City Council - Oct 27, 2026

Good evening. I call to order the October 27th meeting of the Jacksonville City Council. Mr. Floor Leader, I turn it over to you. Thank you, Mr. President. Our first order of business is the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. I would ask that you please recognize Council Member Romero, Council Chaplin, to introduce Bishop Arden Luster for today's invocation. Council Member Romero, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Floor Leader. Tonight, our invocation is being delivered by Bishop Arden Luster Sr. For the past 31 years, he has served the Bridegroom Apostolic Church as its senior pastor in the Lincoln Villa community area. Bishop Luster is affiliated with the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, where he serves on the Board of Bishops. He's the diocesan of the 45th Episcopal District, and his assignment is in the southern Philippines, Visayas province, Cebu, Philippines. Bishop Luster is the former chairman of the Florida State Council of the 29th Episcopal District of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, affectionately called Bishop Fafa. He has been married to his doughty, his beloved, Mildred Luster, for 49 years, and they have four children, Arden II, Avery, Andrea, and Aaron. To complete his circle, Bishop Fafa has 16 grandchildren, two great-grandchildren, and his most recent addition to the family, one-month-old Avery, Santee, Luster II, and one-month-old Aluni, Salome, Luster White. Proverbs 17 and 6 says, Children's children are the crown of old men, and the glory or the beauty of children are their fathers. Please receive Bishop Luster for tonight's invocation. Thank you. To the Jacksonville City Council President, Councilman Nick Howland, his staff, to each council member and their staff, and especially to Councilman Chaplain Ken Amaro, I say thank you for this prestigious privilege to lead the council body in prayer. To my beloved matriarch, Mother Claudia Dell Luster Lindsay, who is in her 93rd year of life, enjoying gardening and her posterity. Always the educator, I honor and thank you. Finally, to my beloved, 67 days, 7 hours, 56 minutes, and 47 seconds, we'll be married for 50 years. I stand here today by requests, by summons, and much more, I believe, by divine providence to lead the Jacksonville City Council in prayer as you engage and decide issues that will make our city a better place for all to live and prosper. As leaders of this city, may you embrace these words. It was the prophet Jeremiah who said, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, nor the rich man in his riches, but let him that glory, glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me. For I am the Lord who exercised loving kindness, judgment, righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight. With that being said, Lord, our Lord, how excellent is your name in all the earth. Today, this moment, we stand, better yet, we bow our heads, our minds, and our egos before thee, with whom we all, both great and small, are accountable to. May your presence, your wisdom, and your heart overshadow these leaders of our city, Jacksonville, Florida, who will engage and decide issues that will affect the well-being of our city. So we ask you, we acknowledge you in all of their discussions and deliberations, and that their decisions will provide a well-being and opportunity to all in this great city, Jacksonville, Florida. Simply, we say, our eyes are upon you. Our hope is in you. Lead us. Guide us. Guide these men and women as they make decisions. We say thank you for your choice of us. Finally, let the words of our mouth, the meditation of our heart, be acceptable in your sight. O Lord, our strength and our redeemer, it is in the wonderful name of my Lord, Jesus Christ. We say amen. Thank you, Bishop. Now our pledge. I pledge allegiance. Mr. President, do you have any announcements? I do, Mr. Floor Leader. Three of them, please. First announcement, would like to thank the Vice President for running a terrific meeting on October 13th, two weeks ago. You did a great job. You gaveled out by 8 p.m. Spectacular. Well done. Yeah, second, I'd like for everybody to note that committee week next week, everything that was on Tuesday will now be on Wednesday. We passed that ordinance several months ago in anticipation of the elections coming up on Tuesday. And note that on Wednesday, it actually is art walk night, so it might be busy outside City Hall after finance and before land use and zoning. And then the third thing, I have received a lot of questions about our subpoena that was served by City Council's Finance Committee to Mr. Nat Ford. So I just have a few things I want to say on that. Hopefully it answers the questions. But JSO served Mr. Ford the subpoena on Thursday morning at 8.53 a.m., legally compelling his testimony before City Council's Finance Committee. Councilman Rory Diamond is coordinating with Mr. Ford to establish a date for his appearance. Mr. Ford is being cooperative, so I have no doubt that the City of Jacksonville will hear his testimony. In the meantime, both the Attorney General's investigation and City Council's inquiry through the FAO Select Committee will proceed without an interruption. Any questions on that or any comments on the subpoena process? All right. Thank you. With that. It's now time for the approval of the minutes from the regular council meeting of October the 13th. I move the approval. Actually, should we do roll call first before approval of the minutes? Okay. I guess we should. Roll call, please. 19 present. Now it's time for the approval of the minutes from the regular council meeting of October the 13th. I move the approval. We have a motion and a second on the minutes. Seeing no one in the queue, we'll take the vote verbally. All in favor of the minutes indicate by saying aye. Aye. All against say no. Minutes from last meeting pass. Mr. President, we have nine communications from the mayor and other entities. Would you like those read or filed with legislative services? Let's file them, please. Thank you. We have one presentation this evening, one that we all should be proud of for the Duval Public Schools. As the introducer of the resolution, I invite Council Member Pittman to head to the podium as Mr. Teal reads the resolution. Resolution 2026-613. Duval County Public Schools earned an overall District A grade from the Florida Department of Education for the second consecutive year, demonstrating that the district not only achieved academic excellence, but sustained it under the state's more rigorous accountability standards. Despite higher performance thresholds established by the state of Florida, requiring 12 more overall points to earn an A grade than in the previous year, Duval County Public Schools demonstrated continued academic growth and improvement across virtually all areas of accountability during the 2025-2026 school year. Ninety-eight percent of Duval County Public Schools' traditional district schools earned a grade of A, B, or C, demonstrating broad-based academic success and significant progress within individual schools. Duval County Public Schools has achieved a 97.6 percent graduation rate in its traditional district high schools and 94 percent overall, representing a remarkable increase from 80.5 percent in 2013 and reflecting the district's commitment to preparing students for post-secondary education and the workforce. The district has continued to provide and expand opportunities for advanced academic achievement through dual enrollment, advanced placement, and other college preparatory programs, career and technical education, and industry certification programs, ensuring that every traditional high school offers pathways leading to college credit and workforce credentials. This achievement reflects the outstanding dedication of Superintendent Dr. Christopher Bernier, the Duval County School Board, principals, teachers, paraprofessionals, school support staff, district employees, students, parents, guardians, volunteers, business partners, nonprofit organizations, and countless community stakeholders whose shared commitment to academic achievement has strengthened public education throughout Jacksonville. The Jacksonville City Council recognizes that strong public schools are fundamental to economic development, neighborhood vitality, workforce readiness, and the long-term prosperity of the city of Jacksonville, and commends Duval County Public Schools for continuing to raise expectations and deliver outstanding results for students and families that it serves. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Jacksonville. The City Council hereby congratulates and honors Duval County Public Schools on earning an A grade from the Florida Department of Education for the second consecutive year. The City Council commends the district for sustaining a standard of academic excellence that reflects the hard work, determination, and commitment of its students, educators, staff, leadership, Superintendent Dr. Christopher Bernier, the Duval County School Board, families, and community partners. Thank you. We invite Dr. Bernier and the others to join Ms. Pittman at the podium, please. And that's everybody. Come on up. First of all, to my colleagues, I want to say thank you so very much. This recognition and achievement is extraordinary. An A. Y'all say that with me. A. Don't y'all like saying that? We love it. And so, we just wanted to share and show you how much we appreciate the work that you all have done from our superintendent to school board members, the principals and teachers, administrators, support staff, parents, and students. This achievement belongs to all of you. And we just want to say thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. My colleagues and I understand the importance of the quality of education. Every child, regardless of what zip code they live in, they deserve access to excellent education and the opportunity to exceed. We have one of our school board members or teachers that's on city council and we appreciate the teachers not only here but in the community. This accomplishment demonstrates what is possible we invest in our students. And I want to say that again. The possibilities when we invest in our students support our educators and work together with a shared commitment to education excellence. And A, I want to say that again, A. A. Come on. Y'all say it now. A. Rating is an achievement. Maintaining excellence is a compliment. Enduring and ensuring every child benefit from the excellence that is our responsibility. So on behalf of the Jacksonville City Council, we proudly present this resolution recognition to the Duval County School Board and to our board members for achieving an A district rating two years in a row. I want to say that two years in a row. So that means we got the third one coming. Is that right? So you all have made Jacksonville very proud and congratulations on what you have done and poured into our children in Duval County. Thank you so much. And who's the speaker? I'm going to give my chair her due, but I'm going to steal her thunder. The aspect of this is always about leadership and I'm blessed to have a board standing behind me this evening that has the right focus and focuses on children each and every day. We sometimes both as superintendent and board can get sidetracked into other issues, but when the rubber meets the road and we think about our fiscal responsibility, we focus on the classroom and doing what's all right on behalf of our children. Mr. Thiel, I could have saved you about, I don't know, 40 or 60 words by saying the A stands for all. It includes the city council, it includes members of the community sitting behind me who are members of 501c3s, it's KHA, it's your leadership as an august body. All of us deserve the opportunity to celebrate this work and to answer your question, our goal is always to repeat. We've taken home two A trophies. Our goal is to get the third one in a row and we will continue to work each and every day to make sure that happens. Thank you. And that's what we do. Picture time. Mr. President, as they are in the process of taking the pictures, I would like everyone to join me in welcoming Marquez Kemp of Riverside High School as today's page. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you. We are now ready for quasi-judicial actions. I would like to remind all concerned that these items we are now taking up do not include public hearings as these matters were thoroughly reviewed at the committee level and where public hearings are part of the decision-making process. Council members are reminded to declare any ex parte communications. The first item is found on page 5, 2026-0660. I move the bill. We have a motion and a second on the bill. We have no one in the queue. Let's open the ballot and accord your vote. Oh, I take that back. We have Mr. Gay on the queue. Let's not open the ballot and accord your vote. Mr. Gay, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to declare ex parte communication. I had a meeting with a developer on this and I totally support this RLD 100 development and look forward to these kind of developments in my community. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gay. Mr. Miller, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. President. I also rise to declare ex parte communications. I received an email with specifics from the North CPAC recommending no objections if certain conditions were met and it appears those conditions have been met. This has been filed with legislative services. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Seeing no other speakers in the queue, let's open the ballot and accord your vote. 19 yays, 0 nays. By your vote, 2026-0660 passes. Next, we have item number two, 2026-0695 and move it. I'll give it a minute for anyone who might have quasi or ex parte, rather. Seeing none, we have a motion and a second on the bill. Let's open the ballot and accord your vote. 19 yays, 0 nays. By your vote, 2026-0695 passes. Next, item number three, 2026-0696 and move it. We have a motion and a second on the bill. Ms. Clark-Murray, you're recognized. Thank you, President Howland. I rise to declare ex parte. I spoke with Ricky Rand on October the 20th via phone, and we discussed why he desires to change the current zoning from CO to CCG-2 and just the fact that the lot currently doesn't have any improvements, and I have filed the appropriate paperwork with legislative services. All right. Thank you, ma'am. We have no other speakers in the queue. We have a motion and a second on the bill. Let's open the ballot and accord your vote. 19 yays, 0 nays. By your vote, 2026-0696 is approved. Turning now to page six, item number four, 2026-747. I move the bill. We have a motion and a second on the bill. No speakers in the queue. Let's open the ballot and accord your vote. 19 yays, 0 nays. By your vote, 2026-0747 is approved. President, we're now ready for the consent agenda. I want to remind my colleagues that if you want to be added as a co-sponsor on any of these items, please let the chief of legislative services know via email as council rules prohibit polling items for that reason. Mr. Thiel, would you please read the bills? 2026-672, 733, 751, 758, 759, 760, 761, 762, 763, 764, 770, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 825, 827, 828, 829, and 730. 830. My apologies. Got it. I'm going to move the consent agenda less item number 26. We have a motion and a second on the consent agenda less item number 26. Seeing no speakers in the queue, let's open the ballot and record your vote. 19 yeas, 0 nays. By your vote, the consent agenda less item number 26 passes. Item number 26, 2026-830, I move the resolution. We have a motion and a second on the resolution 2026-0830. Mr. Diamond, you recognize. I move the council amendment. We have a motion and a second on the council amendment. Seeing no speakers, we'll take the council amendment verbally. All in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye. All against say no. Council amendment passes. Move the bill. A resolution as amended. We have a motion and a second on the resolution as amended. No speakers. Let's open the ballot and record your vote. 19 yeas, 0 nays. By your vote, 2026-0830 passes as amended. Before recognizing the rules, Chair, we will ask per your instruction take up an item and take up an item out of order. Please turn to page 35, item number 72, the third reading resolution, 2026-0203. I move the resolution. We have a motion and a second on the bill that's item number 72, 2026-0203 on page 35. I have two speakers in the queue. We'll first recognize Mr. Diamond, followed by Dr. Salem. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise to oppose this nomination. I want to be clear. I have no personal issue with General DeSalvo. He obviously has a very distinguished military career and I admire anybody who's willing to serve on one of our boards. But in the last couple of months, everyone who has JEA has seen their bill skyrocket. And it's already expensive to live in Jacksonville. It's getting more and more expensive to live in Jacksonville. And these JEA bills are ridiculous. And the only control we have as a city council, other than another investigation, is to, during the confirmation process, support or not support someone who's supposed to oversee a CEO who's supposed to look out for the people of Jacksonville and the rate payers. And given that, the city of Jacksonville is getting $140 million from JEA, plus another $40 million that we blew through. I simply think that the board of the JEA needs to stop raising rates. And the only voice I have in this is to say no thanks to this nomination. And I think anybody who supports this nomination is stamping rate increases on the people of Jacksonville. Please, no outbursts of applause. Next, we go to Dr. Salem, followed by Mr. Carlucci. Thank you, Mr. President. Legislative Services is passing out Mr. DeSalvo's comments at the Rules Committee. I would ask you to take a look at that. I think most of you are familiar with the circumstances behind the February JEA board meeting, so I will not focus on that tonight. As I stated previously, I value Mr. DeSalvo's military service and have had personal discussions with him since that board meeting. However, I do want to focus on the comments of the Rules Committee meeting that he made. As I said, I've passed these out for your review. The takeaway from his comments are unmistakable. He has no regrets and he has not learned any lessons from his past conduct on the JEA board. Instead of acknowledging the friction his previous actions caused, he's doubled down. He defended his past behavior as simply exercising independent judgment and explicitly stated that he has spoken up against the council before and will continue, I quote, will continue to do so when the circumstances warrant. He preemptively dismissed our legitimate oversight by warning us not to confuse it with political interference. Furthermore, he outright told the committee that he will not confuse accountability with acquiescence. He is telling us exactly who he is and how he intends to operate. We need JEA board members who understand that constructive collaboration with this council is essential to public governance. By using the shield of independence to justify his past defiance, Mr. DeSalvo has promised us that if he is confirmed to continue serving, we should expect the same behavior going forward. In conclusion, I believe Mr. DeSalvo's past actions make him ill-suited for this board. And I ask you to reject his reappointment. It's not personal to me. I believe his actions directly caused the JEA investigative committee to be formed. He flatly ignored the concerns of a fellow board member, the vice chairman at the time, who brought the allegations to the February board meeting. His loyalty through several actions was to Vicki Cavey and left many employees to suffer for a much longer period of time. In addition to that, I have spoken out when I thought city council members were disrespected by a respective board. I led the comments when President Howland was not allowed to speak at a JEIA board meeting and in a finance hearing. I immediately came to his defense and caught a lot of criticism from several board members on the JEIA board at the time. We need to stick up for each other. I think we've come a long way in our authority on these independent boards, and I think a vote here, a vote yes here will set us back considerably. So I urge you to vote no. Thank you very much, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, sir. Mr. Carlucci, followed by Mr. Palusa. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't want to go back and revisit the whole investigative committee. I think most people know how I felt about that whole thing, and I don't want to visit the politics of it. I just want to say this. Our consolidated government and the fathers who put together our consolidated government knew that politics was getting in the way of important decisions that had to be made when it came to the authorities and the utilities and so forth that they were making decisions about. And they had to make decisions that were not political and that were not subject to the whims of the electorate. They had to make decisions that were tough to keep the authorities afloat and solid. And they're not easy sometimes. Sometimes you have to make decisions that are hard, and because they were independent authorities, they were shielded from elections and making decisions that weren't right just because they wanted to make popular decisions to be elected the next go-round. And that's what has made our authorities work over the years. Some people may not like it because they made my rates go up. Well, had many times those rates not gone up, in the long haul, the authorities would have been in much worse shape, and perhaps those rates would have gone up much, much more. That's why they are independent authorities. They may not talk the way we want them to, but sometimes these independent authority members have to speak the truth as they know it because they are on the board. They are the ones listening at their board meetings, and they are the ones that know more about the situation and the facts than we do. Now, we do have some oversight, but I've always said, going back to the disaster of JEA, when a lot of us first got elected, the answer to the JEA was to have a competent CEO and a good board and leave them alone and let them do their job and don't let politicians get in the middle of it because we won't do anything but mess them up. That's what consolidated government was supposed to do, and that's what the fathers of consolidation meant when they put this whole thing together. So, I support General DeSalvo, and I think the board has done a good job under a tough situation, and so I just want to get a little history on why they are the independent authorities they are. Thank you. Okay, over to Mr. Peluso, followed by Mr. Gay. Thank you, Mr. President. I didn't actually think I was going to be speaking on this this evening. I didn't know it was going to be controversial that we'd be speaking about it, but General DeSalvo is a constituent, and General DeSalvo is a great man, and some of the things that have been said about him, not just this evening, but in prior meetings and prior rules, committee meetings, when he sat here during a grilling from some of our colleagues, it was so inappropriate for a man who had given so much for his country and given so much for this city. We could talk about utility rates all we want. We know that it's not our purview to do it, and frankly, thank God it isn't, because to the point of what Council Member Carlucci said, we don't want to put politics into this matter. We did it with the garbage fee, and what did we do? We punted for years, and we found ourselves in a hole. Same thing would happen here with JEA, lest we forget why we are here and why we had the rate increase when we did. It's because the last administration did a lot of tomfoolery with JEA and put it into a death spiral. Beyond that, we had board members that were not of high caliber. They were weak board members. We now have a board that's standing up for the utility that's supposed to be a public utility. God help us, if this utility gets into bad hands and goes in the same position that it was before in the last administration, then it will be up to a private sector board of whomever out of Miami and New York. Investor-owned utilities are not in the best interest of this city or our rate payers, and that's what happens to utilities like JEA when they aren't able to maintain solvency. Joe DeSalvo is a great man, and we don't pay him a dime to do this. And if you want to change the board out for one that gets highly paid and compensated and looks for profit rather than what's in the best interest of the services of their residents, then sure, deny this man an appointment that he easily has earned. I'm just a little surprised in taking it back that we're here because we've seen what happens when you mess with JEA, what it does to public trust, and frankly, what it does to even Moody's and Fitch and the potential rating, which only costs more for our rate payers if those ratings go down. We're doing things in the best interest of our constituents and our residents and for the future of the city. JEA needs to be independent. JEA needs to remain public, and you need to have strong board members to maintain that. General DeSalvo doesn't deserve this, and frankly, I don't know why he wants the reappointment because he's been through a lot, but thank God we have him, and I'll be voting yes, and I hope you do too. Over to Mr. Gay followed by Ms. Clark-Murray. Thank you, Mr. President. I've listened to both sides of this issue for a while, and it had come before us in rules. Mr. DeSalvo did contact my office and asked to speak in rules, and it wasn't that he was afforded or had the, you know, the basically the, I guess, the right to demand to speak, but he asked to speak, and I allowed him to speak. Looking at more of the transcript of what it was actually said, my concern is, yes, JEA is a separate private utility here, but yes, we need to keep politics out of it, but we don't mind politics reaching over there and grabbing hundreds of millions of dollars and pulling it back into the city here, and so there's, you look at both sides of it, and, you know, there's factors that are compelling on both sides. When a liaison requests to speak and is denied, that is not democracy. The ability that any one of us, anybody in this room comes to speak has a right, a constitutional right to be able to speak and to be told, no, you're not going to speak. that's where I have a big, big problem because I allow democracy. I didn't just say, no, you can't speak, so that is a concern. I've voted to support him at that time, but I always qualify my votes as I look into it deeper. I reserve the right to change, and at this point in time, I don't see that I can support Mr. DeSalvo moving forward with these statements to still not recognize democracy. We all need to hear each other. There is wisdom in a multitude of counsel, and when you have the mindset of the king of the hill and you're not going to listen to anybody, that's where I have a problem, and so sometimes we've got to stop, look at the whole scenario, not judging or degrading his service, but looking at the actions on this board. So that's where I'm at on this. Thank you. Ms. Clark-Murray. Thank you, President Howland. So just to address some of the things that have been said, so Mr. DeSalvo, he's not responsible alone for the increased rates. Fuel costs have risen as a result of an unnecessary Iran war and other factors beyond our city, and if anyone was to do the research, you would find that our electric rates are some of the lowest in the state. And I'll give you an example. Florida Power and Lights, they ask for a rate increase every year from the PSG, PSC, and the PSC they grant it. Now, in regards to Mr. DeSalvo again, humility is a characteristic of a good leader. Mr. DeSalvo came before the rules committee, and he was humble, and he admitted that there were some missteps. Should he have acknowledged past president, council member Salem? Of course he should have. And he seemed committed to wanting to change the way things work on the board. And so for that reason, I'm going to continue to support his reappointment. Thank you, President Howland. All right, thank you. There are no other speakers. I'd like to hand the gavel off to the vice president. If you would recognize me, sir. All right, Council President Howland, you recognize me. Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I will support General DeSalvo's appointment tonight, and I'm doing that because I talked to him beforehand, and I talked to him before we took him off deferral to be voted on in the rules committee meeting. And I asked him two questions. One question about the past. Would he have done the meeting differently where he would not let the council liaison to speak, and he told me, yes, he did. He wished it didn't happen that way, and he would do it differently. Second question I asked him was more important to me. It was about the future. It's about hiring J.E.A.'s next CEO. And he agreed with me, wholeheartedly, that the next CEO needs to be focused on delivering the best possible water and electrical service at the lowest possible rates. And to me, that was important. That's something he's going to focus on. That, for me, drove my yes on the reappointment. Thank you. There are no other speakers in the queue. We have a motion and a second on the bill. Let's open the ballot and court your vote. Full yeas, seven nays. And by your vote, 2026-0203 passes. Mr. President, that would be a good opportunity for you to introduce, to recognize the rules chair. Mr. Rules chair, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Tonight, we've just approved the following appointments as part of the consent agenda and the last vote. If you are in the audience, please stand to be recognized. Gabriel T. Roberts to the Civil Service Board, Angela Strain, Wyatt F. Bowers, Christopher Newland, Dr. Loy Valero, Elizabeth Payne to the Health Planning Council of Northeast Florida, Blake Bass and Charles M. Barr to the True Commission, Jennifer Beatoncourt Peterson and Scott Gellard to the Board of Library Trustees, Dr. Sunil Josie to the Environmental Protection Board, Allison Galloway Gonzalez to the Cultural Council of Greater Jacksonville, Kalina M. Shirley to the Jacksonville Housing Authority, Alicia Batson to the Planning Commission, Joe DeSalvo, reappointment to the JEA Board. Please join me in thanking these individuals for their service to the city. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, again, as per your instruction, we will now take up our unfinished business item found on page 63, page 63 of the agenda, item number 155-2026-0769. I move the resolution. All right, we have a motion and a second on 2026-0769. For everybody to catch up, that's on page 63. It's item number 155. Mr. Gavey, you'd like to speak on that one? All right, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. President. I've put this bill forward to recognize the pages, Boy Scouts, or the Scouts, for pages for the month of October. I'd like to recognize Troop 279 and Troop 35. If you would please stand tonight. Welcome. This scouting troop is in my district and doing the good work. So as this bill goes forward, I'd just like to acknowledge two other Eagle Scouts on the council, Councilman Bolin, Councilman Lannan, or Eagle Scouts, as well as me as an Eagle Scout. And it's quite fitting that tonight is why I postponed it to be tonight. And just as the information that was passed out to you tonight, this handout that I had passed out, it's from an October 26, 1976 council meeting. At that meeting was, let me read them here, Councilman, we have Councilmember Johansson Brewer, Goode, Crabb, Lanahan, Sanders, Hurst, Amos, Joe Carlucci, Matt Crenshaw, Joe Forche, which was my councilman at the time, Jake Godbold, David Harrell, Earl M. Johnson, Linwood Roberts, Clarence Suggs, were all in attendance, and Sally Mathis was not. So if you look at the very back page, at the bottom, why this is so significant, is the four pages that was at this meeting was three other members from my scout troop, 134, which one was my brother and me that 50 years ago yesterday was the, I was a page at the city council meeting. And so, yeah, so, but so, you know, with that, you know, I look at, and I met with the, the scout troop and the member for council, and I told them that, that, you know, and some of them were 12 years old, the age I was when I was a page. And I said, don't ever give up, don't ever set your sights low, set your sights high, to always do the scout oath, to, on my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the scout law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally weak, and morally straight. And so, that's my challenge to the troop, the scout members, keep the scout oath, never set your sights low, and when you, 50 years from now, maybe you can look at a scout, a city council agenda and see that when I was a page, the legends that I served, that day at city council is something that can never be changed, it's priceless. And so, the experience that I encountered as a page that I didn't really put a whole lot of emphasis on it then, but when we started in council here, having the pages come back, and it brought back that, like, hey, I remember I was a page, and Stephen Libby, had to go back through actual archives, not just through what was saved on the, but he actually had to go back into the paper archives and to find this agenda. So, yes, I've served with all three Carlucci's now. Thank you, Mr. President, so please vote this up. All right, thank you, and Mr. Gay had extra time. He's a man of few words, so he's banked a lot of time over the last several years. And I want to note also that our current page, I understand, is a scout as well. Is that correct? Yeah, fantastic. All right. Before we vote on it, Mr. Peluso, you're on the queue. Thank you, Mr. President, I was just going to move for a council amendment. All right, we have a motion and a second on a council amendment. We'll take this vote verbally. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. All against saying no. Council amendment passes. Move the resolution as amended. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. Mr. Peluso, you're still on the queue, but I think you're good, right? All right, let's open the ballot and record your vote. 18 yays, zero nays. By your vote, 2026-0769 passes. Mr. President, as per ordinance 2022-475, we are now ready for public comments. Council members, we're reminded this is our time to hear from the public and not a time for questions and answers or debate. However, a member of the public may be invited to the Robert Johnson room for further discussions pending the approval of the council president. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to speak, you should have filled out a public comment card. No cards will be accepted after six o'clock, which is in about 10 minutes. Council rules a call for an allotment of 90 minutes for public comment. The allotted time of three minutes may be shortened so that all wishing to speak will have an opportunity to do so. Given the number of cards we have right now, I'm going to set that time at two minutes and 30 seconds. During our public comment time, only the speaker will be allowed to the podium unless physical assistance is required. We provide this opportunity for public comment beyond what the state law requires. As such, you must state your name and address before beginning your comments or just say, my address is on file. That means it's written on the card, meaning it is written on the speaker card. I will announce five names at a time in the order that you are to appear. When I call your name, I ask that you move down to these front rows down here on the right, your right, awaiting your turn to speak, and then directly to the podium when I call your name. We ask that you place all bags, boxes, or purses on the table to your right prior to approaching the podium. We thank you for being here this evening. Our first five speakers are Jeffrey Vayu, I believe it is, Tony Langels, Carnell Oliver, Suzanne Sapp, and Kathleen Pereira. I ask Mr. Thiel now to please read Council Rule 4.505. Council Rule 4.505, Disruption of Meeting. Any person who disrupts a regular meeting of the City Council, standing committees, special or select committees, subcommittees, or any other public meeting presided over by a City Council member may be forthwith barred, removed, or otherwise ejected in the discretion of the presiding officer from further attendance at that meeting. If necessary, due to the nature of the disruption, the audience may be cleared from the Council chambers or meeting location in the discretion of the presiding officer. One method of disruption of a meeting would include the following type of behavior. Any form of political campaigning or electioneering regarding a specific candidate or group of candidates in City elections. Any person who refuses to leave the Council chamber may be subject to arrest. You're good? Again, please note the start time, Mr. Thiel, as 5.50. Again, our first speaker is Jeffrey Vayu. Please be sure you provide your name and address as you begin. Otherwise, provide and note that your address is on file. Good evening. Move the microphone up so we can hear you, sir. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Jeff Vio and my address is on file. I am a retired Navy commander and I've lived in Jacksonville since 1993. I am here tonight in support of the legislation 2026-0858 and 2026-0885 being presented tonight. I deliver meals on wheels in Jacksonville and I work at Volunteers in Medicine, both agencies that provide basic food and health care services to people in the economic donut hole between extremely low income and what is now called average income. I deliver meals to seniors who may live in a home that is paid off but needs roof repair or maybe even an air conditioner that they can't afford to replace. It is often painful to see the conditions they live in after a lifetime of building our city. At Volunteers in Medicine, I see neighbors who work in restaurants, barbershops, or Everbank Field, or ViStar Arena. Many of them can't find affordable housing for rent or can't afford to maintain a home they worked years to own. Right now, there are two houses on my mother-in-law's street in Mandarin that have been vacant for more than three months. I see large apartment complexes with many dark windows at night. It seems to me that there is housing available. We just lack new ideas or maybe some old ones that can help people get into homes and stay in them. I believe that our city housing division alongside non-profits and residents can open dialogue and create plans that lead to effective action. In the military, we call this process improvement. With proper governance, this fund can respond to many voices providing new and unique ideas, especially by those most affected. A community-based affordable housing trust fund can also draw from many funding sources, both public and private. It is not just one thing that creates barriers to renters and potential homeowners, and it will require more than one solution. Please support this legislation. It is one tool that can improve the cost of living in Jacksonville. Thank you, sir. Next, we have Tony Langels. Tony Langels, my address is on file. Thanks for allowing me to address the city council tonight. I listened to the mayor speak about JTA's $40 million deficit, and she said she had no knowledge of how this financial anomaly happened or occurred. CO Nate Ford did not manage JTA in a vacuum. In his farewell speech, he said, none of these successes belong to one individual. They belong to the board of directors who allowed innovation, who allowed JTA to think differently. They thought differently, all right. This JTA executive organization had to recognize the financial mismanagement that occurred under Nate Ford's tenure. Many months ago, Councilman Roy Diamond said, I quote, I do not think it is time to cut Navi, or excuse me, I do think it's time to cut Navi. It's well beyond its time. He was a visionary, analyzing the situation and making a rational, judicious assessment of JTA's financial overspending. 200 hard-working JTA employees had to pay the price for the $40 million deficit due to layoffs, with additional services being cut and fares raised by JTA. If the mayor has no idea how this mismanagement occurred, how did the accountants arrive at the $40 million deficit? Is this even accurate? Isn't Nate Ford being paid a huge consultant fee for managing the ultimate urban circulatory system known as U2C? After his tenure, I think it was just yesterday, he's left. JTA board chair Audra Wallace said, Dallas is getting one of the best in the business. The devastation he caused at JTA here, that's the best in the business? An investigation found Ford who was paid more than $625,000 a year, $625,000 a year, who frequently was out of the office traveling, having taken 140 trips since 2016. He also spent more than $40,000 on travel in 2023, including a 14-day trip to Spain and a 5-day trip to Hawaii. I guess he's the best in the business and spending money on vacation. He's good at that. So I just want to say investigate this JTA agency and we want to hold this JTA agency and management accountable. Should I talk about Amendment 3 now? Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Next we have Cardinal Oliver. Yes, my name is Cardinal Oliver. Address is on file. My point I want to make today is that we're living in revelation, but we've been in revelation repeated cycles. The first revelation was the Civil War. What came out of the Civil War was Reconstruction. In the 1960s, we had another Civil War. What came out of that? The Civil Rights Act. Now you fast forward right now, we're in another Civil War, but we're into a process of Reconstruction. Now I want to apply that from the federal, state, local level. Everything is breaking. The two years that Trump has been working, he has been doing a job of trying to tear out everything that does not work. Because in 2027, my expectation that we're going to be in the Reconstruction phase, and a lot of institutions are going to be restructured. It's just not going to be on the federal level. It's going to be on the state level, and it's going to be on the local level. So while everybody trying to hold on to the days of consolidation, those days are gone. The writing is on the wall. Too much damage has been done, so much trust has been lost, because on the federal level, right now, we have a president that's doing the work that our legislative body should be doing. This same scenario applies on the state level with Ron DeSantis. The state legislature plays politics. Do your job. It applies on the local level, but when it comes down to the local level, I'd rather throw this council out with the trash and this mayor, because I don't play political politics no more. I know too much. My expectations are you do your job. You comply with the Constitution. Don't come with this manipulation. Don't come with the games. But what you have done is that I saw at the last JTA meeting, Johnson wanted to come with some BS, and it don't make no sense. That subpoena should be served. Honor the law. When it comes down to foundation of black Americans, when I talk about reparation, you honor the law. You don't pick and choose your battles. You honor the law. Next we have Suzanne Sapp. Good evening. My name is Suzanne Sapp. My address is on file, and I'm here tonight representing Sierra Club as national staff, as well as the Duval Affordable Clean Energy Coalition, which is a group of local organizations and concerned citizens who are grassroots organizing, focused on being a part of building the kind of city we want and need here in Jacksonville. Thank you for the extraordinary effort you are making to relieve the suffering of people in Jacksonville who cannot pay their ever-increasing JEA electricity rates. We count on our elected officials like you to respond to the needs of the community. This emergency measure will help prevent crisis, at least for some, and at least for now. I hope we can all agree that we are ready to see our utility, JEA, thrive and remain a public utility. We look forward to the continued partnership, collaboration, and conversation with all of you and with JEA to chart a path forward to transparency and stability and affordability with decisions made in the open with a seat at the table for the people who own and support JEA, which are all of us. And we welcome this chance to work together to change things for better for the people of Jacksonville, folks like a senior citizen on fixed income, a family working and struggling with high food and gas prices, and rent and ever-increasing electric bills, a small business trying to keep the lights on and make payroll. They're all counting on us, and we're all counting on you all to be a part of the solution to help us build a city where we all not only survive, but thrive. We're ready to begin that work and hope that you all are too. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next, we have Kathleen Pereira. In the meantime, I would like to invite the following individuals to come down to the front, please. Dutchie Stevens, Anthony Brown, Bryce, Famine Steel, I believe it is, Dragon Beloit, and Carol Hawkins. I would ask you all to come down to the front, please. Go ahead. My name is Kathleen Pereira. My information is on file. The real reason there is so much uncertainty with government today is because we don't have enough statesmen and stateswomen, that is, citizens who understand that the role is to listen to and follow through on the desires of the citizens they agreed to represent in government. Unfortunately, what we do have are too many politicians, even here at home, even though I thought y'all did a great job with that item 72. I have seen too many city ordinances pass that pleased everyone but the citizens who will be most affected by them. I hardly hear a council member announce that this is what my constituents want, or don't want, before voting on a bill. I don't see the need for the ex parte exclamations when I also hear the mantra of we have to be quasi-judicial in meetings outside of council. In other words, why do you have to declare ex parte when everyone is supposed to be quasi-judicial in meetings outside of council? For that matter, why do you have to be quasi-judicial at all during meetings outside of council? You aren't AI creatures after all. You are citizens like us who are supposed to have the passion to support only legislation that benefits your constituents and other citizens in the city. You should be able to assure any citizen who meets with you outside the council that you will or will not support any bill they question you on, especially on unnecessary and anxiety-provoking bills like the slaughterhouse, old depot morgue and soccer stadium in town center. That is what statesmen and stateswomen do. Those who hide behind ex parte, quasi-judicial, and other legal jargon just to shock everyone on their formal, formal well-hidden opinion about a bill at the last minute are the actions of politicians. Thank you. Next we have Dutchie Stevens. Good evening, City Councilor. Dutchie Stevens, address is on file. Well, I'm telling you, Councilor, y'all better take care of Daryl Joseph about D.C. Departs, because y'all don't realize what I have gotten certified in writing from Washington, D.C. We're finding out that those locks that's on District 10 at Singleton Park is not Parks and Recreation's locks. Joshua and Christian Academy, they cut those locks off of those gates and put their locks on there, and they're coming up there without calling Parks and Recreation being charged the fee for how many hours that they want to use the park. They're using it illegally. They're trashing up the community, throwing all that food trash all out there in the street. It's blowing down the streets, drainages, all that illegal parking on the city's right of the way, on Welland Road. They already don't damage the main water line on Welland Road with all the weight of those cars that's been parking, and J.A. has come out there and replaced those water lines. They don't damage the sewage line parking on top of the sidewalks on Richardson Road. We may have to get J.A. some rich money out of the parks and recreation budget, because that's a lot of labor when J.A. have to do that work, but it's not J.A. responsibility to maintain the city parks, because you're not supposed to be allowed to use those baseball and football fields without being charged. That's illegal fraud. And baby, you can't touch the Dutch, but we can darn sure get a bus, because when you say enough is enough, enough is enough, I think it's going to wind up bringing that shooting back out of these city parks, if parks don't get on their job, because there used to be a lot of shooting at grandpa, when former sheriff Nathan the glove, and it took him a whole year to get that under control, because when they're parking on these right-a-ways or sidewalks, they're blocking private people property called driveways. They can't even get in and out their own property. I don't know why Singleton Park is being used, and we see all that fungus with those stank retention ponds. That means there's some busted deep underground pipes, and that's the evidence I don't send to the White House, because retention ponds stink. That's not St. John's River. That's not Trout River. So that part shouldn't even be open until further notice. And it's not our council that represent District 10's fault. It's the executive director of parks and recreation's fault, because I don't see him doing his job maintaining the parks on the north side, but he's sure keeping them nice and clean in Mandarin. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Anthony Brown. Anthony Brown. My address is on file. This might be word on the street, but I heard that this city council is serious about erecting and using taxpayer dollars for a museum. I think that's extremely tone deaf for this city council with everything that we have going on in terms of the economics of what's happening in our city and our country, and to even think about doing something like that when we still have not taken care of the low-hanging fruit in this city, which is issues like redlining, is embarrassing to say the least. Now, I've given the Durkeeville revitalization project or study to you guys so you can look at it. I don't need it back. But in 2024, there was a resolution that was passed, and many of you agreed there's something egregious that took place in this city in terms of creating a barrier for redline communities to prosper and to thrive. What we don't want to happen is, as the changeover takes place with the city council, is we don't want the things that are earmarked for these projects to just go to something else, like a museum or somebody's pocket or to do something in terms of putting new carpet down in your office. Now, again, like I said before, that's extremely tone deaf. I don't care what Donald Trump is doing, but we live in Jacksonville, Florida. I don't care what the Democrats and Republicans are doing because both of them are crooked, too. But here in this city, we need to do better, and we should know better. And the only thing that I ask of the city council is things that are allocated for things that we said we were going to earmark for needs to be taken care of. I do not want to see that money go somewhere else. I don't want to see it go to a developer. I don't want to see it go to an obnoxious entertainer or celebrity that comes to the city. I want to see it go to something, man, that's going to be beneficial for this community, something that municipalities like this created a barrier for. So I know reparations is a bad word for some, but everybody gets it with the exception of black Americans. And the only thing that we ask is you just honor what you started to do in 2024, which is to recognize redlining, and let's make sure that we put some tangibles behind that policy. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to try and get this right. Bryce Famine Steele, please tell me I was close. Thank you. Close enough. Name and address, please. Bryce Famine Steele, address on file. Thank you. I am here because I shared a bit of the righteous rage of Mr. Carlucci. It seems finance moved maybe some trust fund funding from we've got a lot of affordable housing kind of support in the city, but specifically moved, and it looks like it's line item 77, to this trust fund kind of supported single family home ownership. Beautiful thing about that is the owners get to kind of participate in the profit and generate wealth, and when it moves to apartments or multifamily residential housing, I don't see how that participation in the wealth goes to our neighbors, the community. So it sounded like that movement of funds was pretty swift. I don't think it should happen that quickly. The kind of initiative that the trust fund was for, including revolving lines of funding for new construction and local businesses to build those houses, is a priority that needs to be considered before we, yeah, it's the Torrey Meadows company, or Vesco or whatever. I think that the intent of that trust fund needs to be preserved, and, you know, just think twice about that if you can. That's all. Thanks. Thank you, sir. Next we have Dragon Beloit. Hi, everybody. I'm Dragon Beloit. My address is on file. I can't believe that we all just watched a woman get arrested again, but I digress. Seems to happen a lot around here. So I'm also here to talk about the trust fund and, you know, everything else. Quick question. What part of trust fund sounds like give millions of dollars to Vestcor, the gigantic real estate conglomerate? Is it related to the campaign finance contributions of the people associated with Vestcor? I hope not. That'd be pretty bad. Everyone knows what a trust fund is, right? I mean, there's a lot of trust fund babies around here, so let me explain it just in case. A trust fund is a fund where you put the money and you trust, see, important word, that the money is going to stay there until certain conditions are met, right? And from how hard we had to work to get you guys to put the trust fund in place, the fact that the turnaround was so quick to give it to a massive developer who's already building something, doesn't need the money for more than two years, is crazy. But it's not that crazy because we see this kind of thing all the time. Affordable housing dollars? Let's build another set of luxury condos. Affordable housing dollars for affordable housing, for not only the down payment assistance, which would be the only thing left in the fund after you guys got your hands on it, but also for the utility hookup assistance. Hey, that's pretty important. My part of Jacksonville still doesn't have anything but septic tanks, in case you guys remember you committed to that earlier, but I digress. I just got out of disability from having a surgery, and so I have to come back here and get mad at you so quickly. I was really hoping that we could have a month with some wins, but once again, I come here and I get disappointed. I hope most of you lose your jobs. I hope most of you end up needing the housing assistance that you deny to every single person in this county. I hope that you all get exactly what you deserve, and that is to have to ask for help from people who will replace you and who will be kinder than you are. I'm disappointed, but I'm not surprised. Don't do this. End of story. Also, we still have flat cameras that are on public roads, especially on Mayport Road. Can we fix that? Thanks. Mr. Floor Leader, before we progress with public comments, we do have the general counsel, Mr. Fackler, in the audience. Mr. Fackler, would you come up and give just a few minutes, please, on what council electioneering rules were violated earlier during this public comment? Michael Fackler, Office of General Counsel. Through the, to the council, through the chair, there are two rules that are in place for tonight, and the first one is the council rule that prohibits electioneering and campaigning during public comment. The section one, second one is code section 350.305, which prevents politicking in public spaces where employees are working. So people here are working, your staff is working, you are working, I am working, numerous public employees are working. Was the individual warned, and was she given the opportunity to change or cover the electioneering, the candidate information? I was stationed outside to make sure that we were able to fully inform people who were coming in of those two rules and the options that they were provided. I explained that they were able to speak if they covered up the shirt, which was a political campaign for an election which is occurring next month in a couple of weeks. I guess it's one week? Yes. It's one week. So those options were explained to the person. I also explained if you went inside with your shirt still exposed, you'd be violating the code section. The sergeant of arms would be notified and it would be dealt with as a code violation. Sergeant of arms was notified. I believe you gentlemen and ladies had a view of what transpired up here. I was not there. I did not hear that. But that was explained to her before. Options were given. She would be allowed to make public comment just not without her shirt and the slogan therein appearing during public comment, which is a violation of the rules or wearing the shirt in chambers, which violated the code. Thank you, sir. And then final question, then we'll proceed with public comment. But is that council rule and are those city ordinances consistent with state and federal constitution? Yes, we did some research after last council meeting and there's 11th circuit case that is on point and we feel very confident that those rules comply with the first amendment rights. This being a limited public forum, reasonable restrictions on time, place and manner are appropriate and we believe that those restrictions are appropriate. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Mr. Floor, leader, we can proceed. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Next we have Carol Hawkins. I'd like to invite to the front, however, Alan Mastin, Terry Rosenberry, Vanessa Collins Hopkins, Amina Sharif and Michelle Wilson. Please come down to the front. Go ahead, ma'am. Thank you. My name is Carol Hawkins and my address is on file. This will be the third meeting where I have asked you to designate and finance an affordable housing trust fund. And gosh, I thought we already passed that on budget night. I mean, that's what I thought. I mean, there were about 50 of us who understood that. We showed up. Many of us asked the council to restore the $4.9 million the mayor had put in the budget for an affordable housing trust fund. Many of us use the words affordable housing trust fund when we spoke about it. And I think many of you on the council understood what it is we were asking for and what you were voting for. And now I feel like a few folks from the finance committee have misunderstood what the rest of us were talking about. They've suggested we sweep the money out of the trust fund to pay for a single apartment project instead, the Torrey Meadows project. And I will acknowledge that is an affordable project. So I just want to make sure I do a lot of that. But it disturbs me that you want to spend that money even before we implement the affordable housing trust fund as planned. So for those of you who didn't understand, I want to explain what we meant. An affordable housing trust fund is more than a one-off case-by-case grant made to a developer for a single apartment project. It will give us a more flexible, comprehensive strategy for creating affordable homes in Jacksonville. For example, we can use the trust fund to pay capital stack for affordable single-family homes, too. Down payment assistance for homes, utility tap fee assistance. And hey, those, in fact, were the programs that the council specifically agreed to when they passed that $4.9 million. And I think we need to acknowledge that, too. I urge you all to stay the course in supporting Jacksonville's affordable housing trust funds tonight. It means voting for bills 858 and 885, which will be introduced. I also, when you vote tonight on Torrey Meadows, I urge you to restore the bill to its original language before the vote so it doesn't remove dollars from the trust fund that have already been planned. And finally, I want to say I am disappointed in the finance committee for giving the public only one week to notice that you did this and to respond to it. That was crummy. Thank you. Next, we have Alan Mastin. I'm Alan Mastin, and my address is on file. I'm here to support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. I understand that $2.8 million has been diverted from the fund to support the Torrey Meadows Apartment Project. While Torrey Meadows may be a worthwhile project that provides affordable apartments for struggling families, funding it by reducing the Affordable Housing Trust Fund is misguided. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul. The $1.4 million for the construction financing and $1.4 million for utility connection assistance are essential to helping many of your constituents to become homeowners. Homeownership benefits residents, strengthens the city, and increases revenue. The trust fund's $4.9 million allocation is a small fraction of the city's overall budget. So please restore the $2.8 million and identify another funding source for Torrey Meadows. For example, consider the funds allocated to the Jaguars' new stadium, rather than taking money from a program that helps low-income residents. Instead of reducing support for those who need it most, redirect funding that benefits wealthier interests. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Terry Rosenberry. My name is Terry Rosenberry, and my address is on file. City Council has approved funds in the current budget for three programs related to affordable housing. This evening, you are being presented with two pieces of legislation affecting these funds. First and most urgently, the Finance Committee has voted to remove funding from two of the three previously approved programs, thus attempting to undercut the vote of the full council on September 22, 2026. Whether this process is legitimate or not, I hope you are dismayed as I am that the Finance Committee apparently has so little respect for the wishes of the council as a whole and for constituents appealing for affordable housing. I urge you to support retaining the approved funding for construction financing and utility connection assistance in the current budget. Secondly, I feel strongly that all the funds related to affordable housing should be administered by the City's Housing and Community Development Division in an Affordable Housing Trust Fund, as being proposed by the Office of the Mayor. This structure is advantageous because it can incorporate other potential funding sources, such as developers' fees and donations from corporations. It also protects funding budgeted by City Council from being diverted from its approved uses. The fact that this diversion is already being attempted by the Finance Committee makes it even more important that you pass the original legislation. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next, we have Vanessa Cullens Hopkins. My name is Vanessa Cullens Hopkins, 3283 Edgewood Avenue West. As you're aware, traffic studies are important to optimize any design and urban planning that will maximize public safety. I ask that you and City Council, every single member, develop a more robust legislative ordinance process for requiring appropriate traffic impact assessments that will help ensure public safety and traffic efficiency. This is especially important when the neighborhood and the City Council person identify specific safety problems posed by a new development. It is understood that you are not expected to have significant expertise as it relates to the type of traffic study that needs to be done. However, you should be aware of potential traffic safety issues that may be posed by specific developments. I specifically bring your attention to the RV and boat storage ordinance 2026-0743. In this situation, definitely traffic impact studies need to be done. And because of where this potential business is going to be located, there is, that is, in the back part of Gateway Shopping Center, both Department of Transportation, Florida State DOT, and Traffic Engineering City of Jacksonville will need to be involved. This is extremely important if you are to have a safe situation for the current residents of the area and also those persons who will be trying to utilize the proposed facilities. Again, I request that you all develop a more robust legislative ordinance process that facilitates traffic impact studies. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Amina Sharif. Good afternoon. Amina Sharif, address on file. As Vanessa just clearly said that the traffic study urgently needs to be done for the Gateway Center for your intention to bring RVs and boats into the Gateway area. This is another case of redlining. We're being taken advantage of. There are no, there's a problem with the buses turning into the Gateway area. Now you're considering bringing in boats and RVs. There definitely needs to be more study done for that area. Now my other concern is it seems to not be a serious matter about the forensic lab that's in Brentwood. With the mayor saying that the forensic lab is a nice facility that is so nice she wouldn't mind that facility being in her neighborhood. And I think she lives in Atlantic Beach. Now, if that forensic lab was being considered by this city council for that forensic lab to be in the Atlantic Beach area, how would that work? Would her community be notified? The Brentwood community wasn't notified about that happening. Then the other thing is, the community wasn't notified. Then the thing is, the forensic lab, the way it's built now, is three feet away from a person's, a homeowner's front door with their children living in that house. Thank you, ma'am. Next, we have Michelle Wilson. I'd like to invite up to the front, please, Reverend Madison Hilt, Carmen Dawson, I believe it's Ashley Gambrell, John Turner, and Reverend Amber Kearney. Please come on down to the front. Go ahead, Ms. Wilson. Good evening. My name is Michelle Wilson. My address is on file. I'm here to talk to you about the New Jacks Ordinance 2026807. Thank you to Councilman Peluso and Councilman Arias, the Right to Garden Act, and also the Florida Statute 604.71. All this has to do with our right to have a garden in our yard, and we can have a garden in the front yard and in our backyard. My question is, I understand that we can only have 12 public events. My urban farm will be built in my backyard. I don't believe that anyone has thought about the fact of who's going to enforce all these code ordinances, because of the fact that right now I'm having notices put on my door because of my front yard. However, everything in my front yard is edible. It is considered a garden. It may not look like what everybody else sees as a garden, but it is edible. I have mentioned this also to code enforcement. Is code enforcement going to work on the weekends and in the evenings when a lot of events happen to be able to tell me that I reached my 13th or my 14th, or I understand the numbers now trying to get to 70 if I'm at my 71st, 72nd. It took eight months of me just to get my nuisance noisy neighbors situation taken care of. So my question is, if we are a code enforcement, I also believe needs to take a master gardening class so that they know what what is edible, what is not edible, what is considered a garden and things of this nature. And if you are hiring for code enforcement, I have five years experience with state and county government in two different states and in two days will be celebrating my 64th birthday. So you will have a good three years out of me before I decide to go for Social Security. So just something to think about. I don't want to, you know, I live in an area where we just got a Winn-Dixie and I don't want to have to worry in three years when that Winn-Dixie goes away, you know, whether or not I could sell tomatoes to my neighbors. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next, we have Reverend Madison Hilt. Reverend Madison Hilt, address on file. I'm here tonight to speak out against the finance substitution on Ordinance 2026-0762. We had over 200 people come out and talk to y'all. As a matter of fact, the swing vote on passing the Affordable Housing Trust Fund said they were influenced by how many people from the community came out and were passionate about this issue. It is so underhanded to then attempt to take the money that was designated to be put towards a democratic process to fund affordable housing at multiple different levels and in multiple different ways that was entrusted to the hands of our government workers and then take that and hand it to a developer in a backroom deal. All $2.8 million all at once tying it up for the next two years. This is nothing more than a political maneuver to attempt to save face. To the two council members that are responsible for this, you should be ashamed of yourselves. People in Jacksonville are struggling and suffering, and you think you know best. You think you know better than the voices of your voters. Well, I and so many other people tonight are here to tell you that is not the case. We want what was passed. We want what 200 people came out here to vote for, and we will not stop until we get it. We will be a thorn in your side because when we pick up an issue, we do not drop it. So sit with your conscience tonight. Sit and have this on your soul, at least if you're listening, because the two council members responsible, Council Member Lane and Council Member Diamond, are not here right now. I guess they can't face the limelight. So please vote no on the finance sub. We want more affordable housing. We want this project to happen, but we don't want it to happen at the expense of every other affordable housing project in our city. Thank you. Next, we have Carmen Dawson. Carmen Dawson, address on file. I don't want to speak over what was said before me. I think the Reverend Hill put it perfectly. But here are my own terms. I am also here to oppose the changes made to Ordinance 2026-0762. Jacksonville needs affordable housing, but the money that was just allocated for affordable housing does not need to be liquidated to a public, or does not need to be liquidated to a private company to do that. The whole point of that trust was to be able to set up a system in which affordable housing could be subsidized in perpetuity going forward, keeping the program alive longer. Spending all that money now, breaking the piggy bank effectively, means that two years, four years, six years down the line, when none of you are here or have been changed over, now there's no affordable housing program, or there's at least no money in it. That's underhanded. It's dishonest. And if you don't remember that your responsibility to your constituents is to keep them housed, then your constituents will remember it in the voting booth. Thank you. Next we have Ashley Gambrell, I believe it is. She's not present. Thank you. John Turner. Good evening. My name is Pastor John Turner. I'm a pastor at Riverside Church at Parking King. Micah 6.8 says that God requires us to do justice, to live, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God. That's not about our financial maneuvering. It's about how we live, treat others, and our stewardship to what is entrusted to us. When we take funds that have already been dedicated, meaning they have been set aside for a specific purpose and more than into an affordable fund, we risk destroying that trust. Justice means honoring the original intent and need for what the money was designated for. Mercy means using resources where they are not needed, not where they are most convenient. And humbly, before God, means recognizing that every dollar is his and we are stewards, not owners. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Reverend Amber Kearney. In the meantime, I want to invite down to the front, please, Nicole Sparks, James Swartz, Wells Todd, Etta Edlinger, and Denise Cook. Please come on down to the front. Go ahead, Reverend. My name is Pastor Amber Kearney. My address is on file. So over a year ago, many of my parishioners, along with many other parishioners of congregations all over the city, got together, and we started asking people what stories were important, things that weren't getting done in our city, which resulted in us looking at affordable housing. I joined a group of people who walked through a research process. Many of these city officials sitting before me, we went and visited your offices. We talked to people all over the country via Zoom and wanted to find out what the best way to find affordable housing for a city the size of Jacksonville. We work with the mayor's office, and we're really impressed with the ways in which they were addressing things and helped in their research meetings as well. And it's been over a year, and we finally got an affordable housing trust fund in place. And I cried the last time I left city council, and not because it was boring, but because I saw my government actually doing something that I saw that helped the city, and it was really exciting. And then I found out that the finance subcommittee came in and already earmarked money to a project without us having any legislation around this trust fund. There's no way for us to ethically handle the money that is not even put in place yet for a trust fund if we're just going to send it out to pet projects. And I find that unethical and wrong, and so I'm just here to say I promised my parishioners, I sat with them and I talked to them about the good work that you all did to get this affordable housing trust fund passed, and I just want to make good on the promises I made to the people. I know that you all want to help people, and so I'm asking you to strike the finance subcommittees adenium to this trust fund. Let's build some legislation around it. Let's see what it's going to be before we start doling out money in places. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next we have Nicole Sparks. Good evening. Good evening, council president and council members. My name is Nicole Sparks, and my address is on file. I'm a fifth-generation old Arlington native, and for the past 10 years, I poured my heart into the Arlington Community Garden, located on land shared by the Tree Hill Nature Center. My journey here is deeply personal. During a time of intense personal crisis, I sought out a place of healing, and I found myself drawn back to Tree Hill, a place my mother used to take me on childhood field trips. It was there I discovered the garden. Again, seeking a sense of peace and purpose, I sent an email to volunteer. I've been there ever since. That was in 2016. I came on as a project manager in 2019. Our roots run deep. Founded in 2010 by a United Way grant as a green sanctuary project for Unitarian Universalist Church, we are a nonprofit dedicated entirely to community, teaching, and healing. The majority of food that we grow is proudly donated to a local pantry, the Arlington Community Services. So we are able to feed our neighbors. I'm here tonight in strong support of Ordinance 2026-0807. However, I'm asking for you to protect our space from a gray area in that. Every Friday, our garden transforms into a classroom in the dirt. We host Jacksonville University students, homeschool children, and volunteers. Under the current language, this beautiful environment could accidentally trigger a headcount violation, mistaking an educational sanctuary for a regulated commercial market. I urgently ask you to introduce three vital amendments. First, clarify Section 656.401 to separate educational programming from retail rules. Second, increase community access days to 70 per year. Food is a vitality, but that vitality decreases rapidly once harvested. Fresh food is picked and alive for three to five days. If we don't have more frequent market days, we cannot get this fresh food, living food, into the hands of our community. In order to thrive and live, we do need to eat living food. And third, expand the market garden definition to support Duval County farmers. A classroom in the dirt is not a commercial entity. Please protect our roots, protect our children, and help us keep growing a stronger, healthier Jacksonville. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next, we have James Schwartz. Good evening. James Schwartz, address on file. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you tonight, and I will keep this brief. I'm speaking on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. I thank each of the council members who voted to support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, the creation of that. You listened to the outpouring of support from the community that several other speakers have spoken about. I encourage all the council members to vote against the effort to divert $2.8 million of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to the development of the apartment complex Torrey Meadows. Listen to the community and let the Affordable Housing Trust Fund money be spent as intended. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next, Wells Todd. Good evening. My name is Wells Todd. My address is on file. There are many laws that are on the books, and there are many laws in the past that have been passed that need to be repealed. So wearing a shirt of a candidate, a person should not get arrested for that. So why did the financial committee divert $2.8 million of the $4.9 million that was put aside for affordable housing and give it to Torrey Meadows' development? When looking deeper into this company, we find that it is really the Vescor Company, a highly politically influential developer and housing firm in Jacksonville. Vescor has the third largest number of evictions in Jacksonville, as the number stands higher than 368 at this point. Once again, here is proof of who some members on this council really work for. Wealthy developers whose interest has absolutely nothing to do with the improvement of families' lives here in Jacksonville. These corporations' only concern is profits. Affordable housing, universal health care, a living wage, police accountability, and other needs of this community will not be met under the current economic structure of this country. I hope Blake Harper can get up and speak to this issue, since my name keeps coming out of his mouth. The economic structure in this country is cruel. It's inhuman. And we all know it. But we all play the game. Billionaires run it. Billionaires pass the laws. And billionaires get away with breaking the laws. It's time for a change. And it's time for a movement to be built. Frankly, it's time for revolution in this country. Next we have Etta Etlinger. Etta Etlinger, address on file. I also want to speak about the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. There was quite a struggle to get the $4.9 million approved. And that amounted to 0.254% of the total budget. I think that was clearly a very low amount and was more of a symbolic than a real effort to assist people with home ownership. And it took a fight to even get that. As a number of people have said, then the Finance Committee diverted more than half of the $4.9 million, $2.8 million to Torrey Meadows apartment development, which is actually to VESCOR. The Finance Committee's action would redirect the entire $1.4 million for construction financing and the entire $1.4 million for utility connection assistance that would go towards the Torrey Meadows complex owned by VESCOR. The so-called affordable housing developer that has also the third highest number of eviction filings in Duval County. I say so-called because I haven't seen anything of any of the so-called affordable housing proposals or ideas that really explain whether or not they're affordable. According to the Jacksonville rental housing rental housing project out of UNF that studies Jacksonville and Duval County's figures for housing as well as homeownership and rentals, a person would have to make $33.27 hourly to afford a two-bedroom apartment in Jacksonville. And I think you all know that that is not a typical hourly wage for millions of people here in Jacksonville. We have less than a million, but for many thousands of people, they don't make $33.27 hourly rate. J.W.B. is the highest evictor in Jacksonville with 938 evictions from 2024 to the second quarter of 2025 with a very cozy relationship with city government. Starwood Highmark filed 454 and VESCOR is third with 365. I urge people. Thank you, ma'am. Next, we have Denise Cook. I'm sorry, Denise. Before she speaks, I'd like to invite up to the front Barry McMillan, Emily McMillan, Kevin Morrow, John Nooney, and Blake Harper. Thank you. Go ahead. Denise Cook. My address is on file. Good evening, everybody. What are the words that we've heard tonight? Affordable housing, trust fund, allocation, arrest, traffic impact studies, elections, incentives, redlining, reparations, $33 an hour, $2.8 million taken from the trust fund, VESCOR, JWB, Starwood, Highmark. We hear these same things pretty frequently when we come to these meetings. Why do we continue to hear the same things over and over again? Is it because we are ineffective at communicating the plans and the actions that are in place? Is it because we don't have plans and actions in place? Is it because we are not all on the same page? You know, I was excited to hear that we're deferring the $50,000 to Publix, and I think we should look at that with all of our development. If a developer wants to come into our city and develop and make money from the development that they're putting in place, why should we have to pay for certain things? I mean, maybe somebody can educate me on that. Yes, we do have incentives. Yes, we have tax incentives. But we have to look at some of this and make sure we're not taking, you know, robbing Peter to pay Paul. That's a hard way of life. I've lived my life most that way. And it ends up hurting, and it ends up being impossible. Let's just go back to some of the things we have in place. The Durkeeville study results, the money that's been allocated, the resolution for redlining that is supposed to have remediation that has been sitting there for three years. Let's not put that Durkeeville study back on the shelf for another 20 years and then call it a Durkeeville study instead of the HOPE 5 study and spend, you know, a quarter million dollars on it in another two years. Let's continue to move forward and move forward together and communicate with the people that want to communicate. Thank you. Ms. Cook? Yes. Council Member Johnson would like to meet with you in the Johnson room. Next, we have Barry McMillan. Barry McMillan. Okay. What about Emily McMillan? Did she leave? She's here. Okay. All right. Howdy, y'all. My name is Emily McMillan, and my address is on file. Good evening, and thank you, City Council members and fellow community members, for your time and consideration today. I'm here to urge you to protect our $4.9 million Affordable Housing Special Revenue Fund and vote against redirecting nearly $3 million, or 57.1% of those funds, to be exact. Jacksonville is tens of thousands of dollars in housing units short. In addition to this, our hardworking local families, our teachers, nurses, and public safety workers are getting priced out of the communities they serve, both as owners and as renters. A $2.8 million city loan at a 1% interest rate paid over 20 years once construction finishes benefits only the developer itself. It renders half of this fund useless and benefits a developer that could find a market-priced loan elsewhere. What benefit is there to the city to offer those terms? What benefit is there to homebuyers who are paying 7% mortgages with an inflation of 3.7%? Someone tonight mentioned that this is like robbing Peter to pay Paul, but in this case, Peter is struggling to repair his roof on a fixed income, and Paul has a high-yield savings account, a Fidelity Advisor, and an Amex black card. This $4.9 million fund is vital to payment assistance, utility connection help, and home repair, tools that help people access real stability, not just temporary fixes, or 180-unit apartment building. Cutting or pulling millions from this trust fund breaks the commitment made to the everyday citizens who are struggling with rising costs, and I urge you, please keep these funds intact and honor the original purpose in terms of this trust. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next we have Kenneth Morrow. Good evening, Council. My name is Kenneth Morrow. My name and address are on file. I bring three requests to be united by one principle. Jacksonville should plan before circumstances force us to react. First Amendment No. 3. If it passes, Jack still could face a substantial revenue shortfall. Regardless of party, we should agree that police, fire emergency response, and infrastructure maintenance and essential neighborhood services must be protected. My first request is that City Council direct the administration and Council Auditor to prepare a prioritized contingency plan now. It should identify phased, reversible reductions, distinguish essential services from deferral fundings, and also avoid indiscriminate across-the-board cuts. Second is data centers. Jacksonville should neither rubber stamp nor reject these projects reflexively. They may offer investment, employment, tax revenue, and strategically important infrastructure. They may also create concerns regarding involving water, electricity, noise, land use, and nearby neighborhoods. My second request is that City Council provide a special council committee to adopt a fear-versus-react review and independently verifiable evidence before recommending a moratorium or major restrictions. Protect citizens, preserve local control, and judge each proposal by measurable impacts and enforceable safeguards. Third was Emerald Trail. The Emerald Trail can connect neighborhoods and expand access to public spaces, but construction is the only beginning. Every new segment requires continuing responsibilities for lighting, security, emergency access, landscaping, sanitation, inspection, and repairs. My third request is that City Council provide or require a publicly reported life cycle regarding maintenance and plan before committing any additional financial dollars in support of this program. City Council members, these are partisan requests that reflect responsible stewardship and concern for every Jacksonville neighborhood. Plan the cuts before the fiscal crisis begins. Establish the facts before restricting responsible investment. Fund safety and maintenance before expanding public enforcement or infrastructure. And plan before we react. Measure before we decide. And understand tomorrow's cost before committing today's taxpayer dollars. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next we have John Nooney. Hello. I am John Historic. Philanthropic Resiliency. Good boy, Jelly Roll Nooney. 8356, Baskin Road, Jacksonville, Florida. 3-2-2-1-6. CPAC, District 3, Raymond Day, Wendy Kahn, Office of Economic Development, CIP. Duval County Public Schools, District 3. 2025-0867, Cindy Pearson, Charter School, Public School, Field Trip Public Park on Pottsburg Creek. That's brilliant. Next to a Noah Ray FEMA house. Now, if you are a Democrat, Republican, independent, vote yes on Amendment 3. It is affordable property tax relief in the state of Florida, period. Now, I'm wearing my boat ramp billy shirt. You know, that's in St. John's County. He's right. The Palmetto Road boat ramp is getting crushed when it comes to public access. Now, I still need a pardon for speaking out on 2024-0107. That was the JU direct contract. I mean, seriously. You know, Tree Commission, you know, they've got 29 million bucks. And CIA, I got my CIA hat on. That's Citrus in America. Now, we're taking the show on the road. We're marketing to the world. Here is the Board of County Commissioners of Clay County, 4-H. Here's St. John's County, Board of County Commissioners. They have 4-H. And, again, here's the Tree Commission right here. But the biggest thing I want to share with you, I'm just down to 45 seconds, is that, you know, ethics is gone. We're getting crushed. I went to an Ethics Commission meeting with our CPACs, Mayor's Disability Council, Council on Elder Affairs. Here is the Greater Arlington. I'm recognized there for attendance. You flip it over, and right here, I'm not recognized for public comment. And here is what I was speaking to, and it was Kids Hope Alliance. They've got 50 million bucks for programming, Amendment 3. I was there. So I was taken out of the public comment. Just four seconds. Restore the public trust. Thank you for listening. Next we have Blake Harper. I love getting teed up like that. Thank you, Wells. Democrat attorney Julian Epstein. He was the attorney for the Democrats in the House when Bill Clinton was impeached. He was on a radio show. So I wanted to share with you some of his comments. I think they're enlightening. You have to support your country more than your party. Your country is much, much more important than your party. I support the United States. I support America. I support the very ideals of the founding fathers. I think it has done more to emancipate people economically and secure individual liberty. And I believe in those principles. And when the Democrat party goes against those principles, I believe you have to speak out. About Abdul Mohamed El-Sayed, he says, I mean, the rap list on this guy's bigotry is just extraordinary. Now, if this kind of activity, if this kind of rhetoric, if this kind of alignment where Nazis were directed at any other group other than Jews, the left would be tearing its hair out. If this kind of thing were directed at blacks, if this kind of thing were directed at Hispanics, you would hear no end of it on CNN, NBC, or MS Now. I want to leave one last comment with you about this whole theory that he's got. I've got this theory as to why the left is so anti-Semitic. I think it's really important about the whole issue. And very quickly, it's this. The left depends on there being permanent victim classes, right? Black folks are permanent victims. Hispanics are permanent victims. Women are permanent victims of the patriarchy. Because if there are permanent victims, they have to become wards of the state. And the left is in the business that way. That is what they sell. They sell victimhood. But look at the Jews. They came through one of the worst times, persecutions, the worst holocaust, the worst genocides in history. They lost almost 40% of their population in the holocaust in the 40s. But by the 50s, Israel was thriving. It was one of the most successful, one of the most research-driven, one of the most enterprising economies in the world. What does that tell you about permanent victimhood? This is the United States of America, where we have free enterprise and you have God-given rights. You can do anything you want. We've got to get rid of this victimhood, folks. Mr. Harper, before you walk away, could you please give me the address on file or give your address? Absolutely. And by the way, this is the second time I goofed up. Thank you very much for overlooking that. Blake Harper, information on file. Thank you. Mr. President, that concludes our public comment portion of this evening. We're now moving on to public hearings, beginning on page 15, of which only one item will be taken up this evening. Council members should declare any ex parte communications. Anyone wishing to speak on the following bills should have completed a blue speaker card and will be allowed three minutes to speak. If you provided your address on the prescribed form and don't wish to say so on the microphone, then you are permitted just to merely state it's on the record. But we encourage to be as specific as possible as to your location, as it likely will impact the weight of your given comments. Like public comment, assuming approval of the presiding officer, a speaker may be invited to the Johnson Room for further discussions with a council member. Further, to complete a form provided, including the provision of an address on the card, will mean your name will not be called for the public hearing. Mr. Thiel, would you please read the bills? Pursuant to Council Rules 3.601, 3.602, and 3.604, for all public hearings and public participation bills, it's a violation of the council rules for any person to speak on any topic that is unrelated to the particular bill's subject. The following bills are up for public hearing. 2026, 558, 743, 744, 745, 746, 748, 779, 790, 791, 792, 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, 798, 799, 800, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 808, 809, 810, 811, 812, 813, 814, 832, 2026, 2026, 126, 127, 523, 524, 653, 654, 689, 690, 691, 692, 693, 741, and 742. Mr. President, I would ask you to please open all these public hearings. These public hearings are open. Mr. President, item number 27, 2026, 558, before announcing, I just want to declare ex parte, over the course of time, I've received over 125 emails, 47 letters, one phone call, all in opposition of this item. I have no speaker cards for item number 27. This public hearing is continued to November 24, 2026. Item 28, 2026, 743, I have four speaker cards. Again, I would ask you to come down to the front. Name and address, you have three minutes. Oh, yes, my name is Cardinal Oliver. Address is on file. I'm going to personally say that I do not support putting a storage unit building in Gateway Shopping Center. And I don't believe that we should be a storage unit for boats and things of that nature, because the thing about it is that it's starting to become very disrespectful to me as a foundation on black Americans. As I see, we constantly are used as a storage unit. We're constantly being disrespected and not uplifted with real economic mobility that requires us to be economically efficient for ourselves. So right now, I'm going to say up front, I want you to defer this bill until the new year. I'm going to say that again. Defer this bill until the new year. Because I want to enrich this community on the terms that where they can take control of their own situation. Not like this. For once, can you start listening to the people? You took a solemn oath. And like Ms. Eunice Barnum, you take a solemn oath. Your job, your only job, is to protect the interests and the well-beings of the citizens. As community people come out here and they complain about specifically billionaires and wealthy class in this community getting our taxpayers' money and building more revenue and capital for themselves at our expense. That's not right. Where's your moral compass? And the problem that I see with this project is that the Neighborhood Bill of Rights is not being enforced. The only thing Rockman Johnson produced was a resolution. Mr. Oliver, stay on the bill, please. Stay on the bill, please. He's a failure as a representative of this community, like many of you. If you want to get back to the basics of serving the people, you are a public servant. Those taxpayer dollars do not belong to you. Mr. Oliver, on the bill, please. We're on 2026-074. I know what the bill is. And the issue that I have right now, if I go off, it's because this is a lot more deeper than playing checkers. This is a game of chess. And y'all are running scared because you know what's coming down that pipeline. And the thing about it is, is that you're going out the door with them. You're not answering to the call of your duties and your responsibility to the voters. You can look at the clock or look me in the eye like a man. But the level of accountability is now. Do not move this project or any project on the north side nowhere. Not unless it empowers them, create ownership, home ownership, anything that they want. You're done, Mr. Oliver. Thank you. All right. Next, I have Pamela Smith-Payton. Same bill. Ms. Payton. About Vanessa Collins-Hopkins. By the way, Ms. Payton opposes this rezoning. All right, I'm being asked to leave my bag at the seat, so it's going to be a few seconds. Take your time. Thank you. Vanessa Collins-Hopkins, address on file. I request that you defer any type of decision on 2026-0743. Traffic studies are imperative. The city planning department has made the approval conditional on traffic engineering deciding whether or not traffic studies need to be done. I submit to you that traffic studies are required in this case and should be mandated by city council. And this is indeed an example of what I was referring to earlier in public comment that you have a more robust legislative ordinance process for requiring appropriate traffic impact assessments that will help ensure public safety and traffic efficiency. The reason why this comes up specifically around this particular application is because the proposed development is in the back of Gateway Shopping Center, and it actually abuts I-95. Now, the front of the shopping center is Norwood Avenue, which theoretically is a street that has four lanes. However, two of those are really turning lanes. 44th, you'll notice 044th Street is also listed as part of this application. That is a two-lane road, narrow two-lane road. It does have some turning lanes as it relates to the turning in to the JTA turnabout area. The bottom line is that this potentially is a dangerous situation when you're looking at RVs and boats, which are wider than normal vehicles, that have a hugely large turning radius compared to average cars and trucks, and that are needing to have access directly to I-95. Definitely, traffic impact studies need to be done. Traffic design studies need to be done. And the focus really needs to be on the safety of the residents and the safety of anyone that comes into contact with the Gateway Shopping Center area. We're talking about Norwood Avenue, Brentwood Avenue, Golf Fair, and 44th. Traffic studies must be done. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Katrina Spencer. Then we've got a fifth card, Denise Presley. She'll be after Ms. Spencer. Katrina Spencer, address is on file. I oppose the 743 with the RVs and the boat. There's no one in the neighborhood of that area owns RVs and boats. They do need to have a traffic study, as Vanessa Hopkins said. And I agree with everything she says. And when will y'all listen to the people of the community? We don't need that in the area. And again, the community did not get a letter telling us that was going to happen. And we don't know why we cannot get information before everything be approved. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Denise Presley. Good evening. My name is Denise Presley. Address is on file. So I'm here to voice my strong opposition to the rezoning of the Gateway Mall. While the proposal does mention JTA, the addition of the self-storage facility and redevelopment on this scale does not align with the immediate needs of the neighborhood. Many families in this specific area face significant economic challenges. A self-storage complex is often used for excess luxury items, like you said, boats and recreational gear, which are out of the reach of the local families. Instead of addressing our community's critical needs, such as affordable housing, grocery stores, or accessible community spaces, this development risks accelerated gentrification, driving up our living costs, and displacing long-time residents. So I urge the committee to vote no on this zoning change and prioritize development that directly invests in the well-being and economic stability of the existing neighborhood. Thank you for your time. Public hearing is closed. I move the bill. We have a motion and a second on the bill. Seeing no speakers, let's open the ballot and record your vote. 18 yays, 0 nays. By your vote, 2026-04, sorry, 0748 is approved. Turn to page 17, item number 33, 2026-779. I have one speaker card, John Nooney. Hello, I am John Historic, Philanthropic, Resiliency, Good Boy, Jelly Roll Nooney, 8356, Bascom Road, Jacksonville, Florida, 3216, Summon City Council, Historic City Council, District 4, CPAC District 3, Raymond Day, Wendy Kahn, OED, Office of Economic Development, CIP, Duval County Public Schools, District 3, Cindy Pearson, Charter School, Public School, Field Trip. Public Park on Pottsburg Creek next to a no-array FEMA house. You know, let me just get back here. You know, I thought I put on there, don't speak, but I will support off-street parking, on-street parking, public park on Pottsburg Creek. And, you know, that's, you know, I mean, that will be, you know, a visit Jacksonville, visit Florida, a Tourist Development Council. It should be the number one destination. And so we've got parking covered for Pottsburg Creek Public Park, you know, and- Mr. Nooney, you're not on the bill. Well, I am on the bill, it's- No, you're not. It's parking. Pottsburg Creek Public Park's not on the bill, please stay on the bill. What, seven? Okay, well, well, anyway, there's an additional public hearing on 11-10-26, so I'm in. All right, thank you for listening. I have no more speaker cards than 7-7-9. This public hearing's closed, an additional public hearing will be held on November 10th, 2026. Items 34 and 35, 7-9-0, 7-9-1, I have no speaker cards. These public hearings are closed. Turning to page 18, all three items, 2026, 7-9-2, 7-9-3, and 7-9-4, I have no speaker cards. These public hearings are closed. Page 20, item number 41 and 42, 7-9-7, 7-9-8, I have no speaker cards. Oh, I skipped the page, sorry about that. Item number 39, 2026, 7-9-5, I have no speaker cards. Public hearing's closed. Item 40, 2026, 7-9-6, I have one speaker card, questions only, folks, Huxford. Seeing no questions for folks, this public hearing's closed. Now we turn to page 20, items number 41, 42, and 43, 7-9-7, 7-9-8, and 7-9-9. I have no speaker cards. Item number 41 and 42, the public hearings are closed. Item number 43, the public hearing's closed. An additional public hearing will be held on November 10th, 2026. Now item number 44, 2026, 0-8-0-0, I do have John Nooney, unfortunately, I do not wish the speak box is not marked. Stay on the bill, please, Mr. Noone. Hello, I am John, historic, philanthropic, resiliency, good boy, Jelly Roll Nooney, 8356, Baskin Road, Jacksonville, Florida, 3-2-2-1-6, I'm in historic, City Council District 4, CPAC District 3, Raymond Day, Wendy Kahn, OED, CIP, Duval County Public School District 3, 20-25-0-8-6-7, Cindy Pearson Charter School, Public School, Fieldtrip, Public Park. The bill, please, Mr. Nooney. Sure, it's, well, we're going to appropriate 2.2 million in funds within a trust fund to establish, and then we're also going to be creating a full-time position. Well, I would reach out to parks, reach out to public works, the state attorney, the public defender, for a work release, for, you know, work release, you know, you know, which would support, you know, the off-street, on-street parking for Pottsburgh Creek Public Park. So, I know, on the bill, but, you know, I'm just supporting it, and, you know, it's in neighborhoods, finance, it's not in rules, and, but there's an opportunity, you know, to expand on work release, you know, throughout various areas of the city, you know, to maybe save some money. All right, thank you. I have no more speaker cards than 800. This public hearing is closed. Item 45, 2026-801. I have one speaker card, questions only, Caroline Fulton. Seeing no questions, this public hearing is closed. Item 46, 2026-802, I have no speaker cards. This public hearing is closed. Item number 47, 2027-803, I have one speaker card, John Nooney. Hello, I am John, Historic, Philanthropic, Resiliency, Good Boy, Jelly Roll Nooney, 8356, Baskin Road, Jacksonville, Florida, 3-2-2-1-6. I'm in Historic, City Council, District 4, CPAC, District 3, Raymond Day, Wendy Kahn, OED, CIP, Duval County Public School, District 3, Cindy Pearson, Charter School, Public School, Field Trip, Public Park on Pottsburg Creek, next to a Noah Ray FEMA house. Well, this is JEA stuff. You know, I was at the board meeting this morning, and let me just say something. You know, with JEA, I've been requesting, like, speaker cards. You don't have a sign-in sheet. You know, I've been going to them for years. You know, I started, you know, with the River Accord. You know, I can give you a whole breakdown. I mean, it's been a gradual erosion, and now we're going to be televising this stuff. And then, you know, it's like, where were all the other, you know, tapes and things like that? No, I've had a public records request. You know, just pull up the sign-in sheet, the speaker cards, and the minutes. I mean, I haven't seen them in years. I mean, what happened? And so here, in subcommittee meetings and further requiring to make available to the public in a conspicuous location, you know, anyway, you know, it's in rules to EU, you know, about neighborhoods and finance. But this is, you know, sweeping stuff, and it's not just JEA. It's all the independent. I can't emphasize enough. The bill's only on JEA, sir. Yeah, well, JEA. Ethics has gone there, too. All right, thank you for listening. I have no more speaker cards on 803. Public hearing is closed. Additional public hearing will be held November 24, 2026. Item 48, 2026, 804. I have one speaker card. John Nooney does not wish to speak, but it does support this bill. Public hearing is closed. Hearing page 23, item number 49, 2026, 805. I have one speaker card. You'll never guess. John Nooney. Hello. I am John Historic, Philanthropic, Resiliency, Good Boy, Jelly Roll Nooney, 8356, Baskin Road, Jacksonville, Florida, 32216. I'm in Historic, City Council District 4, CPAC District 3, Raymond Day, Wendy Kahn, OEDCIP, Duval County Public School District 3, 2025 0867, Cindy Pearson Charter School, Public School, Field Trip Public Park on Pottsburg Creek, next to a Noah Ray FEMA house. I mean, that's brilliant, and so the bill, you know, here again, it's a direct contract. You know, we were doing away with those things, and so, you know, I just want to point, there's so many of these all of a sudden. Why are we doing them? So, all right. Thank you for listening, but I just wanted to point that out. Thank you. No more speaker cards than 805. This public hearing is closed. Turning the page. Item number 50, 2026-806. I have one speaker card. John Nooney. Mr. Nooney, your introduction went 38 seconds last time. We've heard it. It's impressive. Please don't do it again. Name, address. But this is the one I've been waiting for. All right. God. I am, John, Historic, Philanthropic, Resiliency, Good Boy, Jelly Roll Nooney. Oh, Joe Tracy. You're not on the bill, Mr. Nooney, first morning. Pardon me? You're not on the bill, first morning. We don't need to hear all that. Well, the bill, okay. It's historic. All right. You know, I went to that notice meeting on this at 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock. And thank goodness public, well, you were there. But public comment was allowed. And what I pointed out, the original bill had 50 years. And so when I pointed that out, it's now been changed and taken out. So, I mean, this is sweeping stuff. And so when you read it, add a revenue source. Well, our place, it's a revenue source. And then here, disposition by auction or sealed bid. You know, is it going to the CPACs? You added St. Nicholas. You added areas. This is the entire city. So, at first, we're in. But when I pointed out that you had 50 years, and I mentioned it, now that's out. So, if I'm just down to a minute 22. But disposition by auction or sealed bid. Real property. I mean, this is big, super-duper stuff. If there's anyone in this city that's looking to do a historic, you know, preservation in any council district, call me. You'll be making money immediately as a revenue source to, you know, it's the free market. And so, anyway, no, this is huge. And, again, it's going to be in rules, neighborhoods, and finance. And so, you know, that should be one of the biggest guidelines. And, like I said, the number was 50. And after I pointed it out, it got changed. And so, that's why I really want to be on the record. And if there's anyone that has, and you will, through the committee process, come out with a number. All right. Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you for listening. I have no more speaker cards in 806. Public hearings closed. Page 25, item 51, 2026-808. I have no speaker cards. Public hearings closed. Item 52, 2026-809. I have one speaker card. John Nooney. Sure, please, sir. Stand the bill. Hello. I am John J. Nooney. Jacksonville City Council Resolution 2023-0819. I'm in City Council District 4, CPAC 3, School Board District 3. All right. An ordinance. You know, $900,000 from the general fund. You know, to where works. And, you know, electrical apprenticeship training. You know, I'm in. You know, it's going to be called the program. You know, again, we're going to be allowing for a direct contract. Well, you know what? You know, electrical. Look at solar. You know, 2025-0522. You know, I am in full support. You know, you know, the program. You know, again, it's going to be rules, neighborhoods, and finance. The program meet the charge. Electric vehicle charging stations. And let me say, too, at JEA next meeting, it's going to be all about solar. So, again, the free market. And I'll tell you, you know, the only problem is, you know, you take it from the general fund, and it's another direct contract. I have no more speaker cards, then. Public hearings closed. 0-9. Turning the page. Item number 53-2026-810. Mr. John Nooney. One card. Take heart, gentlemen. This is his last one. Hello, I am John J. Nooney, Jacksonville City Council Resolution 2023-0819, City Council District 4, CPAC 3, School Board District 3. All right, again, this is another direct contract. You know, $2 million from the general fund operating reserves. Now, again, experimental learning. Experimental. You know, again, it's going to be called the project. You know, allow for a direct contract. The $2 million experimental learning direct contract, the project, public park on Pottsburgh Creek, that will become the charge park. 2026, let's see, 0024-2026-0004-2025-0522-2025-0867. But, again, you know, just another direct contract. You know, as far as the trades, believe me, there's nothing wrong with it at all. But, you know, again, you know, just apply this experimental learning. Bring it to Pottsburgh Creek because we've got some good parking there. I have no more speaker cards for 2026-810. Public hearings closed. Items 54 and 55, 2026-811-812. I have no speaker cards. These public hearings are closed. Page 27, items 56 and 57, 2026-813-814. I have no speaker cards. These public hearings are closed. Item number 58, 2026-832. I have no speaker cards. These public hearings are closed. President, now it's time for public hearings on land use amendments and companion rezonings and modifications to the comp plan. Beginning on page 29, item 59, 2026-0126. I have no speaker cards. This public hearing will be continued to November 10, 2026. Turning to page item 60, 2026-127. I have no speaker cards. This public hearing is continued to November 10, 2026. Items number 61 and 62, 2026-523-524. I have no speaker cards. These public hearings are closed. Both will have additional public hearings on November 10, 2026. Item number 63, 2026-653. I have one speaker card. Questions only. That is Charles Price, 653. Go ahead. Seeing no questions, this public hearing is closed. I move to withdraw. We have a motion and a second to withdraw. Seeing no speakers in the queue, let's open the ballot and record your vote. 18 yays, 0 nays. By your vote, 2026-0653 is withdrawn. Item number 64, 2026-654. I have one speaker card. Jeff Rood, questions only. I should have noted, by the way, 653, that was Charles Price who had questions only. So on 654, I have one speaker card. Jeff Rood, questions only. Seeing no questions, this public hearing is closed. Mr. President, I understand we have a floor amendment. Mr. Peluso, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, I do have a floor amendment. It's been negotiated with the applicant as well. Mary, would you mind going over the floor amendment? Or Terrence, I apologize, through the president. Go ahead. Yes. So the floor amendment, it incorporates the LUZ amendment that was passed at the LUZ committee meeting. And it changes the third condition. It changes the condition to read as follows. There shall be no live music or amplified sound outside the building between the hours of 11 p.m. and 9 a.m. This has been negotiated and accepted by the applicant. And they're in agreement. Mr. President, I move the amendment. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second on the amendment. Before we vote on it, I would like to hear from the applicant, him or herself. Please come to the podium and let us know if you agree with the floor amendment. Name and address, please, sir. Charles Price. Address, information is on file. Sir, do you agree with the floor amendment as proposed by Councilman Palusa? Yes, I do. All right. Thank you, sir. That's all we need to know. Thank you. Mr. Diamond, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have any problems supporting this, though. I don't like this as a precedent. Like, for LUZ matters, I really think that this stuff, I mean, just come to LUZ or work with the applicants before and then knock it out in the committee. Doing it now, like, we might have problems with this. We might have issues. All of a sudden, we're going to do committee work. So I really appreciate the fact that you're doing the work. That's not the issue. I just, can we do this at LUZ, please? Thanks. Agreed. No other speakers. Let's take this vote verbally on the Peluso floor amendment. All in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye. All against, say no. We have floor amendment passes. Move the bill as amended. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. There are no speakers. Let's open the ballot and record your vote. 18 yays, 0 nays. By your vote, 2026, 0654 passes as amended. Item 65, 2026, 68, 9. I have no speaker cards. This public hearing is continued to November 10, 2026. Turn to page 33, item 66 and 67. 2026, 696, 91. I have no speaker cards. These public hearings are continued to November 10, 2026. Item number 68, 2026, 692. I have one speaker card, Shannon Alvedo. She does not wish to speak, but supports this bill. This public hearing is closed. I move the bill. We have a motion and a second on the bill. Seeing no speakers in the queue, let's open the ballot and record your vote. 18 yays, 0 nays. By your vote, 2026, 0692 passes. Turn to page 34, item number 69, 2026, 693. I have one speaker card. Again, Shannon Alvedo does not wish to speak. Questions only, I guess. Seeing no speakers. Is public hearings closed? Move the bill. We have a motion and a second on the bill. There are no speakers in the queue. Let's open the ballot and record your vote. 18 yays, 0 nays. By your vote, 2026, 0693 passes. Mr. President, we have two more items, 2026, 741, and 742. I have no speaker cards on those. This public hearing is closed. An additional public hearing will be held on November 10, 2026. With that, we now move on to third reading resolutions and ordinances found beginning on page 35. Again, for members of our audience, these bills have had their public hearings and committee reports finalized, so they are now ready for full council action. We have already taken up item number 72, so with that, I move 2026, 765. Did we, just checking, did we continue the hearing on 2026, 0742? Yes, we did. All right. Good. I announced them both. I announced them both at the same time. Mr. President, yes, I believe Mr. Boylan indicated on that one, in addition to the item before it, that he had no speaker cards, so you may have just articulated the one being closed and continued. You may just want to confirm that you've articulated the other one. So, for clarity, I'll articulate again, 2026, 0741, and 2026, 0742, these public hearings, there will be additional public hearings on November 10, 2026. Thank you. And they're closed. And they're closed. Yep. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Page 35, item number 73. Again, 2026, 765. Move the bill. We have a motion and a second on the bill. Seeing no speakers in the queue, let's open the ballot and record your vote. 18 yays, 1 nay. By your vote, 2026, 0765 is approved. Turning to page 36, item number 74, 2026, 687. I move the amendment. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. Seeing no speakers in the queue, we'll take the vote on the amendment verbally. All in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye. All against saying no, the amendment passes. Move the bill as amended. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. Seeing no speakers in the queue, let's open the ballot and record your vote. 19 yays, 0 nays. By your vote, 2026, 0687 passes. Item number 75, 2026, 722. I understand, Mr. President, that there is a floor amendment. Yes, I'll recognize Dr. Salem with the floor amendment, please. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a floor amendment. I'm going to ask Mary to explain it, and then I'll be glad to address it after that. Through the President to the Council. So the floor amendment encompasses the rules amendment, which was the technical items that were proposed by the Council Auditor's Office and approved in committee, but the substance of this floor amendment would be that it would strike the language that would allow for a commensurate level of training and experience in lieu of a bachelor's degree, but include language that says that the requirement for a bachelor's degree can be waived upon a finding by the Council that the appointee has a commensurate level of training or experience in lieu of the bachelor's degree. And I believe Dr. Salem can explain, while you can waive a qualification, he wanted to include explicit language to that effect as part of this amendment. Thank you, Mary. This bill was only discussed in rules, and I feel personally strongly that we should maintain a bachelor's degree as the primary requirement for a director in the consolidated city of Jacksonville. However, there was discussion that if there was no language in the code that allowed other experience to be used and a waiver could be utilized. So this language would be included in the code, so it would explicitly state that experience can be used in lieu of a college degree, but a waiver would be required. The important part about this waiver, it's only 10 votes. It's only 10 votes. It's just like it would be if you had a degree in coming forward. So all this does, you know, I grew up in a culture many years ago where you had to go to college or you just weren't allowed to live in the house. So I feel strongly about it. However, I understand times have changed, and we now have all sorts of other ways for people to make a living outside of a college degree, and we have promoted those through this government. So this allows that director. First of all, I support making this office a director position, which is also in this bill, and I think this is a compromise that has both in the code where a college degree or experience. And I'm hopeful, as Mr. Weinstein, and I don't think he's here tonight, he indicated that he might be looking at including this type of language in other departments or chiefs, and I hope this type of language would become the norm, and I urge you to support this amendment and then support the bill. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, sir. Over to Mr. Gay, followed by Mr. Diamond. Thank you, Mr. President. I support this amendment. It's basically adding more information in there that, yes, it's a 10-vote still process, but it gives us guidelines for the waiver. So it's really just a little more direction. So I'm supportive of this because it does allow experience and years of being in a professional position to be accepted in lieu of a college degree. So, you know, there are those of us that we did high school, graduation, a little bit of college, and back to the real world and went through the trade school to be successful in life. So I'm supportive of this amendment. Thank you. Over to Mr. Diamond, followed by Mr. Boylan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to, look, I'm going to vote no on the amendment. I'll explain why. I'm going to vote for this one way or the other, though. I'm not, like, super passionate about it. I just like to explain my votes, especially when such a close colleague has a floor amendment on council night. My no is I grew up like you, Councilman Salem, like, where parents were, like, insistent on college, like, absolutely would beat me up if I even thought of anything else. And now life and experience, having gone through four years of undergrad, three years of law school, is that maybe that time would have been better served doing something else. And I work with people all the time who I think are brilliant who don't have a college degree. And, frankly, I think the value of a college degree has just sunk to the ground recently. But my biggest issue for the no is that I don't want to put someone through the paces of the vote, because I think we may dissuade somebody who's very qualified, who just doesn't want to be embarrassed and have the entire world know at that podium that they don't have a college degree. That's just my two cents. But understand why you're doing it. I'm going to support this one way or the other. Mr. Boylan, followed by Mr. Peluso. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the Chair, Mr. Salem, one thing we talked about, and I'm sorry that we're doing committee work tonight, but the concern, a couple of things. Number one, I mentioned that night that the average college degree now is $40,000 a year. That precludes a lot of people for the opportunity of being in this process. My suggestion, and what we heard the other night as well, was the fact that if we say in the requirement a college degree is required but may be waived, that may discourage a lot of folks from applying for the job who would certainly be qualified for it and go through the process that Mr. Diamond mentioned before. My suggestion would be this, and maybe Ms. Stavopoulos can weigh in on this. Would it make sense for the administration to come to us beforehand on a given position and ask that we waive the college requirement prior to its being posted? So that way they can say this particular position, not because we have somebody in mind necessarily. We want to open up and make sure that it does provide those with vast work experience an opportunity to apply for the job because they think they have a very good chance of getting it. So I will ask that, Mr. President, as a question, if I can, direct that through you to Mr. Councilman Salem. Well, let me first answer your first comment. I contacted FCCJ to determine what it would cost because they offer four-year degrees at Florida State College. It's around $14,000 to get a four-year degree. So I hear you about the $40,000 over four years. I paid it for a child, so I get it. Number two, I don't know how practically that would work unless they had a particular candidate, the administration did, that they want to push through. So I just don't know how it would work. But I hope that answers your question. Thank you. Mr. Peluso, followed by Ms. Clark-Murray. Thank you, Mr. President. Through the President to the Salem Forum Amendment and to Council Member Salem, we still have to vote on this position regardless, right? We still have to get a 10-member vote. So I guess I'm curious as to – we're going to waive it for 10 votes, and then we're going to vote on the individual for 10 votes, correct? Correct. It's 10 votes with a waiver and 10 votes if they had a college degree. Either way. Through the body, I just kind of assume we would have this conversation with the 10 votes that we would need to accept the individual as the appointee. Like, I just – I don't understand why we're adding a different – another barrier to it. And otherwise, I appreciate that you're bringing an amendment to us. I will say – this is a pet peeve of mine – I hate when people say we shouldn't do committee work on the body. This is our job. This is fine to do this kind of work. I think it's a good thing. I think amendments and doing work on the day is what we were paid to do. But I will say I don't think I'm going to be supportive of this. I think for any of us that are military members, some of the best people we work with, some of the smartest, most highly competent individuals did not have college degrees. Many of them had kids and families, and so they didn't have the time to be able to go to college. It costs a lot to have those kids. But, I mean, I've worked with a number of warrant officers, chief petty officers, petty officers, and they did some incredible work and were great leaders. And I would trust them over some of the most highly educated members in the military. And I'm sure you guys would agree. I'm going to vote no on this, but I do appreciate you bringing it. I think it's fine that we're talking about it. Thank you, sir. Well, I agree with – if I could just comment. I agree. I don't like doing committee work here. But this was only in one committee. So it was very difficult once it occurred. And keep in mind, I agree with everything you said. But I've met many people that didn't have college degrees that would do great at some of these jobs. This allows them to come forward with a waiver. Ten votes. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Ms. Clark-Murray, followed by Ms. Pittman. Thank you, President Howland. So we did talk about this in rules. And, you know, I appreciate past President Salem's tenacity because in lieu of, pretty much says the same thing. It's just less verbiage. And we talked about this bill. I mentioned the fact that what this bill – the language in lieu of, what it does is that if you're looking to promote from within, it encourages those who don't have a college degree, who have the experience, and they've been in a division or a department for years, to have the encouragement to move up without having to get a four-year degree. Because thinking about city departments, experience really does matter. Also, through the President, if I could bring Ms. O'Leary up, as long as she's fine with it, I will acquiesce to the wonderful past President Salem, which I normally don't do, but Ms. O'Leary, you would – All right, I recognize Ms. O'Leary. Thank you. Kelly O'Leary, Deputy CAO, through the President to Councilman Clark-Murray. We would prefer it stand as is. I think that the idea – I totally appreciate Councilman Salem's compromise, but the idea is really kind of lifting up that candidate pool and being able to have a larger selection to consider, knowing that the Council has full confirmation rights. And so any candidate that the administration brings forward, you have confirmation rights at that point. Thank you so much for that. So with that being said, condition precedent, meaning that if she agreed, I was going to agree, so that means I do not agree. Thank you, President Salem. I'm sorry, President Howland. Thank you. Ms. Pittman, followed by Mr. Diamond. To the Chair, I'm going to make the same statement that I made in rules. I can't support this because, number one, I was one of those individuals who did not have my degree before I got the jobs that I've had over the years. And if someone had not given me an opportunity, as well as given me an opportunity to go back to school, I probably would have been stuck in an administrative position as a secretary. And I will tell you that I had aspirations to move up in the job that I had. And because there were opportunities to get mobility, I can't support this because I was one of those people that would probably not have an opportunity. So I was a no then, I'm a no now. I think about a lot of the people who have family members or friends that work within the city, may have started a family and could not afford to pay to go to college. So I don't think we should count people out because they don't have a college degree, but they have the experience that they need to get the job done. And so I just feel like we need to take that in consideration tonight. Thank you. All right, Mr. Diamond, I said you next, but Mr. White hasn't gone yet. Let him go first and you're next, please. Yes, sir. Thank you. And through the chair, I just want to put on the record, I failed in the same place Jacoby failed. I did not have a degree, but I've had probably every certification you get in the firefighting world, and I ended up partially successful. So I appreciate your thought, but I will not be supporting your amendment. Thank you. And Mr. Diamond. Ron, you're killing me, man. Make me agree with the people I don't like. I'm just kidding. No, first of all, the issue of not doing committee work on council night is because it doesn't allow for time to talk to the experts and do the deliberation required to make really good decisions that matter forever. That's the reason why I do want to bring up a technical issue, which is, and this is a statutory construction issue, which is if we write into our code, Ms. Mary, listen to me. Tell me if I'm right about this. If we write into our code that we can waive a provision, a requirement for someone who is up for an office, and we say for that one you can do a waiver of 10 votes, I think there's an implication that you can't do that waiver for other things that we might want to waive. For example, if we had a requirement that somebody lived in Duval County and all of a sudden we're like, we really like this person, we'd like to waive it, but then we look in the code and it says, well, the only thing we can waive according to the code by implication is whether or not they have a college degree. I think that creates an issue. Ms. Mary, do we have that snag here? Because that's what I see. And again, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to create problems, at least not about this. Through the chair to Council Member Diamond, yes, you have expressed kind of the rule of statutory construction and how it would carry, how it would play out. I do believe, though, that Dr. Salem may be able to address his reasoning in light of that issue. It was something that he and I had discussed, and to the extent you want to have a response from him. Yeah, of course. Okay, I think after discussing it with Dr. Salem, his position was that he understood that, yes, by adding a waiver that's explicit to a particular type of job qualification, you can't ignore that that has been inserted into the legislation if you wanted to go waive a different job qualification for the same position. But the other job qualifications for the positions that are here in this provision, which are the director of what is currently called the Office of Administrative Services and the division chiefs. The other job qualifications are somewhat fungible in the sense that it calls for five years of management experience in various areas that are specific to those types of positions. And so for animal control, animal control management, et cetera, where you may not need a waiver because it might be easier to meet such a broader, more flexible job qualification. And that was where Dr. Salem felt that he still wanted to include the language. Okay, I think I understand your argument. Thanks. All right, Mr. White, you're on the queue again. Would you like to speak again? No, okay. Dr. Johnson. Thank you. I wasn't going to speak on this issue, Mr. President, but I'm a little confused here. I don't see how this amendment is so terribly bad. It still allows, because we did this same thing. When I sat on the rules committee when I first got here, we waived the provision for the housing, chief of housing. I remember that because we were back and forth, and the gentleman did not have the bachelor's degree, but he had an associate's degree. So there was still the level of education, but he had the experience, I think, 20 years or so, if I'm not mistaken, in the department. So I'm not sure where we're getting this unfounded notion that we're saying that we're not going to allow people who don't have degrees to compete equitably. I just don't think that's what this piece of this amendment says. I think we should have done a little more research or work or whatever, but I'm hearing everybody say that, and I just don't see that in this piece of legislation. So I think it is important. There are many times that we have, and I certainly have heard all of my colleagues, all of us. One of my uncles, my grandmother's brother, my grandmother had years and years and became a principal and was, you know, master's degrees and all those things back in the 30s and 40s. Her brother, Uncle Fred, only had an eighth grade education. He was one of the smartest men I knew. So I'm not devaluing that moment, but what I am seeing here in this space that I really do think that this is not a bad thing for us to make sure that there are some kind of requirements for these positions. Thank you for hearing it, Mr. President. All right, Mr. Carrico, followed by Mr. Boylan. Thank you, Mr. President. In the similar words of Dr. Johnson over there, this isn't an attack on people who don't have degrees. I think this is just a way to strengthen our policy so we can have the ability to choose that Randy White when he comes out of wherever and come before this body. If you would have exited the fire department at whatever time to come to get one of these jobs as a director, 19-0, you would have got it. You still would have got the job. So I think this just puts a safety net so the council can decide and we can have the ability to change the rule. But I do think we need to value the education in the positions that we're seeking to fill. So I'm going to support the amendment. And Mr. Boylan. So, again, I want to reiterate, perhaps I didn't do it well the first time. Imagine yourself the job posting. You know, college degree required unless waived by the city council with 10 votes. So let's not – let's recognize what we're doing here by discouraging people from applying for a job and knowing they're going to have to go through a process that if they don't have a college degree that they're going to rely upon 10 of us to support their employment in that position. Okay. There are no other speakers in the queue. We'll take this vote verbally on the Salem floor amendment. All in favor – actually, let's do it – let's do it by hand. All in favor of the Salem floor amendment, indicate by raising your hand. All right. The Salem floor amendment fails. All right. Let's move the – I moved the bill. Rules amendment. As amended. I'm sorry. Yep. We need to move the rules amendment. Need to – I'm sorry. Move the rules amendment. Yes. All right. We have a motion and a second on the rules amendment. We'll take this vote verbally. All in favor of the rules amendment, indicate – This is not – No. Yours lost. Yeah. Floor amendment failed. Correct. Yep. And before we vote on the rules amendment, it's been moved in a second. And Ms. DeFopolis, will you explain that rules amendment? We had such a long debate on the floor amendment. I want to make sure. It's on the blue sheets. Yes, of course. Thank you. So the rules amendment strikes the change to Section 23802 with respect to the Environmental Quality Division Chief. The reason being is that position requires the division chief to have an engineering license, and in order to receive a license or an engineering certification, you have to have had a bachelor's degree or higher. So it was not necessary to change that provision. It also attaches a revised Exhibit 1, the org chart, to remove a reference to the Jacksonville Sports Foundation and corrects Scrivener's errors. Thank you. And before we vote on the rules amendment, also, whether that floor amendment was approved or not, the option still exists to waive the bachelor's degree requirement in this bill. Yes. To the president, absent any language to the contrary, you have the ability to waive, through the legislation, seeking approval for the appointment or confirmation of the appointment, any of the job qualifications that are established in the code. Thank you. Okay. Well, that's great. Then I'll virtue signal here and out myself. I'm 53. My first job was at age 22, and it was managing 40 sailors on a guided missile destroyer, none of whom had college degrees. And they were the best leaders and managers, pretty much, I've ever known, many of them 30 years later that still stands. So I'm happy to support this amendment and the bill. Thanks. Seeing no other speakers in the queue, let's vote on the rules amendment. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. All again, say no. Amendment passes. Move the bill as amended. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. Seeing no speakers in the queue, let's open the ballot and accord your vote. 17 yays, 2 nays. By your vote, 2026-0722 passes. Page 37, item number 76, 2026-749. I move the amendment. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. Seeing no speakers in the queue, let's vote on this amendment verbally. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. All again, say no. The amendment passes. Move the bill as amended. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. There are no speakers. Let's open the ballot and accord your vote. 19 yays, 0 nays. And by your vote, 2026-0749 passes. Item number 77, 2026-752. I move the substitute. We have a motion and a second on the substitute. Mr. Lehman, you're recognized. Thank you, President. To my colleagues, I just want to explain what this finance substitute is. So this bill came to us with no funding source. The finance substitute attaches a funding source using funds we budgeted for affordable housing initiatives for an affordable housing initiative. The $2 million for down payment assistance funding that we budgeted is not impacted, nor are any other previously approved projects, and it doesn't impact any other pending legislation. The reason I was so adamant about this is if you look at our tracker of financial commitments that are unbudgeted, which the authors brought to our rules as well as our finance committee, that's their way of giving us additional information. Going into this cycle, we had $35 million of unbudgeted financial commitments in the year 28-29. That's two years from now. That is my concern, that passing this, we're now up to $38 million of unfunded financial commitments two years from now. And, again, we have to budget that. So there is going to be some sort of tradeoff two years from now. And so, again, I view it as my job not just as finance chair but as an elected official here to at least bring up that concern that if we are not funding it now, we have to find a way to take care of $3 million plus $35 million two years from now. So that was the reason for the finance substitute. I wanted to point out that the amendment failed in rules, and the bill overall was voted on 4-3. And with the finance substitute in finance, it was a 7-1 vote because I don't think I'm the only one that feels the same way, concerned about what two years from now looks like with the amount of these unfunded financial commitments stacking up. So that is the reason for the finance substitute. And I would encourage you to please support it so we can pay for this now, not try to figure it out two years from now. All right, and we have four speakers on the queue. We'll start with Mr. Carlucci, followed by Mr. Diamond. Thank you, Mr. President. Well, the answer to that, Mr. Finance Chairman, would have been the bill should have been introduced with a funding source. It wasn't. So you don't go to another bill that has already been funded in the budget several weeks earlier and take the money for that. Look, I have no problem with Torrey Federal Apartments. They have two years to find funding. The impacts of what the substitute does is it hurts the intentions of what the housing trust fund was supposed to do, and that was to build homes. I'm not going to get into how I felt when I heard this happen. I'm not going to go there. I don't want to go there. I don't want the drama. But I'm just going to say that this, past the Torrey Meadows, you've got two years to find the funding. But a lot of people came up here and a lot of people in this council, and I worked very hard to see the trust fund. And council member Holder campaigned on that trust fund, and she won the majority of votes based on what that trust fund was supposed to do. And then less than, what, a month, two months, half of that money is gone for apartments. I just found that so disingenuous. I found it. I haven't seen that done in a long time. I was taught as a council member, if I had a project and I needed money for it, you go find it. But you don't take it from something else. You don't do that. That's bad faith. It's bad government. I've got to tell you, my phone rang off the hook. People were shocked. They were stunned, and they were hurt, disillusioned. And a lot of them came back up here tonight. They're gone now. And I was disappointed, but I can't say in some regards that I was surprised by how it happened, and that's a shame. I was surprised by some of the folks that I had handed it, and I was disappointed because I think people knew better. But I think I also know what was at the heart of it as well, and I won't repeat that. But I would urge that this council vote against the substitute, leave the dollars in the trust fund, so they can do what they were intended to do as passed. All right, Mr. Diamond, are you recognized? Call the question. We have a, do we have a, we don't need a second, do we, and call the question. All right, we're going to take this vote by hand. We do need a second. Do we have a second on calling the question? All right, we have a second to call the question. We're going to do this by hand. All in favor of calling the question, indicate by raising your hand. All right, calling the question fails. Yes, Dr. Salem, followed by Ms. Clark-Murray. Thank you, Mr. President. Through the President to Ms. Mary, if the substitute fails, then the bill will move forward, and two years later, we'll find a funding source. Is that correct? Through the chair to Councilmember Salem, so yes. At some point, before the loan comes due, you would have to identify a funding source and appropriate the dollar. We don't have to vote on the bill a second time if the substitute fails. If the substitute fails, you would still need to move the rules amendment, which has the technical corrections from the auditor's office in it, and then you would move the bill as amended subject to the rules amendment. Okay, okay. I didn't understand that. That's very helpful to me. You know, this affordable housing bill has an interesting history. It was past budget night, and there was a lot of tension in regard to this thing passing, and I made an amendment that Councilmember Carl Leach agreed to. I would rather 100% of this goes to down payment assistance. I told you that. I did some research over the last few days. As I think I mentioned, we've done 600 down payment assistance over the last five years. I read something on social media that so many go into foreclosure. There have been five, five that have gone into foreclosure. So that's a pretty good rate of getting somebody into a home. Number two, half of these people are going into an existing home, and half are going into a new home. So it's, I believe, a very successful way. I have never seen in my seven years here where something passes in the budget, and then two weeks later we're changing it. That concerns me just on the surface of doing that. And I asked around to some of the old hands, and I'm looking at them, and they could not remember a situation where something passed in the budget, and then two weeks later we're changing it. And I think in particular with the amount of people that got involved in this particular issue, I think it's a bad look for the council. I understand Councilman Layden's concern. I 100% understand it. But I think this is the wrong way to do it. I think it's the wrong way to do it. But it just, you just can't change something that quickly and maintain the confidence in the public and the council. So I urge you to vote no on the substitute. Thank you. All right. There's five more speakers in the queue. And before you speak, I'll just suggest everyone knows where the votes are going to be on the substitute. But Ms. Clark-Murray first. Thank you, President Howland. Aw, past President Salem. I'm so proud. So through the president, to the council. So this is unprecedented, this substitute. You think about it. So we have a project that won't be completed until 2028. But we are appropriating funds that exist right now for that project. And the funds won't be payable to the project until 2028. So we're encumbering funds that are available right now that could be used, just like Councilmember Salem said, for affordable housing, down payment, and then JEA. So let's think about that. Do we want to encumber funds that are available right now? And those funds are going to sit in that account for two years until this project comes to substantial completion? We don't typically do that. And we don't need to set a new precedent. So we need to vote the substitute down. Thank you. All right, Mr. Romero, followed by Mr. Arias. Thank you, Mr. President. I almost forgot what I was going to say. I'm one of those who believe the word that says you're justified by your words, you're also condemned by your words. And therefore, when I speak, I speak from my place of conviction. With all due respect to our finance chair, I understand his conviction to protect the finances of this city as diligently as possible. And I will always respect that. I'm going to be a no because when I voted yes two weeks ago, I said I would support the 4.9. And I don't like this approach of snatching from it. This attempt was made during the Rules Committee, and it failed. And it was easily carried into the Finance Committee, where Mr. Lainon is a chair, and it was easily approved there. That kind of politics grieves me. So I want to be justified by my words. And my words two weeks ago was a yes. And tonight's going to be a no on the substitute. And it's going to be a yes on the original bill. Thank you, Mr. Arias, followed by Ms. Holder. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I think that the work that you guys did in the Finance Committee is tremendous. What you guys are doing is exactly what you are intended to do, to protect taxpayer dollars and to find solutions for funding different projects, such as we've done in the past for CBA contributions and all that. So I think what you did was right. I think the heart of what we need to achieve here tonight is not that, Mr. Finance Chair. Respectfully, I think that these dollars needed to stay within the home ownership component of things, not affordable rental communities. When we approved these dollars a couple weeks ago, like I said, it was for down payment assistance, utility tap-ins, and construction financing. The original intent was to support funding single-family homes and townhomes, not affordable rental communities. As many of you already stated, we'll address this when it comes up in a couple years. And I'm pretty sure that we will be supporting it because, at the end of the day, we need more affordable housing, affordable rental communities in Jacksonville. I would love some more in my district as well, especially for the workforce. But right now, these dollars need to be staying for the intended purpose, and that's home ownership. That's it. So to all my colleagues, what the Finance Committee did, they're doing their job. But I think that we all need to just kind of sometimes just look aside from that, look outside the box, and realize that we owe it to our community. All right, because at the end of the day, these dollars need to be put to use right now and not in two years. Our community needs our help right now. We talked about J-8 hikes recently. Now we're talking about the affordability crisis and how hard it is to own a house these days. So I'm going to not support this substitute. I'll support the original bill. And at the end of the day, we want to make sure that people find homes as a home ownership. Thank you. All right, Ms. Holder, followed by Mr. Kerker. Are you on the first time? Yeah, you're next after Ms. Holder. Thank you. Through the chair, many of my sentiments have been shared by my colleagues already, but I want to say on the record that I cannot support this substitute. We've heard from our neighbors that an affordable housing trust fund is what this city needed. I was proud to not only campaign on it, but make good on my promise by voting on legislation to help move our city in that direction. I'm disappointed that we are even having this debate. I think this undermines not only the will of the people, but it also undercuts the decision that was made by this body. I trust that in two years we will find a sufficient funding source for the Torrey Meadows project because I do support that. But this substitute here is not it. So, again, I will be a hard no. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Holder. Over to Mr. Kerker. Thank you, Mr. President. Spoiler alert. I'm a no on the substitute, but I understand the spirit of it, and I know where you're going with it. And I do have a question for the administration. Can we just ask someone, maybe, I don't know, ice cold chief of staff, what is your plan to fund that? You know, the bill came forward without a funding source. We've got to pay for it. It looks like it's going to have the support. Where do we plan on drawing those funds from in the future to pay for this project? I think that's the whole concern of why we're even here with the substitute. So if we could get that answer, I think we would feel better, and you'd probably get across the finish line a little easier rather than all of us have to get in the queue and speak. So Deputy Chief of Staff, not as ice cold, but go ahead. Not nearly ever as ice cold, but I appreciate you. Joe Underhees, Deputy Chief of Staff at the Mayor's Office, as we do with all things through the budget process. So you don't have an answer. You're just going to figure it out. Well, as we do with all things through the budget process, yes, at the appropriate time. It's easy to say no on the substitute, but then it's harder to vote on the actual bill, even though I appreciate the spirit of the bill, and I appreciate what we're trying to do with that bill and that project. I'm in support of the project, but we have to figure out where it's going to pay from. We can't just buy a car and figure out where to get the money from later. So I would just hope that you would come up with a better plan of attack next time, and we'll see how the votes go. But I'm still no on the substitute. Undecided on the bill as a whole, leaning toward yes. Appreciate that. Thank you. All right. Dr. Johnson, followed by Ms. Clark-Murray, I believe this is your first time, too. Oh, second. Okay. So Dr. Johnson, followed by Mr. Carlucci for the second time, getting one minute. Thank you so much. I appreciate it, and I will say, another spoiler alert, I am a no on the substitute. I was a no in the finance committee, as I said there, and while it was iterated that there was a 7-1 vote, and just make sure we understand, it wasn't just the president came and voted as well. This was not – I tried to – I talked to many people in this community. I think it was a bad idea, as I told the finance chair during the committee. No, I certainly understood where you were going with it, Mr. Chair, but I just still think it's a bad idea. Our budget should be a commitment. It's our word, not a temporary suggestion. And I think that if we had passed the budget, it was a commitment, and now we turned around. Was it 20, 23, 34 days later, and we're now wanting to change the stream of what we said we would do. I just don't think it's a good idea, and we should be consistent with policy. When the exception becomes our financing strategy, the policy becomes meaningless. So we can't just continue to go exception, exception, exception. We need to have a policy that we can stick with. Now, while I certainly understand the fiscal responsibility of wanting to look down the line to see exactly where the money is going to come from, what I do know is that we have – and I'm not saying it needs to come from reserves, but because we are a city that is as financially healthy as we are, the funds are there. There are other places that they will be realized. But at this place, as all of – many of the speakers before me have said, the community has said this is something we need because people are looking for help, and this is a way to help them that is not just equitable but a great opportunity. So I do not – while I do support this legislation, I do think the substitute was flawed on its inception. I set it in committee. I believe it now, and I will continue to hopefully kill this substitute. Thank you. All right. Now we go to the second-time speakers, and if you're going to speak on this again since we know where the votes are, please try to be entertaining. Ms. Clark, where are you first? Try to be entertaining. You know what? To the president, I cannot promise that. So to my good friend, Councilmember Carricko, every year, every year, the mayor proposes a budget. City council, we approve it, and there are some changes that are made prior to that approval. That's how the administration is going to pay for this particular project, by budgeting it. If we were to approve the substitute, that means we would encumber the current dollars, and those dollars would remain encumbered. And as we have budgets for 27 and then 28, we'll continue to put more money, but we have those dollars that are now encumbered. So how will the administration pay for this project? By budgeting for it, as we normally do. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Carlucci. I would support, when we get to the bill, taking $2 million out of the operating reserves, or whatever the amount is, to pay for it. But I want to say this. I watched the meeting at my insurance office, and I felt helpless two days later. And the Office of General Counsel suggested that this bill be re-referred back. And it wasn't. It was pushed through. Mr. President, you were there, and your job is to be fair and give everybody on this council a fair shake, and you did not do that. And you fell down on the job, sir. You should have had the bill re-referred, so I would have had a chance to go back and participate in that debate, and you did not. And you can shake your head if you want to, but I'm just telling you, I've been around this longer than you have. And I have seen this type of thing happen before, and so I had to wait until tonight, and I had no idea what would happen. That bill should have been re-referred, as suggested by the Office of General Counsel, and you didn't do it. And I would suggest next time, as council president, who's supposed to make sure everybody up here has a fair shake and is protected, that you step up and be a watchdog for everybody. You failed, and you did not do that, sir, and that was one of my biggest disappointments. I had hoped for better this year, and all I can say is that just so disappointed me, along with a couple of other things. So I implore you to do a better job in that regard. Thank you. Not what I meant by be entertaining, but Mr. Merrow, over to you, followed by Mr. Landon. Mr. Merrow, then Mr. Landon. Oh, you want Mr. Landon? Okay. Mr. Landon first. Thank you, Mr. President. So just a couple of things. The finance substitute's clearly going to fail. Council Member Matt Carlucci, you said something that I completely agree with. We should not be filing bills without a substitute. And to Dr. Salem, I think that's probably also not common, that right after the budget's approved, a bill is filed without a funding source this close to the budget approval. I really don't think I've seen that either. And, again, this was not a council bill that was given to us without a funding source. We've been talking about the $3 million. We'll find it. Again, the $3 million is not really my concern. It's the $35 million we've already committed to before tonight that we're adding $3 million on top of. In all my talks with the administration as finance chair, it was never brought to my attention. In fact, I have the original writing on my phone about describing these three line items. There was never a differentiation made to me, nor do I think it was made to our auditors, about multifamily or single family. That differentiation was never made to me by anyone. So if that differentiation really was out there, no one met to discuss that specifically with me. And, Council Member Carrico, you nailed my concern. Like, okay, we're going to budget for it, but we've all created a $38 million hole that is much bigger than what we normally have when you combine completion grants, OED incentives, and then other housing loans and grants that we already have. So, again, that is my concern, and I do think it's my job to bring those financial concerns I have in the next couple years, and that was reason for the finance substitute. All right, Mr. Amaro, followed by Mr. Gay. Two minutes each. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to call the question. We have a motion and a second to call the question. It's non-debatable. We'll take this vote by hand. All in favor of calling the question, indicate by saying aye. Or, sorry, indicate by raising your hand. My apologies. All right, question is called. So, we have a motion and a second on the substitute. We're going to do this by hand. All in favor of the finance substitute, indicate by raising your hand. And the finance substitute fails. Mr. President, I move the rules amendment. We have a motion and a second on the rules amendment. Mr. Poplis, like last time, will you please go over the rules amendment briefly just because we had so much debate on a floor amendment which failed. Absolutely, Mr. President. Through the president to the council, the rules amendment provides that it will correct the extension language in the bill and it replaces the revised agreement on file to revise the general partner annual distribution limit from $500,000 to $280,000 to be consistent with the 10% limit included in previous agreements and to correct Scrivener's errors. All right. See no speakers in the queue. We'll vote on the rules amendment verbally. All in favor of the rules amendment, indicate by saying aye. Aye. All against, say no. Rules amendment passes. Move the bill as amended. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. No speakers in the queue. Let's open the ballot and record your vote. 15 yays, 3 nays. And by your vote, 2026-0752 passes. Page 38, item number 78, 2026-753, and move the amendment. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. Seeing no speakers, all in favor of the amendment, indicate by saying aye. Aye. All against, say no. Amendment passes. Move the bill as amended. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. No speakers. Open the ballot and record your vote. 18 yays, 0 nays. By your vote, 2026-0753 passes. And item number 79, 2026-755. I'm sorry. I move the amendment. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. No speakers. All in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye. All against, say no. Amendment passes. Move the bill as amended. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. Seeing no speakers in the queue. Let's open the ballot and record your vote. 18 yays, 0 nays. By your vote, 2026-0755 passes. And item number 80, 2026-778. And before I move the bill, I believe Ms. Pittman. Ms. Pittman, you are recognized. We are on item number 80, page 39, 2026-0778. I have had in my notes that you're going to be abstaining on this one. Mr. Chair, this is to advise that I'm going to abstain from voting on this bill because I am employed with the Clara White mission. And staff may apply for this opportunity. So the information has been filed already. Thank you. All right. Thank you, ma'am. With that, sir, I move the bill. We have a motion and a second on the bill. I'll recognize Mr. Arias. Thank you, Mr. President. So we created this several years ago. I want to say in 23 or 24. There's been enough time for them to develop a strategic plan already. Mr. Peluso, I'll be supporting this tonight, obviously. But I just definitely implore that you reach out to the committee to get this done already. I know that obviously there's been a lot of issues going on. But I think that you guys could bring home, I think, in February. But I would not like to extend this anymore. I think we need to put these dollars to use and help our community. Thank you. We have no other speakers in the queue. Let's open the ballot and record your vote. 17 yeas, 0 nays, 1 abstention. By your vote, 2026-07, 78 passes. President, now it's time for second reading resolutions and ordinances beginning on page 40, a number of which involve public participation. Mr. T, would you please read the bills? Pursuit to Council Rules 3.601, 3.602, and 3.604, for all public hearing and public participation bills, it is a violation of the Council rules for any person to speak on any topic that is unrelated to the particular bill's subject. The following bills are on second reading. 2026-815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 820, 821, 822, 823, 824, 826, 2026-781, 782, 783, 784, 785, 786, 787, 788, 789, and 807. Mr. President, we do have two public participation cards, both by Mr. Harper. Come on down, sir. He's looking to speak on item 2026-818, and 823, so you will have three minutes on each. Which one are we on, Mr. Boylan? I'm sorry, 2026-818. 818. Okay, thank you. Item number 83. 84. Three minutes on this one, three on the next. Yes, sir. My name is Blake Harper, information on file. I am speaking to you all tonight about the appointments of the library board members. Last time I spoke on this, we talked about the fact that the American Library Association, in their Bill of Rights, says they claim every person can read anything at any age. Imagine that any person can read anything at any age. What does that mean? Well, we're going to talk about that in some detail, but I want to continue on with what I wanted to talk about tonight. And that is in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court shot down the ALA when they tried to keep pornography in public, that is public, libraries. And if you look at the second page, you'll see Justice Kent. Mr. Harper, you're going to have to keep on the topic, which is the appointment of Mr. Frazier to the library trustees. We're talking about questions that you submit to that gentleman, sir. That's what this is all about, giving you the background to understand why you ask those questions. Okay? If you look at the second page, the interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate and even compelling, as all members of the court appear to agree. So the question is that you submit to these board people who are, in this case, being reappointed. My question is, is it okay for a child on its own to happen upon a book containing images of naked males and females? I'm not going to go through those details, but I will read that last part. Or an OBGYN's detailed view of the birth of a baby. I don't know how many of you have been in your spouse's room when the child was born. I have. Imagine those very graphic images. Now, this book here, okay, which you see, it says it's for 10-year-olds. This is in the children's libraries. Anybody, any child can look at that. Now, the question, and you know what? This is perfectly good, Birds and Bees book, but this is a book that you sit down with your children. Does it damage a child to see these kinds of images at 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 years old without the company of their parent? Because that's exactly what is happening in the libraries. That's exactly what happened. This is throughout the public library system. So the question becomes, is it okay for a child to happen upon this book with not being in the presence of their parent? Because that happens all the time when the kids go running through the stacks. The reality is that research has shown that images of this type have a permanent impact on people, on children. So my question to you is this. How do we make the library safe? I have no more speaker cards on 818. I've covered everything. You can go research this book for yourself and look at the images and see how disgusting they are and ask yourself if a 10-year-old should be reading this stuff. Thank you, sir. We have no more public participation cards, Mr. President. However, we do have a couple items, items 81, I'm sorry, item 95 and 97, which were assigned to waterways, which are quasi-judicial items. They need to be discharged from waterways. I'm hereby discharging 2026-0784 from waterways as it's a quasi-judicial bill. And the same with item number 97? 99, I'm sorry. I'm hereby discharging 2026-0788 from waterways as it's a quasi-judicial bill. If that's all right, I move the addendum because we have one item that requires no action. I need a second. We have a motion and a second on the addendum. Page 64. On page 64, seeing nobody in the queue, we'll take the vote verbally. All in favor of the addendum indicate by saying aye. Aye. All again, say no. Addendum passes. That concludes our agenda for this evening, sir. All right. We'll take roll call, please. Oh, we haven't, we've taken up unfinished business. No, there was a bill about sponsorship. I'll recognize Ms. Clark-Murray. That's correct. Sorry. I almost jumped the gun here. So, thank you, President Howland. So, for Bill 2026-0867, I'd like to pose, like to present a motion to waive Council Rule 3.103 to allow additional introducers to be added after filing. Just simply a clerical error. I know that I requested to be a co-introducer for this bill during one of the notice meetings with my colleagues, Mr. Councilmember Peluso and Councilmember Gaffney, as well as Councilmember Pittman and Holder. Yes. So, for everyone's edifice here, we're on page 61, item number 151. That's 2026-087, and Ms. Clark-Murray has moved to waive Council Rule 3.103 to add introducers to the bill? Yes. Do we have a second on that? And Councilmember Arias. Okay. We have a motion from Ms. Clark-Murray and a second from Dr. Johnson. And you still have the floor, Ms. Clark-Murray. Thank you. So, well, are there any questions? I see Dr. Johnson in the queue. Ear up, Dr. Johnson. Okay. So, in order to effectuate adding introducers to the bill, two waivers have to be approved by Council by a vote of 13 before an amendment can be moved. We have a floor amendment ready that has the five individual, I believe it was Peluso, Gaffney, Clark-Murray, Holder, and Pittman listed because they indicated during notice meetings that they wanted to be added. Once you've taken up the motion on this waiver and then the other one gets moved and voted on, if they are approved, then the amendment can be moved. And if individual members want to be added, then we can address that as an amendment to the amendment. But we have to get through these other steps first before we start talking about adding other members to the bill. Ms. Clark-Murray still has, you still have the floor. Thank you. So, thank you, Mr. Popolis, for that. So, once again, so she just explained, so the original, we have this waiver that we need to approve or disapprove? So, this waiver of Rule 3.103 is the waiver of the rule that requires that introducers be listed at the time of filing. If this is approved, then the second waiver that's required is Rule 3.302, which would be moved by separate motion at the direction of the Council President. And that is the rule that states that you cannot amend a bill on first reading. Mr. President, I will go ahead and move Waiver 3.103. Council Member Clark-Murray had moved it and it had been seconded, so that motion is properly on the floor. Before we go to Dr. Johnson, Ms. Popolis, why can't we just withdraw the bill and reintroduce it with all the proper introducers? Past practices, that has been what is done to accomplish this. That is the other alternative, is to withdraw it. It could be refiled. It was filed as a one-cycle emergency, so to refile it in the same posture with the additional co-introducers would add two weeks to the process. But that is traditionally how this type of issue is addressed. Is Mr. Peluso, you're the introducer. Are you okay with Ms. Clark-Murray's motion? Through the President, absolutely. I mean, it really is just a clerical error. We've had multiple notice meetings. All the other council members wanted to be on the bill because of timing. Okay. It was a minor mistake, and we can correct it right now, and I'd appreciate it if we do. Okay. Over to Dr. Johnson. Thanks for that, Mr. President. My question is about the order. Would that be, there was an order that will come out when you put the amendment out, the printed amendment? We will pass out the printed amendment once the two waivers have been addressed because the amendment would not be properly moved unless both waivers are approved by 13 votes of counsel. Through the President, would the order need to be addressed in what we're, and the reason I ask that is because with all due respect to, through the chair to Councilman Peluso, during budget night, I remember hearing Councilman Gaffney. The proposed amendment list, Councilman Gaffney, first. I'm good. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no other speakers, we have a motion and a second on Ms. Clark-Murray's motion to waive Council Rule 3.103. It requires a two-thirds vote, 13 votes to pass. Let's do this by hand. All in favor, indicate by raising your hand. That passes. Ms. Clark-Murray will, unless you want to do it, Mr. Florida, just, and motion to waive 3.203. Oh, 3.302? Yeah. Okay, thank you. So, through the President to Mr. Popolis, you, okay, so I'm going to move it. Thank you. And once again, I move to waive Council Rule 3.302 to, yes, okay, listen, let me just put on my glasses so I can see, all right, all right, to allow for an amendment on, for an amendment on first reading. I need a second. All right. All right, we have a motion and a second on the bill, no speakers. I'll just say I voted for the last one, and I'm voting for this one again, just to be fair. I consider myself fair to my colleagues, and the, I hope it doesn't become a precedent, because otherwise we could end up doing this on Council Night all the time and just adding introducers and things like that, and we don't want that to happen. Seeing no other speakers in the queue, let's take this by hand, all in favor of Ms. Clark-Murray's motion to waive 3.302. Oh, Mr. Gaffney, motions on waivers are non-debatable, but we can talk about them, right? We just talked about 3.103 at length. Okay, how about after the amendment, then you can speak, Mr. Gaffney. All right, so we have a motion to waive 3.302, and we have a second. All in favor indicate by raising your hand. Motion passes. I'll recognize Mr. Gaffney before we move to the floor amendment. No, you're good. I'll recognize, and you're not on the queue, you want to be, Mr. Diamond? Okay, Ms. Clark-Murray, you're speaking on your floor amendment now? Okay, you are recognized. All right, thank you, President Howland. So you are receiving the Clyde-Murray floor amendment. I got you, I understand. So once again, the idea is that we are going to insert the council members, Reginald Gaffney, Peluso, myself, Holder, and Pittman, as co-introducers of Bill 2026-867, and simply that there's an additional aspect where there's going to be a sentence that's added that the bill was amended to reflect this change, and that is the floor amendment. We have a motion and a second on the floor amendment. Mr. Peluso, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to see if we could add to that list Council Member Arias as well, who just declared he wanted to be as well. Okay, Ms. DeFopolis, can we add that? Is that difficult to do, given that the floor? Without having to write it? Yeah. Mr. President, I would just need to, somebody would need to move an amendment to the amendment and list the names to be added. And if there's a preferred order, I don't know if you want to go that far, or just list the names to be added. Yeah, Mr. Peluso, why don't you ask folks to raise their hands if they want to be added in addition to this list? Mr. President, I like that idea very much, so who would like to be listed as a co-introducer on this? All right, now you can make an amendment to the floor amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I make a motion to amend the amendment to include Council Members Gaffney, Gaffney Jr., Peluso, Clark Murray, Holder, Pittman, Johnson, and Arias. So the amendment to the amendment would be to add Arias and Johnson. Understood. Yes. All right, we have an amendment to the floor amendment to add Councilman Arias and Johnson. Let's vote verbally. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All again, say no. Amendment to the amendment passes. Now the proper motion would be to move the amendment as amended. No, Mary can't make that motion. Oh, you moved it. Sorry, you moved. Do we have a second? Okay, so we have a motion to move the amendment as amended. Will, Dr. Salem, you're in the queue. On the amendment as amended. Okay. Let's vote on the amendment as amended. All in favor, we'll do it verbally. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. All again, say no. All right. The Clark-Murray floor amendment as amended passes. That concludes our business for sure. Well, we now need to move. Oh. No, we don't. We don't move it. We don't move it. We just amended it. Thank you. Actually, before we move on, Ms. Clark-Murray, you are in the queue. Do you need to be? No. And Dr. Salem, you were in the queue. You'd like to be? All right. You're recognized, sir. Mr. President, I hesitate to say this, but I am about this bill. The JEA gives this government, I think this year, $141 million. Wouldn't it be great if we rebated this amount through the present budget, get with the administration and try to find some money to rebate those dollars versus going into the reserves? Just a comment. Since this will be in committee next week. All right. Thank you. There's no one else in the queue. Mr. Floor Leader, you want to bring us home? I've got nothing to offer. Let's call roll call. 19 present. All right. Announcements. Dr. Salem, you're still in the queue. Nothing? Okay, Dr. Johnson, do you have an announcement? Just very quickly, I want to rise to recognize Mr. President, former State Attorney Harry Shorstein. He passed away and he was buried on yesterday. I'll be entering in a resolution with all of us, I hope, to honor his service. He is the only State Attorney that has served five terms. He was the youngest general counsel in the history of the city of Jacksonville at 33 years old. A dear friend, someone I got to know who was a mentor. And thank you, Ms. McGillis. Right here, Shannon was at the funeral as well. But his family is very thankful that the council remembers his service. And so we're thankful for him. May his memory always be a blessing. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Pittman, over to you. Good, Chair. Thank you so much. I have one announcement. One is the Salzbacher Center opened up their Enterprise Village today for previously homeless men. For Walgreen, if you have not had an opportunity to see it, I urge you, please, ma'am and sir, to go by there and see it. The city has supported this as one of the cutting edges, affordable housing, and they're also in the process of building their second phase. So I was just proud of that, and it's also in District 10, and I'm just excited about what this could bring. Once you go in there, you'll see what I'm talking about. They have one-bedrooms and efficiencies as well, fully furnished, upscale, so please go by there and take a look. Birthdays, we have Council Member Mike Borland. His birthday is on November the 11th. And Evan Hirschberg, which his birthday is on November the 6th. And Crystal Tucker, her birthday is on October the 31st. Happy birthday to all of you all, and a special happy birthday to you, Michael. Thank you, Ms. Pittman. Over to Mr. Carlucci. I have a very sad announcement to make. Tonight I learned that one of our former colleagues, Randy DeFore, her husband passed away today. Allison DeFore was probably one of the most, was one of the greatest public servants that I have known in my life. He had a great impact on our family's life and probably thousands of lives. I can hardly complete what I want to say, except that when you hit your knees tonight, pray for Randy and her family. He was a gentle man, tough as nails, full of wisdom. He was a judge, a sheriff, a lieutenant governor. He was everything. And I'm just, as well as my wife, I'm just heartbroken. And everybody here, I'm sure, knew him. He was looking for the arrangements. And it just happened today. So if you have a chance, maybe send a note or a card and be thinking about the DeFore family tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Carlucci. And no other speakers, this meeting is adjourned. Over to our chaplain, Mr. Romero, who I'm sure will include the DeFore family in his prayer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let us pray. Gracious God, we thank you for yet another evening where you have guided us with your spirit and with your wisdom and with your peace. We thank you for the opportunity to serve this great community we call home, the city of Jacksonville. While some of our decisions may not sit well with some folk, you've given us this task, this responsibility, and we try to do it correctly. So we thank you for that. We ask you to be with Randy DeFore and her family in this hour of transition. Bring them comfort in this season of grief, God. You're a loving God. You know how to touch. You know how to heal. You know how to deliver. As we depart from this place, remind us to never leave your presence. Give us traveling grace. It's in Jesus' holy name we pray. Amen. Thank you, everybody. Travel home safely.