be controlled
on the interstate. Think it is going to stay a high priority project and expect to see
some interchange justification report done suggesting where it is going to be. There
are two different parallel routes. We have to do the interchange justification report
to determine if it is necessary. Then you go into a project development
environmental study that will really look at those socioeconomic and environmental
items and will come up with a preferred alternative, which could be a no build. We
are looking at a full long-term interchange which will take every bit of 20 to 25
years to get. Golden Gate Parkway took us 20 years to get. While we still have to
do the interchange justification report & PD&E, we are trying to get the Florida
Department of Transportation to acquiesce and allow us with some safety
improvements to open up Everglades. This will go through a very public process
because this is a very polarizing topic with folks. We understand that it is going to
take 20-25 years to get an interchange someplace out here, whether it is Everglades,
DeSoto or Big Cypress Parkway or someplace in between. In the meantime, we
need relief, so if there is a way to open up Everglades as a partial interchange with
some improvements. Trying to do both.
• Discussion on gated community and agreement that they would leave a road
through Jane Scenic as an emergency evacuation to the estate south of the
boulevard; however, it is gated off. We know that the incident commander can ask
for that gate to be opened. We do have an agreement with FDOT to do that. That
10
was a concession in the day when we were pushing for an interchange. So we have
really gone about trying to implement those things to give us a better shot when we
go back in front of the FDOT, but it is something we pushed them on every single
time we see them that we want money for it.
• Advised that Parker would be providing information, and that committee will be
waiting to hear back on some of those emergency situations.
5. Open Discussion/Committee Recommendations
• Wanted to let you know that Jim Maloney is back, and he has taken over water and
sewer. Doc has gone back to the City of Naples. If you need anything, he has been
a friend of ours a long time and we can get whatever information we need.
• Attended a meeting at Big Cypress Estates and they are assuring me that we will be
able to drain the estate notwithstanding quality plumbing. The only concern is back-
to-back storms within 10 days and then they would be in deep trouble because it
takes 10 days to bring the system back up and this system was never designed as
flood control.
• We are going to have Dave Farmer in. We are going to go through the CIGM.
Farmer has some stuff on it and is prepared to update. Sheriff and Transportation
are using it so you will see a difference from when Farmer was last here.
• Parker asked that any recommendations that you guys have based on this, please
send to him via email so he can start collecting them and will include them into our
position points if not already included. Parker just needs to know what they’ve
already recommended and who they have heard from.
6. Public Comments
None
7. Adjournment
There being no further business for the good of The County, the East of 951 Advisory
Committee Hearing was adjourned at 7:49 p.m. Motion to Adjourn made by Aaron Zweifel
and seconded by Mark Teaters, Sr.
East of 951 Advisory Committee
_____________________________________________
Chairman, Mark Teaters, Sr.
The Minutes were approved by:
_____________________________________________
NAME
_____________________________________________
SIGNATURE
As presented on ___________________________
Or amended on ____________________________