Finance Committee - Budget Hearing - Meeting #3 - Aug 20, 2026

Meeting three to review the fiscal year 26-27 proposed budget by the Finance Committee. We'll start off with introductions, starting with my left. Angela Moyer, Budget Officer. Mike Weinstein, Mayor's Office. Philip Peterson, Council Auditor. Brian Parks, Council Auditor's Office. Mary Stifopoulos, Office of General Counsel. Good morning, Chris Miller, At-Large Group 5. Will Lainon, District 3. Good morning, Terrence Freeman, At-Large Group 1. Mike Gay, District 2. Randy White, District 12. Ron Salem, Group 2, At-Large. Matt Carlucci, At-Large Group 4. Ken Amaro, City Council, District 1. All right, good morning, everyone. Good morning to all of our guests we have here this morning with us. A couple of administrative things for the committee members. So we do have a few excused absences for different parts of the day, so we will have to make sure we are keeping quorum. Council Member Diamond has an excused absence until mid-morning. Council Member Johnson, he'll be here with us shortly, hopefully, but then he will be out for about an hour around lunchtime. And then, Council Member Freeman, I believe you are leaving around 3 o'clock, is my understanding. 3.30. 3.30, gotcha. Okay. So those are the only absences I have here. I also want to do a summary like I did at meeting number two, just to show where we are in the budget process. So, so far, of the proposed budget of $2.026 billion, we've already reviewed $1.67 billion of that. So we've reviewed 82% of our general fund budget. We'll have the independent authorities, most of them will be here tomorrow, and then JAA will be next week. But within our own general fund budget, we've already done a review of 82% of that total dollar amount. Of that combined, we have amended about 1% of that, but some of that is just in a special council contingency right now of 2.5 million. We've sent 12.7 million to the reserves, and we have 7.6 million in what we're calling the Amendment 3 referendum contingency account. So the total combined so far, of the $2 billion submitted budget, we have amended about $23 million of that, or just over 1%. So that is where we are at now. I see no committee members in the queue. So with that, I will turn it over to Mr. Peterson to talk about courts. Mr. Parks, I mean. All right, through the chair. So in your budget book on page 381 is the general fund courts. We are going to go through the courts, the state attorney, the public defender, and the clerk of courts today. And before we kind of get into that, I just want to mention that we are required as a county to fund the facility costs, construction, maintenance, utility, security, telephone and computer networks and systems for all of these areas. Some of these do have different funding sources, but I do want to just kind of get that out of the way to start with. So with the courts general fund, the budget includes the CERC and county courts expenses, as well as the guardian ad litem. Salaries are going from $682,000 up to $691,000 for the standard 3% increase. Employer provided benefits are going from $85,605,000 up to $121,915,000 for the group health increase we discussed last week. Internal service charges are going from $4,005,721 up to $5,005,314,25. This is primarily due to an increase related to an all-years adjustment in the prior year that reduced this cost. So it's going up by $1.25 for building cost. And then there's an increase of $371,000 for computer systems, maintenance, and security due to the change in allocation methodology. Professional and contractual services are going from $610,000 up to $18,585 due to water delivery service being moved into this line item. Other operating expenses are going from $173,791 up to $442,473. The net increase is mainly due to an increase of $198,000 for the annual lease of new security scanning devices. There was also an increase of $59,399 for furniture and repair equipment that is now being covered in FY2526 with the carry forward based on the recommendation below. The debt management fund repayments are going from $93,250 down to zero due to the audiovisual equipment replacement project being repaid. On page four of our handout, you'll see the food and beverage up $1,500. For conferences and meetings hosted by the chief judge, next you'll see the B1A grants, which are the scheduled continuation grants that have no city match. There's three grants listed there for a total of $606,953. There are no employees or part-time hours associated with those. There are capital outlay carry forward items, two items listed there. However, we will have a recommendation below to remove these two and add two new ones. Service levels changes are none. Employee cap remains at 10. We do have a recommendation to that $59,399 for furniture and equipment and $146,520 for computer equipment be added to the capital outlay carry forward schedule of the budget ordinance and the two items mentioned above be removed. This will have no impact on special counsel contingency. Thank you. Knowing the queue, and I'd like to say good morning to our chief judge, Day, and our public defender, Mr. Cofer, as well. My understanding is you are good with these recommendations, chief judge. To the chair and the council, yes, we are. Thank you. Anything else to add? I think we're ready to take it up and move on unless you want to tell us anything. No, just thank you for your support through the years, and we appreciate working with you. Thank you, sir. Can I get a motion on the recommendation? I got a motion and a second on the recommendation. Knowing the queue, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. The recommendation passes. On to the next. And so we are on to the next court fund, and this is on page 384 in the budget book, page 6 of our handout. There is a $30 surcharge on non-criminal traffic violations and criminal violations listed in section 318.17 of the Florida Statutes that is used exclusively for maintenance and capital improvements associated with court facilities. Pursuant to our local law, no less than 25% shall be used on maintenance. This is an all-years fund, which means once the dollars are appropriated, they stay in the place for years rather than lapsing. So the revenue is going from $3,171,468 down to $2,454,131. This was last year. There was an all-years adjustment that was appropriating past revenues, so that's why there's a big decrease this year. Investment portings are going from $60,793 based on us using a lot of that past built-up money last year. Transfers from other funds are going from zero up to $211,647 as we needed to kind of put, ensure that we meet the 25 threshold, 25% threshold on maintenance. Internal service charges are going from $1,865,68 up to $613,533. Again, this is just us funding 25% of the revenue going to maintenance because we have to cover the debt service, which is $2,052,245. Again, this was another thing that had an all-years adjustment that reduced the amount last year. This debt will be paid off in 2041. There are no service level changes, no employee cap changes, and no recommendations. Thank you. And I see no one in the queue, so we can move on. Okay. All right, now we're moving on to page eight of our handout in page 386 in the budget book. This is the Teen Court Programs Trust. This program provides Duval County youth with an alternative to a conviction record by diverting them into programs where they are subject to peer group involvement as part of the rehabilitation process and to expose community service work, positive role models, law students, and the judicial system. In addition, a second program, the Teen Court Truancy program, has been developed in an effort to reduce truancy. These programs are funded by a $3 fee charged pursuant to the Florida statutes. All right. Revenue within this area is going from $271,424 down to $251,955. This amount reflects the anticipated revenue of the $3 fee. Transfers from other funds is going up from $182,074 up to $306,776 to balance the budget. Salaries are going from $298,448. Employer-provided benefits are going up due to the standard group health increase. Internal service charges are going up from $9,365 to $18,844 due to the change in methodology for the computer system allocation. Professional contractual services of $85,250 represent the $55,000 for the Neighborhood Accountability Board and $30,250 for the Certified Family Coaches and Empowerment Resources, which teach life skills to the clients of teen courts. There are no service level changes, no employee caps remaining flat at five, and no recommendations. Thank you. I have no in the queue. Mr. Parks, can you remind me the state sets the amount of this fee, correct? Yes. The $3 I checked again this morning, that is the max amount that can be charged. Okay. Thank you. And just one thing I think we've all noticed is that through the years, each year we've increased the amount that we've had to basically subsidize it from our own general fund. Yes. In general, as you saw the group health go up this year, that means that there was more kind of having to keep the service level flat, there was more from the general fund. All right. Council Member Marr, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick question through the chair. What is the Neighborhood Accountability Board? Just for information. Good morning. Through the chair, the Neighborhood Accountability Board is a program that we have for different parts of Jacksonville that community members come and serve on the boards to help the students who receive the civil citation get sanctions in that community. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Parks, I think we're ready for the next one. All right. So we're moving on to page 10 of our handout. And on this one, I would actually just look at page 10 for the financial information instead of going to the budget book. This is the $65 fee. Pursuant to the Municipal Code and Florida statute, we're authorized to charge a $65 fee on felony misdemeanor and criminal traffic offenses. This revenue is split in four areas that Legal Aid, Duval County Law Library, Juvenile Drug Court, and Judicial Support. Pursuant to Florida statutes, any funds remaining at the end of the year will be transferred to the Judicial Support Activity. Again, as I mentioned before, the numbers below are based on page 10. All the revenues are showed within courts. I mean, that's just where they're deposited. Charges for services are going from $515,880 down to $439,245 to better align with recent actuals. This is three-fourths of the revenue. This represents the Duval County Law Library, Juvenile Drug Court, and Judicial Support, which are overseen by the court systems. Miscellaneous revenue is remaining relatively five at $35,000. This is for copier services for the public and continuing learning education seminars for lawyers at the Law Library. You will see the revenue within finance related to JAWA. That is going down from $171,960 to $146,415. This represents the remaining one-fourth of the revenue that is sent to JAWA. You'll see the Jack Citywide Activities Investment Pool Earnings remaining relatively flat. The transfers from other funds remaining relatively flat. And the transfer from fund balance going down from $325,000 to $170,000. This is used to balance the budget. Court salaries are going up from $434,904 to $447,745 for the standard 3% increases. Employer-provided benefits are going from $69,275 up to $107,955 for the standard group health increase. We discussed last week internal service charges are going from $13,931 up to $27,256 due to the increase in the computer system maintenance and security allocation. Other operating expenses are going from $99,023 down to $62,112 to better align with actuals in this area. The JALA contribution reflects the revenue of $146,415. And then there are grants aids and contributions. There is no proposed additional funding of $250,000 in the FY26-27 budget. Capital outlay carry forward there is $79,752 for library books within all library. Service level changes are none. Employee cap remains flat at 9 and we have no recommendations. And we have no questions. Next. Now we move on to page 13 of our handout. This is another one that we'll be discussing from this page 13. This is the $2 revenue stream that is split between the courts, state attorney, and public defender to help fund part of the technology needs of those areas. There's an MOU that's required before these funds are spent. There has been one already executed between the three that have agreed to the uses. This was given the significant work by the finance department to build the budget amount with these three areas. This hopefully made this process this year much easier than in the past. Again, our handout is based off of the page 13, so we'll start with courts. The revenue for the $2 fee is going from $1,522,498 up to $1,671.15 to better align with recent current trends. The citywide activities investment poor earnings is going up to $15,524. Transfers from fund balance is going up to $235,000. There is not that we have enough to cover that. There's not much more left after that. Transfers from general fund GSD is going up from $482,348 to $530,630 to balance the requested budget. So as we get into the first of the three areas courts, the internal service allocation is going from $151,000 to $349,859 due to the replacement of 118 computers scheduled to be replaced in FY2627 in the budget. Professional contractual services are going down from $180,000 to zero due to those costs being reallocated to the better account areas as finance department worked with them since the last budget. Other operating expenses are going from $225,000 to $189,215. This area is primarily for AV equipment, maintenance, and repair as well as various non-capital IT hardware and software. Capital outlay of $165,000 is to perform a refresh of two courtrooms with outdated systems to match the current upgrades in other areas of courthouse. Within the state attorney's office, the internal service allocation is going down from some $249,302 to $73,672 due to a change in the IT allocation model. Professional contractual services are going down from $150,000 to one due to these costs being reallocated to other areas. Other operating expenses of $75,000 are going up to $971,835 primarily for maintenance and lights since relating to the office management system and case management software. Within the public defenders, there is now a salaries line item of $290,000 to reflect costs that used to be in other areas of the budget. These are for the non-COJ employees of the public defender that perform IT services. Internal service charges are going from $11,225 up to $44,841 mainly due to copier consolidation costs being moved to this fund. Professional contractual services are going from $40,900 down to one. These expenses have been reallocated to appropriate operating expense accounts. Other operating expenses are going from $589,736 down to $229,744. The decrease is mainly due to moving costs to the appropriate other accounts that's been mentioned on others. Capital outlay of $138,000 is for the upgrades to the case management server, increased network storage for email, RVI imaging, and rewriting the case tracking system. Within this area, each of the areas have capital outlay carry forwards, $9,841 for courts, $27,348 for the state attorney's office, and $27,354 for the public defender, which are all related to computer equipment. There are no service level changes. There are no authorized city positions in this fund, and we have no recommendations. Thank you, Mr. Parks. No questions. I think on to the public defender budget now. Correct. That'd be the last one of the courts. All right. So the public defender is on page 394 of the budget book, page 17 of our handout. Again, we have the same requirements to cover the same cost for this area for the public defender as we did for the courts. Internal service charges are going from $1,492,332 down to $1,006,987. This is mainly due to us paying off debt of $713,342 related to the Jake Godbold building. And then they're partially offset by an increase of $277,042 in allocated computer system maintenance and security operating costs based on change in the methodology. There are no service level changes. Employee cap is none, and we have no recommendations. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Coffert. Or actually, Dr. Salem, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. And I probably should have asked this earlier, if you don't mind, to the Chief Judge. I know in past years we allocated some dollars, I think, for pressure washing your building, potentially painting it, and I know there have been some security concerns about in the area outside of your building. Can you just inform us where we are with those things? To the Chair and to the City Council, yes. It's actually, I'm pleased to report, it looks like as of today, in fact, the contract that's finally going through on Zonar, which is the security upgrade system for the courthouse. As you know, we've been doing a refresh of our security system. We're really doing a top-to-bottom, and it's been staged. One of the main features of that has been the weapons detection system at the front of the building, and we've just been told this morning by the General Council it looks like the contract is ready for final review. At that point, it will go to the procurement, so we're anticipating that we're going to have this system up and running by October. How about the painting, pressure washing of the building itself? The pressure washing went through, thanks to the Council and the Mayor's office, it went through a couple years ago. we're monitoring it to see if we're trying to get it on the schedule, frankly. It was almost 10 years before the first refresh came up. We're trying to look at it on a five-year increment and see if that isn't a better plan. If you remember, if we don't keep this up, then frankly, the sediment will be damaged to the point where the pressure washing won't take it all out, and that's what we're trying to prevent is to keep the pressure washing at a normal sequence so that the grime doesn't become permanent on the building. And the last thing, if I may, Chair, is outside of your building, security, with some of the protests that have occurred and those types of things, is there a plan for that? Yes, sir. We're still working on the bollards. I've been talking about that for years now. The mayor's office got with us and we're looking at, frankly, there was a plan that came up. I agreed with the city. When they looked at it, it looked like an enormous expense, frankly. And we believe that if we could do it through stages, that we could do it satisfactorily. The outside of the building, the front door area, we're working, and that's part of our budget, is that we're putting in security methods for the front doors and we think that will help. But the bollards are still a concern. But if we can go through a system of staging, then I think we can get through that as well. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Moyer. I just wanted to let the committee know that when we come up to the CIP day, there is a million dollars in a project for security at the courthouse, which we can discuss at that time. Thank you. Glad we got the background on that now then. Councilman Carlucci. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair to the chief judge. How are you all doing today? Doing fine. Thank you. We're busy. The busy can be good, but busy can be bad. Right now, we're in the middle of a pretty high-profile trial. And so part of that is why you were saying a lot of our technological changes that we've been undergoing to get ready for that trial and other trials that are in the pipeline. Yeah, man, y'all got a big one. The front lawn, I don't remember having been by there and really looked. Do y'all have some artwork out there, or is there artwork planned, or the big front lawn? What's happening with that? My understanding is that the artwork that was originally allocated, I came before the council, I believe, excuse me, this time, either last year or a little bit before that and expressed that I felt that the artwork should be placed on pause, that the security features for the building were of more importance, and that the, I'm sure you know that at one point we had close to 5,000 protesters on the front lawn. I will say this, when they left, we couldn't even find the cigarette butt that they left behind, and that was to their credit. They came to the property, they exercised their free speech, and then they left the property the way they found it. But having said that, having that saturation on the front of the courthouse can go two ways. It can go very positive, like it did that day, or it could have gone very bad. My belief is that without the security features that we've been pushing, and frankly, we have the support, I believe, of the administration and the council on that, that without those security provisions being placed, that eventually something will happen. And my philosophy is you don't wait until it happens. You do it now so that in hopes it won't happen. The artwork, while I have no, and I said this before and I'm on the record, I have nothing against the art itself, I have nothing against the artists themselves, but I don't believe that in this time of cutbacks and type-building that we focus on what I call likes over needs. And this is not a need, this is a like. And so my understanding was that it was paused and certainly down the line if there is, once we get through all of the security features, if there's still a desire to do the art, we can certainly readdress it. But again, everything has to be in priority. I'm going through a budget at my house right now. I'm deciding if I'm going to put the roof on or if I'm going to have it painted. And so I have a priority of what is the like, what is the need. And I'd like for the outside of the house to look good, but I don't want to have it leaking. And so that's my need right now. And the same was with the courthouse. We've got a lot of needs. It's a 14-year-old building. It's going through a refresh. And certainly the council and the administration have been helping us with that. But it's a big building and it has a lot of expenses. But security, as I've said from day one, is this court's primary focus. The people that come in there and need to feel that they're safe when they come in and when they leave. And that includes the outside area. And so that's, again, my focus has been that the artwork becomes secondary. The security is primary. Well, I guess I'm a little crazy, but number one, I will say I am really happy that y'all are not deferring the maintenance. It's a beautiful building. It needs to stay that way. When we defer maintenance, that that always winds up really costing us in the long run and then we have to build another one in 30 years. So kudos to you. And I appreciate your respect to the budget and so forth. And I would just say this. At some point, when we feel like there are expendable dollars, I think that lawn could really be an iconic part of downtown Jacksonville. And I think a beautiful water feature might be a nice part of it that the public could enjoy. I also think maybe some art would be a great place. It's my last budget, so I won't have a chance to weigh in on it, but maybe put out for competition with our high schools or the School of the Arts some ideas. But anyway, I'm just throwing that out there because it's a beautiful lawn, it's a beautiful building. It just looks like something's missing. And I think it'd be an investment in our downtown area. So just throwing that out there, Mr. Chief Judge. But I will defer to you because you are the chief judge and I am not. So thank you. Well, if I can respond through the chair. And thank you for your comments and I respect what you're saying. The lawn, frankly, is part of the security feature. And it provides a chance for the security to see what's coming towards the building. So it's an important feature. And I'm certainly not suggesting that there can't be some things to improve it. But I will point this out. We just had the 250 celebration and we had 320 children on that front lawn. And we all came together and we had a picnic out there. And that entire lawn was being used. We had the sheriff's office brought in there the horses, which were, frankly, probably the main feature that every child had to have their picture taken with. And we had JFRD that participated. The clerk's office was a big part of that. And so we're using the lawn in different ways. And I've even suggested that there could be outdoor concerts here, neighborhood events out there. We have no objections to that. But ultimately, when it finally comes down to it, the lawn is part of the security feature of the courthouse. And as I've said before, we've had, fortunately, we've had some cars that have intruded onto the front lawn. There's been no real damage, except by one. And going back to the art feature, and I see a picture of some art right there. I don't have a budget to maintain it. I don't have a budget to secure it. And my focus is if there's an issue with the art being damaged, that would have to, unfortunately, come back to the city. The last art proposal had a maintenance budget of $38,000 for the life, not year, the life of that art. And I pointed out, I said, respectfully, I just don't, I don't have that budget. And then all it takes is one person, one bad actor, to spray paint something there that we can't have in the public, then I have to immediately cover it up. And all the people see it being covered up. They know something's down there. They know something's wrong. But I have to immediately cover it up until there's a fix for it because I can't have jurors going by that every single day. It becomes an appellate issue and it becomes a problem. And it certainly detracts from the city. And so, again, I respect exactly what you're talking about. I love the art features that I've seen around the city. I think it does improve the inner city. And I've supported the arts. My family supports the arts. But, again, my primary focus will be and always will be security for that courthouse. All right. Thank you, Chief Judge. All right. Thank you. And with no one else in the queue, on to State Attorney. All right. Through the chair to the committee, we are now moving to page 18 of our handout, page 392 in the budget book. And, again, this is State Attorney's Office. We have the same responsibilities for them as we did for the public defender and for the courts. The internal service charges are going from $2,833,154 to $3,543,063. This is primarily driven by an increase related to computer system and maintenance costs due to an overall increase in technology solutions budget and how the costs were allocated. Professional contractual services are increasing from zero to $1,300 based on the water delivery and electronic records. Other operating expenses are going from $8,000 to $13,115 for shred bins, file management, and wireless service costs. Service level changes are none. There are no employee cap in this area and no recommendations. Thank you. And I have no one in the queue. Thanks. Good morning. Steve Siegel, Executive Director of the State Attorney's Office. On behalf of Ms. Nelson, she couldn't be here today, but we want to extend our continued thanks. Each year, we come before council. And with the administration's help this year, Mr. Weinstein, Ms. Moore, and Ms. Brochet, I think this has been the most productive and collaborative budget process that I've been a part of in 10 years. So thank you for your continued support. Thank you. We appreciate you, sir. So I think we are ready for Clerk of the Courts. Yes, we are moving on to the Clerk of the Courts, which is on page 378 of our budget book and page 19 of our handout. The Clerk of the Court is a constitutional office. The function of the Courts Office are to maintain court records, attend court sessions, process civil and criminal court cases, receive and disperse monies for fines, court costs, forfeitures, fees, service charges, alimony, child support, and victim restitution. The Courts Office also maintains official records, issues marriage licenses, and processes tax deeds for the Duval County. The operations of the Courts Office are funded by revenues generated from functions for both the state and county. The fund on page 19 represents the revenue collector for the Courts Office for county-related activities. The main source of this is the recording documents. Examples of this include deeds, marriage license, and doc stamps. A fee of $10 is on the first page and $8.50 for each additional page is charged each time a document is recorded within the Courts of the Court. The county side of the Courts receives $5 for the first page and $4 for each page thereafter shown on the table below. The rest of the fee goes into various other accounts as depicted. The fund also houses the expenditure for the court-related activities as well as funding some county obligations pursuant to Section 29.008 of the Florida Statutes which helps alleviate the cost of the general fund. Revenues within this area are going up from $4,767,500 to $4,972,500 mainly due to an increase of recording fees of $100,000, passport applications of $65,000, and tax deed auctions related fees of $25,000. Investment pool earnings is projected to come in at $88,846. Transfers from fund balance from the fund is to balance the budget of $1,122,999. This area does have enough fund balance available to do this. Also, it is important to note that they manage their costs pretty well. Although this budget, when we go through the expenses, they only spend what they need each year and so they usually come in quite lower on expenses than what they have budgeted. So things shouldn't look as bad as what they may look. Salaries of $2,030,389 are going up to $2,076,070 for the standard 3% increase discussed. Employer-provided benefits are going from $288,088 up to $459,601 due to the standard group health premium increase. Internal service charges are going from $1,398,723 up to $1,490,776. Primarily driven to the computer system maintenance and security costs. Other operating expenses are going up from $362,000 up to $806,000. Primarily due to the increases for computer software maintenance and license costs for the clerk's recording system, which previously was paid in another area. $141,121 for non-capital furniture and equipment refresh and $55,000 for non-capital software and computer items. The supervision allocation is going up to $842,590. This is an allocation from the clerk's administrative staff as well as management and the staff that splits time between the state-funded area and the county-funded area. Indirect cost is going down to $63,581. Service level changes are none. The employee cap remains at $36,000. You will see on page 21 food and beverage at $500. We have no recommendations. I will say if I can go on to the next clerk one real quick just because they kind of go together on page 22 of our handout and page 376 of the budget book, this just represents the county funding the courthouse complex cost of $1,534,165. And again, there's no service level changes, no authorized positions, and we have no recommendation. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Phillips. Good morning. I have no one in the queue, so if there's no questions for Mr. Phillips, do you have anything for us? I think we're good if you're good. Thank you for everything you do. All right, back at you. Thank you. Thanks. All right, Mr. Parks. Tax collector. Sorry you get me. Page 23 of your handouts, page 360 of the budget book, the tax collector has a budget of $29.1 million, up $2.7 million year-over-year. There are eight branches and one satellite office that process transactions such as property, local business taxes, driver's license services, and fast title services. Within their revenues, charges for services of $12.2 million is up $602,000 year-over-year. That's based on recent actuals. Following increases, $275,000 in tax redemption fees, $100,000 in miscellaneous revenue, $100,000 in driver's license renewal fees, $35,000 in St. Johns River Water Management District collection fees, $25,000 in e-commerce fees, $20,000 related to automobile tag mailing fees, and $15,000 in fast title service. The investment pool interest earnings is showing that it's up $145,864. We do have a recommendation as this was double-budgeted. Transfers from other funds of $16.7 million. This represents the subsidy from the general fund to balance the budget. That is an increase of $1.9 million year-over-year. Within the expenditures, salaries are a budget at $15.8 million, a net increase of $622,127, mainly due to the 3% salary increase, an increase of $86,000 in overtime salaries due to increasing wages for JSO security, and then almost $80,000 for the lump sum payment to non-public safety employees per their collective bargaining agreements. The tax collector does have their own calculated vacancy rate, which is the standard formula used for that. Pension costs are up $131,449 due to employee turnover and the salary increases mentioned above. Employer-provided benefits are up $1.4 million due to the increase in the group health premiums. Internal service charges budgeted at $2.8 million. That's an increase of $326,000 year-over-year, $239,000 in the computer systems maintenance security, $50,000 in building maintenance due to an increase in actual maintenance costs being allocated, and then almost $33,000 in an overall increase in the Office of General Counsel. There is a one-time enhancement of $23,323 related to a communication insert that will be included in tax notices that go out to remind property owners' duties regarding short-term rentals. That is an increase year-over-year. Within other operating expenses, $3 million, there is a net increase of $197,000, mainly due to postage related to multiple USPS rate increases. This is somewhat offset by $261,000 in building rentals due to their reduction of branches from 9 to 8. Within that, service-level changes. The St. John's Square office is opening this month. The Kernan location closed last month, and the Hogan location is scheduled to close at the end of this fiscal year. There are no changes to the employee cap, remaining flat at 254 positions. We do have two recommendations. First, to reduce the amount budgeted for interest by $100,904 due to it being double budgeted. This can be offset by a transfer from fund balance, and then we recommend adding to Schedule AF, which is the capital A carryover, $327,861 for office equipment. These recommendations have no impact on special counsel contingency. Thank you, and good morning, Ms. Hall. I do not have anyone in the queue. I was going to ask, Ms. Hall, has the St. John's Square office already officially opened? It is open, and we'd love for you to come and visit anytime. I'm happy to take you on a tour. I plan to get by there soon. Council Member Romero. Mr. Chair, I have a question. It's not quite relative to the information shared thus far, but yet it is, and it's for Ms. Hall through the chair. Out of curiosity, recently I was in the store, grocery store, sorry, a tag kiosk, and I don't know how many there are throughout the county. I thought it was a great idea. It was convenient, but I'm just curious as to the return on the investment. Are they being used? And if so, are the dollars going directly to the state, or they're coming to you? That's a great question. Through the chair to Council Member Romero, we have, I want to say we have six right now, and we're adding several more. So this is done through a third-party vendor, and the same fees that we would get for someone renewing their tag, we also get that, of course. Most of that goes to the state. Some of it comes to us, and then the vendor charges a small fee as well so that they can recoup the costs of the equipment and that sort of thing. So it's a convenience fee of sort to the customer to be able to renew it at Publix. Through the chair, I thought it was brilliant because of the convenience of it. Obviously, as well, it reduces the need for leases of these properties because folks can, while they're getting their groceries, they can get their tags renewed. Thank you. Thank you. No notes in the queue. Thank you, Ms. Hall. And for my colleagues, due to the fact that we do have two excused absences, our quorum requirement is four, not five. So as long as there are four of us up here now, you can take a break if you need to. With that, not yet. I'm maximizing your remaining time here. With that, it is time for the supervisor of elections. Oh, I'm sorry. Can I get a motion on the two recommendations? Got a motion and second on the two recommendations for the tax collector's office. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. The recommendations pass. Good morning, Mr. Holland. It's been a very busy week for you. Thanks for joining us. We have been busy this week. Thank you. All right. Page 25 of the handout, page 353 of your budget book, the supervisor of elections. A big change this year is they're going from one countywide election to three countywide elections in 26-27. The budget is based on 159 precincts and 24 early voting locations. Revenue is down 396,000 overall. Within permits and fees, down 442,000. This is related to fees for ballot petition verification, related to recent state change in state law. The decrease is based on the SOE's projection as to what 26-27 will happen. Miscellaneous revenue of 50,000 is an increase of $46,500 based on recent trends. This is for public records requests, maps, candidate petition verification. Within expenditures, they have a budget of 14.7 million. That's an increase of 5.3 million year over year, and mostly that is related to going from that one election to the three countywide. Within salaries, a budget of $8.5 million, an increase of $4,301,587. Most of that is in part-time salaries of $4 million. There's $252,000 in overtime for the additional elections. Then the small increase of $60,000 for the full-time salaries related to the 3% increase. Pension costs are up $40,000 to $262,000. Most of that's related to the salary increases, as well as an increase in the required contribution. Employer-provided benefits, increasing $310,533 year over year. $213,000 of that is for the group health premiums. And then $94,000 is related to poll workers, Medicare, and FICA payroll taxes. Internal service charges are a net decrease of $173,568. $90,000 of that's in IT, computer system maintenance, and security charges due to the change in methodology. $77,000 for computers that were replaced in 25-26. And then $28,000 in utilities to better align with cost. All of this is partially offset by a $15,000 increase in their OGC costs. Insurance costs and premiums, increasing $20,000 due to the increase in the number of elections. Within their professional and contractual services line of $81,000, it's going up $67,444 due to cleaning and janitorial service costs as a result of switching from a weekly cleaning schedule to a daily cleaning schedule at their early voting sites. And then $22,815 in security guard services due to the number of elections. Other operating expenses of $4.4 million is an increase of $705,000 year over year. Some of that is in their miscellaneous services and charges due to the number of elections. $135,000 in printing and binding costs, $116,000 in rent for the voting sites due to the increase in number of elections. And then $92,000 in software licenses for the electronic ballot and remake stations. They do have an $18,000 food and beverage item for food for election staff on election day. Service level changes. We mentioned the increase from one to three elections. There are no changes to the number of full-time positions of 34. However, part-time hours are increasing by 182,024 hours due to the number of elections. So we have no recommendations. Thank you. Council Mayor Salem. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair, Mr. Holland, sort of a separate question. Great job, Tuesday. Thank you. But I just noticed the results, overall results, seem to be quicker than I've ever seen them. And as I recall, around 8 o'clock, everything was done. Was there some technology change that allowed you to do that, or is that just the way I was looking at it? Well, I think we always strive to get it as soon as we can and obviously accurate. The thing we've done, I think, is better training of our poll workers so they know how to upload the results and accomplish that quickly. But you're right, I think at 8 o'clock we had all, but I think seven precincts, and by the end of the hour we had everything done. So I can remember 20 years ago when I did it, it was 11 o'clock we were shooting for. So it is nice to have the results out to the public sooner. Thank you. Great job. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Moore. Chair, I'll be quick. I just want to piggyback on what Councilman Salem said, that Florida's counting of ballots was commended in the New York Times, I think, for how swift and efficient it is. It's probably one of the most swift and efficient systems in the nation. And so it speaks a lot or speaks volumes to the modifications that have been taking place over the years. Just want to follow up on that. Thank you. Council Member Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I figured I might as well join in as well on the Jerry Holland praise train. Well appreciated. No, through the chair to Mr. Holland, my wife does not do anything political. All she does is school teaching and loving on our kids. And so I just want to thank you for your communication with me, especially just most recently with all the things that have happened, because it not only just impacts me, it impacts the rest of them as well. And so to be able to communicate with her clearly how to plan made things a lot easier and smoother in my house. So thank you so much for your communication. And I know it's not just with me. I'm sure it's with any candidate or anybody that has reached out to you. Thank you for your service in that level. Thank you. Thank you for this. Council Member Carlucci, this is becoming a very easy budget presentation. I have a real complaint. I got to tell you, I have a real complaint. No, I'm teasing. Jerry, you have done such a great job at that supervisor elections office that I'm going to join on this train. I guess maybe I'll be the caboose, but really a super job. And also a super job on TV when you are asked to, you know, chip in with your insights. It just really helps, I think, our community. And what looked like it was going to be less than a 20% turnout, God bless America, it turned out to be more than that. It's pretty bad when you have to say, great, it's more than 20% turnout. But I know your office works very hard. And I just looked at your whole team. I don't know how many are here, if they're not here, but probably not here. They're probably working. But it just looks like a well-oiled machine. And it takes a great supervisor to put that together. So I just want to, you know, also chip in and say thank you for how you put that all together. So thank you. There you go. All right. Anyone else in the queue? Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I could add one thing. And we will be here September 8th at the council meeting. You will be giving the resolution, Council President will, to our poll workers for the great work they do. And staff will be here also. And also on September 8th at 10 a.m. will be the grand opening of the Duval County first ever museum on voting in Duval County. That everyone is invited and you'll get an invite. And my last thing is to the chairperson is if I'd known you were going to approve my budget years ago, I would have let you bat first. Thank you. Thank you. I did think about voting no on the budget, thinking about all the extra laps you made me run when you were my baseball coach. So, but I think I'm still a yes for now. Mr. Weinstein. Thank you, Jerry. In general, I just want to make a comment that it's a reflection on how well the finance committee, the budget office, CFO, Anna, your auditors, and all the constitutionals, the sheriff, how great this budget process has been. Reflection is here we are hours ahead of time. I just wanted to make a comment that it was a total team effort. It wasn't just us. We worked very closely with your auditors and the constitutionals were terrific. And it's a reflection on what's in front of you. Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate everyone's cooperation in this budgeting effort. We are about two hours and ten minutes ahead by my calculation. And so, we're going to keep going ahead, assuming the right departments are here. Mr. Weinstein, if you haven't already, just want to make sure the departments, we can certainly change the order. Right now, do we have the Office of Administrative Services down here? Are they ready to go? All right. Then we'll go ahead. All right. That puts us on page 28 of our handouts in your budget book. It's page 185. This is the Office of Administrative Services. This does include the administrative division of the Office of Administrative Services, which includes the Office of the Ombudsman and 630 City. It includes the Procurement Division, Animal Care and Protective Services Division, Environmental Quality Division, and a portion of the Solid Waste Division. For revenues, they have a budget of $1.7 million. That's an increase of $156,109 year-over-year. Within the Charges for Services line item, at almost $1.7 million, it's increasing $162,663. Most of that is an increase related to siltation inspection fees. There's a small increase of $22,000 in well permit fees and $22,000 in application review fees to better align all of those with actual revenues that we're seeing. These increases partially offset by a decrease of $50,145 in animal licenses and permits, which is the general funds portion of the license and tag fee, after the fees are paid to the third-party contractor that now handles animal licensing. This decrease is after a net negative impact that was in the fiscal year 25-26 budget of $250,000. There is a positive impact in the current budget related to mailroom charges of $71,144. But I want to point out, overall, by moving to the third-party service provider, it's a net negative of approximately $230,000. Fines and forfeits, decreasing $10,000 down to $11,386 based on decreased recent actuals. This represents revenue from animal care civil penalties, and this is mainly related to animal care and preventative services, putting forth more effort into prioritizing community outreach and diversion programs, rather than focusing on the fines and forfeits being collected. Miscellaneous revenue, increasing $3,500, and that's related to budgeting the city's commissions rebate related to the Amazon business account. Within expenditures, they have a budget of $18,215,877. That's an increase of $2.2 million year-over-year. Salaries, $9.8 million. Increase of $684,973 due to employee turnover. The 3% increase for non-public safety unions. Increases of other accounts to reflect historical and current trends. Most of this is in the permanent salaries, increasing by $362,000, and then overtime, increasing $270,000. Internal service charges are increasing $564,188. That's within the IT, computer systems, maintenance, and security, OGC legal costs based on usage, and then also in fleet allocations due to the price of fuel increases as well as the replacement vehicles. All of this is somewhat offset by that $71,000 decrease we mentioned as it relates to mailroom charges for the pet licensing program. Professional and contractual services has a budget of $305,361. The big increase here of $26,000 is related to the cost for litter pickup going from $3,262 per mile up to $35 per mile based on the contract. There is divisional changes pointed out for you on page 29, but if there are no questions, I'm not going to walk through those very similar to what we've covered in the prior pages. On page 31, Schedule B-1 grants, these are the grants that have no city match. There are a total of eight grants, totaling $2,564,419 that do fund 31 positions and 7,488 part-time hours. Page 2, there is one grant that requires a city match. The city match is $424,275. This grant funds nine positions and 4,160 part-time hours. There are no items on the capital outlay carry forward schedule. They do have two food and beverage items that add up to $5,500. No service level changes within the Office of Administrative Services. The employee cap is decreasing by two positions. Once one position was eliminated in the Procurement Division and one position within the Animal Care and Protective Services Division, we have no recommendations. Thank you. I have no one in the queue right now. I have a couple questions, so I'm going to go ahead and ask them. Mr. Weinstein, I don't know who the right person. My first question is on this third-party provider for animal licensing. Do we have the right person here to answer that? I see Mr. Bricker out there. So just remind me, I think we started this last year or the year before. I can't remember what year we started this. And my question is, did we do this in the hopes that we were going to save money? Because it looks like it's costing us about $200,000 more than however we were doing it previously. Oh, yes. Thank you. Michael Bricker, Animal Services. So, yes, our hopes are that we're eventually going to save money and actually gain from this. The problem was when we first started this program, we had one person doing licensing for the entire city. So we were collecting money for the licenses, but we weren't actually producing the licenses on time. So now with this process, it's a company that does this nationally for animal shelters. They're handling the whole process, and they're actually contacting more veterinarians to get those licenses out to people. So we're going to hit way more people, and a lot more people are going to have access to those licenses than they would have before. So I guess just to clarify is the thought that even though we're $200,000 worse off compared to how it was before, we're going to start gaining ground on that, and eventually it will start turning to the positive? Correct, and, again, the money that we received before, we weren't providing the service for that money that we received. So those licenses weren't going out in time. So people were going online or going to their vet and paying for the licenses, so we were getting that revenue, but they weren't ultimately receiving the license. Now they are. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bricker. I'm sure we're probably going to ask you that question each year for the next couple years as we see what that trend does. And I'm going to ask my second question since you're already up there, and it was an ACPS question. With regards to the employee cap changes, so overall administrative services is going down two positions. One is within your department, but my understanding from my Monday meeting was that was a decision to – it was a vacancy that was abolished, and you did targeted pay raises and promotions within your department. Is that correct? I'm sorry. Can you say that one more time? There was one position that shows being reduced first last year in animal care and protective services. Oh, yeah. But my understanding, that was a vacancy that was abolished, and there were targeted promotions done within the existing employees in your department. Is that correct? That is correct, yes. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Freeman. And then Councilmember Salem. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maybe I shouldn't ask my question. I'm really going to lighten the mood a little bit, but through the chair, what was the gentleman's name that was just – I missed his name. Mr. Bricker. Mr. Bricker. Mr. Bricker, you can stay in the back. I just know that one of my colleagues is not here today, Councilmember Diamonds, so is there anything you want us to change while he's not here? Now is the time to do that. Don't answer that. I'm joking, man. Councilmember Salem. Well, thank you, Chair. Interestingly, my question kind of relates to that. Through the chair to Mr. Weinstein or Ms. Moore, as I recall, we put several hundred thousand dollars through the council contingency to positions in animal care and control last year due to one of our colleagues. Are those positions still there? Were they funded just for the year? Can you enlighten me? Thank you. Through the chair, not only was it done last year, it was done the year before as well during the budget process. The positions were there. They've been filled. We've been funding them, and they're in the budget. And they're just perpetuating? Yes, sir. Okay. Councilmember Salem, I actually had that concern. I asked that on Monday, and my recollection was we added 14 one year, 9 the next year. The department head took advantage of this one vacancy to do targeted pay raises and promotions and what he felt the best manner was to optimize the operations. So we can have Councilmember Diamond chime in maybe later today, but my understanding is everyone is as good with as it was presented. Because those were all added outside of the budget process, correct? Those were all done through the council contingency, as I recall. No, they were all done during the final days of the budget. You added the positions. You provided the dollars. We absorbed them, and they are in this year's budget as filled. So we didn't take it as a contingency, one-time dollars. It's basically recurring. If I can continue. So you have deemed those positions necessary for the adequate functioning of that area. Well, as I think I mentioned during the process last year, if we were going to add nine positions to the budget, I would have rather have thought about the priorities citywide as to where those nine could possibly go. We didn't really have that debate. But we, as relying on council, we absorbed them, and they're still there. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I have no one else in the queue. And remind me, were there recommendations? There were not. So we can move on. All right. Page 33 is an animal care and control specific fund related to the $20 license fee. $10 of that is deposited into this fund. This fund has a $1.1 million budget and is relatively flat year over year. There are charges for services represent a portion, that portion of the fee that is deposited here, remaining flat at $786,000. Fines and forfeits are remaining flat at $9,500. These are deposits that are forfeited by individuals who do not end up spaying or neutering their pets. And then there is a transfer from the general fund of $313,054 to balance the budget. Salaries of $153,832 are increasing due to the employee turnover and then the 3% increase for non-public safety unions. Employer-provided benefits, increasing $3,000 related to the group health premiums and that employee turnover. Within the professional and contractual services line, $941,402. Most of this is for the First Coast No More Homeless Pets who administer a low-cost span neuter service. And then also the Jacksonville Humane Society who administers an animal control transfer program focused on serving dogs and cats in Duval County. There's no service level changes, no employee cap changes. There's one position within this fund and no recommendations. I have known in the queue two things I wanted to point out. First one for my colleagues. I did confirm that both those grants, that's been a big theme. Let's not increase what we did first last year. So those two grants for First Coast No More Homeless Pets and Jacksonville Humane Society are at the same level as last year. And to Mr. Weinstein and the administration, here's another example of a fund that we are continuing to increase the subsidy each year. So, again, I don't know when this fee was last changed. I know we don't always love changing fees. But for something like this, I think it should be on the list of items to look at just because we're increasingly using more general fund dollars each year to subsidize that. On to the next. All right, page 35 is the Veterinary Services Fund. Of that animal license fee of $20, $2 goes to this fund. Charges for services of $136,504 represents that animal license portion. Also, animal control medical fees. The decrease is just to better align with actual recent collections. Miscellaneous revenue represents donations previously received and also increasing here to better align with actual collections. Investment pool earnings is decreasing slightly based on the amount of available cash in this fund. Within the professional and contractual services line, this is related to biohazardous waste disposals remaining flat at $7,650. And then in other operating expenditures, a decrease of $8,712 to balance the budget. This represents the appropriation for drugs for the treatment of animals. No service level changes, no employees in this fund, and no recommendations. And no questions from us. All right, page 36 is the Air Pollution Tag Fee Fund. It has a budget of $735,677, a decrease of $17,656 year-over-year. With state-shared revenue as the anticipated revenue from auto license air pollution control fees, this is $1 from every license registration, increasing $14,060. There is a transfer from fund balance within this fund to balance the budget that the decrease is just the amount that is needed to balance the budget. Salaries of $392,000 are going up $60,000 due to reclassifying and filling of one position. Pension costs are increasing $18,000 year-over-year due to the salary increases based on those filled positions. Employer-provided benefits increasing $37,000 due to the planned increase in group health premiums. Within professional and contractual services, going down to zero, a decrease of $44,500 as a result from completing upgrades to an air monitoring site in the current fiscal year. Transfers to other funds, the zero dollars, that was a one-time transfer last year for the group health fund subsidy. No service level changes in this fund. There are six full-time positions, but no change to the employee cap and no recommendations. Mr. Peterson, do you know how much is in that fund balance? Through the chair, we don't have that number right now. We could circle back with you. Okay, thank you. Yeah, the reason I ask, I feel like we've seen this through the years now, that there will be a fund that will see transfer from fund balance, next year transfer from fund balance, and then the next year it's transferring from the general fund. So, Mr. Parks, you got something? Yeah, so this one, there's actually going to be a separate piece of legislation, because pursuant to state law, they actually have to appropriate it. They'll come back later with the exact amount and appropriate that then. It was close enough at a point in time when we were looking at this that we wouldn't want to do that as part of the budget. They have to do a cleanup per state law anyway, and so the administration will introduce that later on in the fall, I believe. Okay, thank you, and no one in the queue. All right, page 38 of our handout, page 196 of your budget book is the Hazardous Waste Program. Revenues here are the hazardous waste fees based on inspections performed by the department, going up $45,106 based on recent actuals. There is not a transfer from fund balance this year. Last year there was one to fund the group health subsidy. Within expenditures, salaries are budgeted at $266,251, an increase of $13,000 related to the 3% salary increase, the one-time lump sum payment for non-public safety unions, and then increases associated with employee turnover in this fund. Employee provided benefits are going up $35,000 for the group health premiums. Mentioned above, the transfers to other funds going down to zero. Last year was a one-time need for the group health subsidy. And then there's $18,280 budgeted in the cash carryover line, and this just represents anticipated revenue over expenditures that stay within this fund. No service level changes. There are five full-time employees, no change to the employee cap, and no recommendations. And I have no one in the queue. On to solid waste. All right, solid waste, page 40. This is the main solid waste disposal fund. It's page 202 of your budget book. The solid waste disposal fund accounts for disposal operations, including the collection of household and commercial waste, yard debris, recyclables, and disposal activities, mostly at Trail Ridge Landfill. So, solid waste does have a total budget of $187.4 million. That is down $8 million year-over-year. Within their revenue line items, franchise fees of $16,055,000. This represents the 17% franchise fee charged to non-residential collections. It is an increase of $117,000 or $118,000 year-over-year based on actual revenues collected in the current year. Charges for services of $31.2 million is up $1,075,000 year-over-year. This represents commercial tipping fee revenue of $14.3 million, internal and external host fee revenue of $7.8 million, and residential tipping fee revenue of $7.5 million. The solid waste user fee at $101,069,000 is up $7,083,000 year-over-year. And that is due to the increase in the monthly charge from $27 to $29.50. That will start on January 1, 2026. The solid waste fee is billed on a calendar year. Revenue from city agencies represents the costs for city departments depositing litter and waste at Trail Ridge, remaining relatively flat. Miscellaneous revenue of $1.6 million is decreasing $517,000 due to a decrease in projected revenues of $620,249. from the sale of recyclable materials based on current year actuals. The budget is partially offset by an increase of $100,000 in contributions from private sources. We do have a recommendation as it relates to that. Investment pool earnings going up $123,329. The general fund alone, $36,102,622 represents the net cumulative loan from the general fund required to balance revenues and expenditures. There is a year-over-year reduction of $15.9 million, but it's an actual reduction of $9,393,026 due to a portion being recaptured during the current year. Within expenditures, they have salaries of $7.2 million, which is a net increase of $91,481 due to the 3% salary increase. Additional part-time funding as well, and that was partially offset by more costs being allocated to other solid waste funds. The solid waste fund has its own calculated vacancy rate of $350,000. Pension costs are going up $167,434 due to the increase in the required contributions for the defined benefit plan and the result of the impact of employee turnover, putting more employees in the defined contribution plan. Employer-provided benefits, increasing $575,000, mostly due to the change in the planned increase in group health premiums. Internal service charges, budgeted at $6.8 million, is a net increase of $1.1 million due to increases in fleet vehicle replacements, due to the full cost of vehicles purchased in prior years now being charged back. There's $118,563 for partial year payments for the purchase of seven packers, a claw truck, a dump truck, a trailer, and one backhoe. There's also an increase of $387,000 for fleet part oil and gas based on the increase in recent fuel costs. And then the increases are all partially offset by a $101,000 decrease in the computer system's maintenance and security charge. Insurance costs and premiums going down $120,958 due to a general liability insurance. Recent claims history. Professional and contractual services of $100.8 million. This increase of $4,015,000 is mostly due to the waste hauler collection services based on the contractual CPI increases. There is a new rate for service area one based on the contract approved with Meridian by council, and then $772,000 for the Trail Ridge landfill operating charges based on the contractual CPI increase, and then also the increased tonnage expected in the coming year. Other operating expenses of $14.9 million. Most of this is related to residential tipping fees at Trail Ridge, which is paid for by the solid waste user fee. Debt management fund repayments increasing $434,000 is due to internal loan repayments based on the debt outstanding for the projects as it relates to solid waste. The indirect cost going down, and that is the cost for operating the central services of the city. That's calculated by the city's independent consulting firm. Transfers to other funds going down $3.3 million. The city made the last payment on a prior loan from the general fund of $9 million. That was budgeted in 2526. And then last year there was also almost a $500,000 contribution to the group health fund. We already talked about the general fund loan repayment of $45,495,648. That's the repayment of all past loans from the general fund. Ultimately, no service level changes, no employee cap changes. We do have a recommendation to eliminate the combined $100,000 from private contributions from private sources within miscellaneous revenue. If you'll remember, each of the three haulers had a three-year contribution of two were at $25,000. One was at $50,000. That would benefit city economic development, health and human services, and other environmental and beautification initiatives. This will need to be offset by an increase in the loan from the general fund and ultimately have a negative impact on special counsel contingency of $100,000. The department has indicated they will bring forth that separate legislation on how to spend that $100,000. Thank you. Council Member Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is through the chair to the auditors. If we were to isolate Trail Ridge landfill revenues versus expenditures costs, is there an easy way for me to have a grasp on where that stands isolated from the overall numbers you just went through? Yes, sir. Through the chair, we're trying to open. After each budget, we put out a summary that just kind of summarizes the entire budget. It usually comes out in the November-December time frame. In that, we include a chart that shows just the overall solid waste program. As it relates to Trail Ridge, the total budget for $25,000-$26,000 was at $80.5 million. It operates at a deficit of about $2.1 million. That was in $25,000-$26,000. For $26,000-$27,000, that number is going to increase slightly. I know it's a projection, but what roughly would that projection be? Through the chair, to put the schedule together takes quite a bit of time, so I don't have that number off the top of my head. We'd have to pull that together for you. Probably two-something, more than likely. Yes, I would think so. Okay. Well, I just wanted to thank you for that through the chair. I just wanted to isolate that. We've talked about this before. There are many other areas where we haven't made changes, and we end up transferring funds or offsetting with other things. Sometimes things can get, I don't want to say masks, but not clearly stand out for what they are when there are other things like the increases in the residential fees, the $27,000 to $29,50, that start on the 1st of January, a surplus of $7 million, roughly, that can then mask those deficits that are running. And so, from my perspective through the chair, I'm always looking for ways to, how can we balance things out? How can things, as much as possible, take care of themselves where that is possible, the cost versus the revenue stream that's coming in, especially if there haven't been any adjustments for quite some time? So, I just wanted to get that information and have that exchange in this forum to show where we are there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. And I'll have some comments when we get to the landfill closure fund about one of the specific fees as well. Council Member Salem. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to the administration or the auditors, the decrease of $620,000 in revenue from the sale of recyclables concerns me. Is that a function of less being picked up through recycling, or is that due to a particular product no longer being a valuable contributor to our recycling program? Through the chair to Council Member Salem, it's our understanding that's related to the commodity pricing. I would defer to solid waste if they have additional information, but that's what we are led to believe. Does anybody out there know exactly what has fallen off the roof in terms of dollars? And I'd be very curious. Good morning. Eric Fuller with the Solid Waste Division. Through the chair to Council Member Salem, the result is a drop in commodity prices. It's not one particular one, but the commodities, the prices of the sale of recyclables are down as a whole. They change daily, weekly, just like the stock market. Commodity prices rise and fall, so things like tariffs and the war and petroleum prices can all have an impact on that. So it's not that we're collecting less tonnage from the curb. It's just we're getting less from the sale of those recyclables. I mean, that's a pretty significant decrease. Yes, sir. We started to see a drop in the commodity prices late last year, late last summer. They've remained fairly flat to low. We have seen a recent uptick in the middle of the summer, so there is some hope. But, I mean, it's commodity prices, and based on what happens globally, those can go up and down. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilman Carlucci. And then I'll have a few items as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is, this is the first year through the chair to Mr. Peterson. Is this the first year of the phase in or the phase up of the garbage fee? Through the chair to Councilman Carlucci, I'm going to answer your question in a different way. So y'all approved an increase last year up to $27. That fee went into place last year. That increase had a one-year increase of $250 up to $29.50, and that's what this budget represents. And then there was also an additional $2.50 increase up to $32 that would go into effect next year. Okay. So. My question is this. We did not put in an escalator, inflation-type escalator, that would adjust it every year thereafter. Is that correct? Through the chair to Councilman Carlucci, that is correct. Was that a part of the garbage fee in the original version back in, what, 2010 or whenever it started? Through the chair to Councilman Carlucci, my recollection is that when the initial garbage fee went into place, it was going to go up, I believe, a dollar per year until it got to a set dollar amount. And I don't remember the specifics, but I think it started at roughly $6, and it was going to go up a dollar a year until it got to $12. Okay. Two years in, it was realized that that was not going to be enough, and they bumped it up to $12 immediately, and then it stayed at $12. And don't hold me to those exact dollars, but it's in that range. Okay. My question is, Mr. Chair, and this is something I think the committee should consider, if we knew what it might be, but what might be an escalation amount that we should consider after next year, each year thereafter, that might keep us from having to suddenly do a huge increase again after, say, 10 years? Because it's too easy to just let this thing slide by rather than make a small adjustment each year. What kind of small adjustment each year might prevent that? Through the chair to Councilman Carlucci, when we were going through this whole process last year, we were advised by OGC that you could not include an annual escalator. Okay. But rather, the fee need to be evaluated on a year-by-year basis because you also don't want to end up charging more than what is necessary for the services that are being provided. Okay. Well, that would make sense, too. Well, I just hope that Councils henceforth will continue to take a look at that and not let us get caught behind because that was a tough hit for folks. But as I took it to the public, one of the big questions that I got was, why the heck did you all let it go for this long? And so, anyway, Mr. Chair, that's what I – that was an observation I wanted for the committee to address if it was possible. Thank you. Thank you. And, Councilman Carlucci, a point well taken. It's certainly on my radar that for us on our first term on council, we will have to address this at some point in our second term. Otherwise, if we do not do anything, the loan will start going the other direction again. So, a point taken on that. Mr. Peterson, just to confirm, the actual loan balance is the $36 million that's on the revenue piece, correct? Or to the Chair, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. And then also, in regards to the recommendation to the committee, it's not a huge hit to us. It's about $100,000. I did go back and forth with the auditors on this. But, unfortunately, the way that this money comes in, there's nothing within the solid waste budget it could be used for. So, we're essentially going to have to put $100,000 in revenue and then $100,000 expense in a qualified cost center at some point, which results in the $100,000 of additional expense back in the solid waste budget. I believe I explained that mostly correct. And you can confirm, I did try to find a way to where we did not have to do this. But, unfortunately, we do have to do this recommendation. So, with that, can I get a motion on the recommendation? Got a motion to second on the recommendation. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? It passes. Councilman Carlisha, are you back in the queue? We have voted, so you can go. Just one other observation I want to make, Mr. Chair. I'm sure everybody remembers this, but I think it's worth repeating. The fee is important because this fee cannot be tampered with by the legislature. And that's one reason that the fee was originally put into place by Mayor Payton years ago, because he fought the same type of property tax nonsense that the governor, who was Chris back in those days, and the legislature was putting on the local government back then. And Chris was successful, but it was luckily only a mill. But that's when the economy was tanking, back in 2008. And so he came up with the idea of the fee because it couldn't be tampered with by the legislature. And so I just want to reiterate that. So hopefully that will be remembered as time goes forward, that if somebody decides to say, well, let's just put it in the general fund. Well, if we had done that, you know, and if an Amendment 3 had passed, then our solid waste fee would be in deep shish kebabs, as my old friend Tommy Hazuri would have said. So solid waste and picking up our trash will always be safe. Thank you. Thank you. Next fund, Mr. Peterson. All right. This is the Solid Waste Contamination Assessment Fund, page 44 of your handout, page 206 of your budget book. This fund does groundwater sampling, contamination assessment reports, and examines, evaluates, and remedies, closed contaminated landfill and dump sites. It does receive part of the host fee at $0.24 per ton. Charges for services increasing $14,036 in host fees due to an increase in the internal host fee based on the increases in the residential and third-party waste hosted at Trail Ridge Landfill. And investment pool earnings increasing are actually all $118,074 based on the cash balance in this fund. Within the expenditures, internal service charges are increasing $2,267 due to OGC legal services based on current year billings. Professional and professional and contractual services, maintaining relatively flat for the groundwater sampling, those FDEP reports, and then contamination assessment reports. All remaining revenue over expenditures are placed in a cash carryover for future council appropriation related to contamination assessment activities at $455,937. No positions in this fund, no service level changes, no recommendations. And I have no one in the queue. All right, page 45 of your handout is the Landfill Closure Fund. It's on page 208 of your budget book. This fund has a $4.2 million budget and is increasing $886,866 year over year. It receives $2.11 for all waste deposited per ton for waste deposited at Trail Ridge, and then also receives 27.6% of the construction demolition debris permit fee. Within revenues, charges for services of $3.5 million, an increase of $173,000, and that's based on the anticipated increase in tonnage both at Trail Ridge and then based on actuals at the C&D landfills. Investment pool earnings being budgeted this year based on the cash balance within the fund, $713,757 within that line item. Within the expenditures, there are $419,612 in salaries going up $109,000 year over year due to the increase in the number of employees that have a portion of their salaries allocated to this fund. That is increasing from six to eight employees. Pension costs are going up as a result of the increase in salaries. Same with employer-provided benefits. The reason for the increase in the group health premiums is due to the increase in the number of employees allocated here. Internal service allocations are going down based on the utility and building maintenance costs to better align with recent costs they've been experiencing. Within the other operating expenses line item of almost $2 million, this is the borrow pit and post-closure costs for maintaining previously closed landfills. The increase of $427,000 is due to an increase in the cost for leachate disposal at Trail Ridge. There is a $1.5 million cash carryover line representing the excess revenues over expenditures that will require future council appropriation. No service level changes. There are no positions in this fund, although some of the costs of those positions who spend time related to this fund are allocated here, and we have no recommendations. Thank you. I have no one in the queue, so I have one question. I see Mr. Fuller and Williams out there, so it may be for them. A couple years ago, I think it was two years ago, you presented at a TEU meeting what all of our different fees were, and I seem to recall the construction and demolition fee was one that was quite a bit lower relative to neighboring counties. Have we adjusted that fee at all, or is it the same as it was a couple years ago? Sorry to make you come on all the way down here, Mr. Fuller. To the chair, the answer is it's the same. He may have additional information as it relates. Okay. Good morning, Eric Fuller, Solid Waste Division. To the chair, the C&D tipping fee hasn't changed. There hasn't been any changes in the last couple years to that. Okay. Are we still looking at it? Because, again, like from my memory, I don't have the presentation in front of me. That was one of the ones that kind of stuck out to me as far as being well below what neighboring counties were paying and almost encouraging people from other places to make it worth the trip to come to our landfill and use our landfill. Yes, sir. To the chair, so as part of the building permit fee, there is no host fee on construction and demolition debris generated within the city. So most of our tipping fees have that host fee built into it. So without that, you're correct. Our tipping fee at Trail Ridge is lower than the vast majority of surrounding areas and the state. Okay. So, Mr. Weinstein, I'd like us to look at that one again just to see if there's an opportunity there because, again, my takeaway from that was people were going from St. John's or Clay or from other places to come here because it was cheaper to use our landfill than their own. I believe that's correct, right, Mr. Fuller? I think that was one of my takeaways. Well, to the chair, certainly a lower fee brings more people in, but it's not so much from out of county as it is you get smaller mom-and-pops, if you will, that are doing home projects coming to us versus other landfills in the county, such as Otis Road Landfill or Kings Road Landfill, which could take that. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Fuller. I have no one else in the queue, so we can go on to the next one. All right. Page 47 of your handout. This is the Solid Waste Facilities Mitigation Fund. The purpose of this fund is to mitigate property concerns in areas surrounding our Class 1 landfill, which is Trail Ridge. Fifty cents of each ton deposited at Trail Ridge is charged, and then half of that fifty cents is deposited into this fund. So the charges for services of $255,441 represents that 25 cents. That is related to the projected 875,000 tons budgeted. And then three and a half percent of the construction and demolition permit fee also comes here. That's budgeted at $36,691. The decrease in investment pool earnings is to better align with anticipated investment. Based on the cash balance in this fund, this fund has gone down in cash balance due to recent appropriations over the past year. Transfers to other funds, all $268,988 is being proposed to transfer to the Chafee Road Project, which is an allowable use of this fund and is within the 15-mile required radius. This fund has no positions, no service level changes, and no recommendations. Thank you. So, Mr. Peterson, this essentially becomes pay-go for that capital project, essentially? Through the chair, that's correct. Okay, thank you. And I assume the district council member is good with that use? Yes, sir. Thank you. I mean, I wouldn't want to make a habit of this to go into Chafee Road. I use most of this money in the park system to upgrade some of the parks, but on this occasion, I am okay with it. All right, thank you. I'd like to acknowledge Council Member Johnson has arrived and is also in the queue and recognized. Following up on that, thank you for that, Mr. Chair. Following up on what Council Member White said, I, too, thought that it was capped, the Trail Ridge Landfill Fund, that mitigation fund. I thought those funds were specifically for parks only. Can someone bring me a speech on that, please? Through the chair to Council Member Johnson. So, there's two different facility mitigation funds. One is related to Trail Ridge, and that has no limitation on its use. The facility mitigation funds that are received for Class 3 landfills, which are the Otis Road, Jones Road, those have to be spent on real property that the city owns. That's the distinction. But Trail Ridge has no limitation on the dollars that can be used. It just needs to be in the geographic confines of— Of 15 miles from Trail Ridge. Related to Trail Ridge. Correct. Because my district is contiguous. That's why I wanted that question. Thank you. I have no notes in the queue. All right. Through the chair, page 48 of your handout, page 213 of the budget book, this is the facilities mitigation for non-Class 1 landfills. This is roughly the same thing, 50 cents on each ton deposited. Goes here as well as the 7% on the construction and demolition permit fee. The charges for services of $477,710 represents the expected external host fees and that C&D permit fee. Investment pool earnings going down based on the available cash balance in this fund. This fund is proposing a transfer to the Chafee Road project as well. We do have a recommendation to reduce the amount down to $254,090 with all $254,000 coming from the Otis Road landfill account. This will be offset by a corresponding reduction to the funding amount for that Chafee Road project. So, in all, has no impact on special counsel contingency. Thank you. I have no one in the queue. Can I get a motion on the recommendation? Got a motion and a second on the recommendation. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed to say nay? The recommendation passes. Next one, Mr. Peterson. All right, through the chair, page 49 is the Solid Waste Mitigation Capital Projects Fund. This receives the $0.25 that didn't go to the Facilities Mitigation Fund for the Class I Trail Ridge Landfill, and it is dedicated to the Tyee Brown Regional Park. Charges for services, same numbers as we saw in the previous fund, $255,441. This fund does have more cash balance, and therefore, the investment pool earnings are being budgeted at $35,273. All $290,714 is a proposed transfer to the Tyee Brown Regional Park Improvements Capital Project, which we'll see in the CIP. No service level changes, no employees in this fund, and no recommendations. Thank you. So, Council Member Johnson, I believe this is the fund you were referencing. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry, I didn't put it in. That's why I was trying to do the math back and forth. What's left in that fund? Through the chair to Council Member Johnson. We'll have to pull that for you. I don't have that number off the top of my head. You can say it to me. Thanks, Mr. Chair. All right. Page 50, Mr. Peterson. Page 50 gets into fleet management. This is the main fleet management fund. It can be found on page 221 of your budget book. A total budget of $44.3 million, which is an increase of almost $5.4 million year-over-year. Reminder fleet management is responsible for all the maintenance and fueling of the entire city's fleet. They also provide fuel and some maintenance services to JTA and other state and local government entities upon request. Charges for services going down $1,000. This represents towing services provided to JSO. Internal service revenue, $43.8 million. It represents the billing to customers. There is an increase of $5.6 million as a result of the increased expenditures. Miscellaneous revenue, $380,300 is going down $50,000 due to revenue from reimbursements for warranty work, which is based on current year trends. And then investment pool earnings increasing $55,482 based on the cash balance in this fund. Salaries budgeted at $6,453,997. And there's a net increase in this line item of $215,000, mostly due to the 3% salary increase, a couple promotions that occurred during the year, employee turnover. And all of that is offset by the elimination of one vacant position. The increase is also due to that one-time lump sum payment, which is $32,250. And then there's also an increase in special pay based on current year actuals. This fund has their own calculated vacancy rate. Pension costs are going up $120,000 based on the defined benefit cost actuarial report, as well as the staffing and salary changes noted above. Employer-provided benefits are increasing $511,000 related to the group health premium change. Internal service charges budgeted at $963,000. A net decrease of $221,194,000 of that is in IT charges. And then there's a decrease related to computer equipment that no longer needs to be refreshed at $27,000. Professional and contractual services increasing $88,780 related to a new third-party parts contract. Other operating expenses budgeted at $32,536,594, a net increase of almost $5,000,000 due to fuel costs related to the fuel price estimates and projected usage to better align with actual usage. There is also an increase of $300,000 in motor vehicle parts and an increase of $200,000 in sublet accident repairs based on recent trends. All of this was partially offset by a $400,000 reduction in motor vehicle repairs based on the area becoming more fully staffed and not needing to contract out as much work. Capital outlay is remaining flat. This is used for fleet equipment replacements, for shop equipment, and then fuel site equipment. They do have a supervision allocation of administrative costs related to the vehicle replacement fund. No service level changes. There is a capital carry forward request of $791,171 for specialized equipment and capital repairs that may not be encumbered by the end of this year, so asking to be carried over. The employee cap is decreasing by one position, but due to it being eliminated, it was a vacant position, so they will be down to 89 full-time employees, and we have no recommendations. Ms. DeFopolis. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to note for the record that you are down to five, and you need to maintain a quorum of five. I believe Dr. Johnson is scheduled to leave shortly for another matter, in which case you will need Mr. Freeman to return in order to maintain your quorum, because there's one excused absence allowed, and that is, I believe, based on your policy of first come, on the request, Council Member Diamond is now your one excused absence. Thank you. Any questions, colleagues, on this? This is a fairly large budget. Council Member Miller, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair, to the auditors or someone representing the middle of the pool, this may be getting in the weeds, but I'm going to ask it anyhow, because I've seen it in past budgets and within the different departments, are there any upcharges on fuel that are factored in here, or they're at play here from central services, and is there any room in there? And do we ensure that we're staying on par with what is provided outside through other fuel providers? I've seen this before, and so that's why I'm bringing it up. I just want to make sure there is someone looking at those situations, and especially if there is some type of upcharge associated with the fuel. Through the chair, to Council Member Miller, there is an upcharge on the fuel, but that is to cover the administrative costs of the department, but it's included in the fuel price that we bill to the city departments and then outside agencies. That fuel cost is still lower than what we as regular citizens pay at the pump. Okay, very good. You answered the question. I've seen it not be so in years past, and so I just want to bring that up again. It's probably getting in the weeds, but I just wanted to bring that thank you through the chair. Councilman Johnson. Mine was a little, I guess it's kind of sort of on the fuel train, so to speak. It was about fleet electrification. I thought it was something that was discussed before, I think two years ago, that would have brought fuel costs down and obviously kind of modernized the fleet and made it a little more efficient. I do remember a presentation about that a couple years ago when I was with finance. Where are we on that, and is that not by now starting to factor into bringing down some of those costs? Through the chair to Council Member Johnson, you're correct. The city purchased approximately, thank you, Mike, 18 electric vehicles in the past, and I believe all of those are in the building inspection division. So, yes, it's a factor in everything the city is doing, but the city still has thousands and thousands of vehicles that run on gas, and so we still budget the fuel charges. But the maintenance of those electric vehicles are included in the overall fleet budget. Gotcha. I think that is my only one. And that position, obviously, is something that I'm asking regularly. That position that was phased out, was that something, I know it's kind of nuanced, but is that something that someone else could do? Or is it, what was that phased out position? That cap, we took the cap down from 90 to 89 because that position, was there a reason why it wasn't filled before? I'm just curious because our city obviously is expanding, more land space, more things to do. Any feedback on that? Yes, sir. Through the chair, the chairman, that's okay. Basically, it's a policy that we've been working through that basically fleet, like others, and animal control and others, when they have a vacancy that isn't necessarily required to provide the service, they look to utilize the dollars in that vacancy to promote others, to give raises to others, to try to keep people from leaving. Basically, we call it a freezing of the position. A department could literally freeze a position, take the dollars from that position, and use it to create other higher positions within the entity. We continue to try to do more with less. As the community grows, we're trying to keep our cap down. And what we do when the budget cycle comes is our budget office basically begins to take away those positions that were frozen because the money was taken away from those positions. So you'll see it, and we've discussed it in a couple of departments. You'll see it throughout the government. And, again, we're very proud to have submitted a budget that didn't add any FTEs at all except for public safety. Thank you, and I said it when the budget was submitted, I certainly appreciated seeing a budget that non-public safety headcount was actually down by six, I believe, in the overall budget. No one else in the queue, colleagues and staff, my goal is to get us through the copy center, then take a fairly quick lunch, and then get to parks. I think parks will probably be the longest discussion of the day, so I don't want to start that until after we take a quick break, if that's okay with everyone. So, okay, next one, Mr. Peterson. All right, that's page 53 of your handouts, the vehicle replacement fund. It can be found on page 224 of your budget book. This internal service fund accounts for the replacement of city-owned vehicles. It has a budget this year of $43.2 million, which is an increase of $9.4 million over the current year. Internal service revenue of $40.7 million represents charges billed to departments and agencies for both prior and current year vehicle replacements. And the increase of that almost $8.9 million is due to revenues returning to normal levels. Miscellaneous revenue of almost $1.2 million represents the anticipated sale of surplus vehicles. That is up $155,000 year-over-year. Investment pool earnings increasing $547,550 based on the cash balance and the increase in the expected interest rate. Transfers from other funds of $268,003 is from another fleet fund we'll get to to assist with the purchase of vehicles. Salaries line item, $183,928 is an increase of $4,300 due to the 3% increase. This was offset by a decrease of $1,500 in overtime. Employer-provider benefits going up $17,000 related to the group health premiums. Capital outlay, this is the big expenditure line item in this budget. $37,136,000 is increasing $8.3 million. This represents the vehicles that are being replaced, which are found on pages 55 through, I believe, 62 of your handouts. It includes $4.6 million for the billing of the overhaul of five pumpers we talked about when JFRD was here at $400,000 each and 10 rescue units at $265,000 each. The remaining $32.5 million is for the vehicle replacements. This has inter-fund transfer out of $5.5 million to the general fund to return the remaining balance of $10 million that was loaned by the general fund to help balance the 24-25 budget. This then completes that loan payment. No employee cap changes. There are three employees in this fund. There is a total capital outlay carry-forward request of $19,232,170 related to prior approved vehicle replacements that just might not get encumbered by the end of this fiscal year. No service level changes. We do recommend updating the note on Schedule B-4C to correct the applicable fiscal year and a couple other Scrivener's related items. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Known in the queue, I will note that there are eight pages of vehicles being purchased. And then one thing, just to put on the record, we talked about at the Monday pre-meeting, there's a lot of moving parts within the accounting on page 224 in our budget book, but my understanding is that it's roughly a $32 million capital purchase this year, which is consistent with what it was last year, once you factor out all the moving parts in the accounting. So it is roughly flat year-over-year on the capital purchase side for vehicles. Okay. Got a motion to second. Oh, Council Member Sala, we'll go to you before we vote. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair to the Administrator, how are we financing the purchase of vehicles? I know in the past we've put an allotment of X dollars for assuming it would last seven or eight years. Can you let me know that, please? So the way that the fund works is we have to budget in order to purchase a vehicle. And then once that vehicle arrives and it's placed in service, we begin to bill back the customer for regular vehicles. It's a five-year. For police patrol vehicles, it's a four-year repayment. And then all that revenue from all those vehicles that are currently placed in service is what is used to fund the purchases that fiscal year. So the intent is to try and bring in enough to cover what we need in order to purchase. But in some years when we have big-ticket items like some ladders that need to be replaced, sometimes we don't have enough operating revenue coming in from the billings in order to make that happen, which is why we had to do that loan previously. But the intent is to replace what we need, bill back the customers when those vehicles come into play, and then have that funding set aside for the replacement when it's needed to be replaced. Through the chair, and that payback is based on the type of vehicle you said seven years for police or five years for something else? I didn't quite hear that. So the repayment is based on the actual cost of the vehicle, and then we have three different repayment cycles. The JSO motorcycles are a two-year refund repayment cycle, and then five years for everything else, and then four years for patrol vehicles. How about general vehicles within the general government? Five years. Five years. Mr. Weiss, did you want to add something to that? Yeah, I just wanted to add, the goal is that when we replace the vehicle, the money is sitting there to do it. But when we buy something that's not a replacement, when we do another fire station, we've got to buy an engine or what have you, that's when we need a chunk of money at the beginning. When that engine is replaced, their money will be there, but the new stuff for the addition is where we come and ask for a chunk of money. Gotcha. Thank you so much. Mr. Carlucci. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to the administration, I suppose, it looks like the majority or a lot of the vehicles that are being replaced are JSO patrol vehicles, and their SUVs is the JSO. Are they going mostly to SUVs now as opposed to the cars, and are they mostly going to kind of the grayish color? Is that what's happening in the transition over there? The gray SUVs that you see are what we are replacing all vehicles with for patrol. Okay, that's what it appeared to be. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Weinstein. You're still in the queue. Do you have anything else to add? Okay, I'd also like to recognize Council Member Diamond, who has joined us this morning. So, I think we were done, right? There was no... Oh, can I get a motion on the recommendation? Got a motion and a second on the recommendation. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Recommendation passes, and on to page 63. All right, page 63 is the Motor Pool Direct Replacement Fund. It can be found on page 227 of your budget book. This fund is being, in the process of being decommissioned. It was used in prior years to differentiate between vehicles that were purchased with cash and vehicles that were debt funded. The city's final year of payments on debt service related to vehicles purchased with borrowed funds was 22-23. So, as this fund has less and less cash, it is being decommissioned. That fund transfers these dollars over to the main vehicle replacement fund. And that's what's represented in the transfers from fund balance is the remaining fund balance currently within this fund that's being transferred. And the expenditures, that's the transfer over to the vehicle replacement fund. So, there's no service level changes, no employee cap changes. There is a capital, L.A. carry forward of $182,960 associated with vehicle replacements. But we have no recommendations. And my understanding is we will never see this fund again, correct? Through the chair, I don't make that promise, maybe one, two more years. Okay. All right, page 64. Through the chair to the committee, page 64 is the Motor Vehicle Inspection Fund. It can be found on page 199 of your budget book. Fleet Management manages inspection stations for school buses and city vehicles. The charges for services of $335,000 represents that revenue for the inspection charges and then also record application fees. Transfers from other funds, $113,411 is coming from the general fund to be able to balance this budget. There is no fund balance available in 2627, and that's thus the decrease of the $86,878. Within expenditures, there's a salaries line item of $241,534, an increase of $3,000 a year-over-year due to the 3% salary increase, the one-time lump sum payment. And this is offset slightly by employee turnover. Employer-provided benefits going up $17,559 related to the increase in group health premiums. We have – there are no changes to the employee cap for full-time positions, no service-level changes, and no recommendations. I have known in the queue – I'll point out something. We talked about this at our Monday pre-meeting. So this is a great example of a fund that was using its own fund balance when it had to subsidize itself, ran out of money in that fund, and we had to use $113,000 from the general fund this year to subsidize it. So my request is, whoever the right department is, just make sure we're charging the right – because this is not just our own vehicles. I believe it's school boards and other entities as well. So clearly we're in a place now to where this fund is not self-balancing like it used to be until this year. So, again, nothing we can fix right now, but certainly an area that we should look into so this subsidy doesn't continue to grow year-over-year. With no one else in the queue, we can move on. All right, page 66 is the copy center. This can be found on page 229 of your budget book. This internal service fund is related to all the city's centralized mailroom, copy center, print shop, and copier consolidation program. It has a total budget of $2.8 million, going up $138,799 year-over-year. The internal service revenue represents the cost billed to customers, and the increase is directly related to the increase in the budget expenditures. Transfers from fund balance, going down to zero, this was done last year to offset the group health subsidy. Expenditures, salaries, a line item of $242,279 is an increase of $10,309 due to the 3% salary increase and the one-time lump sum payments. Pension costs are going up $8,800 due to the employee turnover. Employer provided benefits, $32,016 increase related to group health premiums. This is also related to employee turnover and election changes within this division, or fund rather. Internal service charges are increasing $29,358 due to an increase in the building cost allocation for the St. James Building and an increase in office space allocated to this area. Professional and contractual services, a line of $1,455,000 is mostly related to the consolidated copier contract of $1.4 million with Xerox and then courier service of $55,050. Other operating expenses of $822,078 is mainly made up of $460,000 for postage, $252,000 for printing and binding, and then $54,300 for other supplies. The increase of $72,000 is related to an increase in the printing of the annual hurricane guide, the one-time enhancement we discussed as it related to the tax collector for reminding property owners about short-term rentals, and then a slight increase in the anticipation of JSO switching to the city services based on closing their internal copy center. And then there's also an increase in operating supplies related to the anticipated JSO services. There is a $55,757 capital outlay carry forward for specialized equipment that they don't expect to get encumbered this year. No changes to the employee cap, no service level changes, and no recommendations. Thank you, and I have no one in the queue. I'm going to do an audible here if this is fine with everyone. I don't want to start parks because that's going to be a lengthy discussion, but it's planning and development here. I think that's a plan there. Mr. Peterson, is that okay with you if we jump ahead to planning and development? I think this one will be under the 30 minutes on the schedule. All right, so that takes us to page 87 of your handout. Page 87, within your proposed budget book, it is page 316. Within the planning and development department is the office of the director, which includes the resiliency office, community planning, community planning and development division, the current planning division, and the transportation planning division. Within their revenues, charges for services, $1,055,000 is a decrease of $120,000 based on current year actuals. This is made up of zoning and rezoning fees of $630,000 and then comprehensive amendment fees of $425,000. Total expenditures within planning is $4.9 million. That's up $275,954 year-over-year. Salaries are $3.2 million, an increase of $263,223. Related to the 3% salary increase, there's an increase of $61,807 in part-time salaries. That's mainly the result of funding a historic preservation position carried over from the building inspection division. And then $8,800 for a lump sum payment for non-public safety collective bargaining units and then parking stipends of $4,320 as it relates to those non-public safety union employees. All of this is partially offset by the net elimination of one position. Employer-provided benefits going up $202,882 for the planned increase in group health premiums. Internal service charges are increasing $92,000. Most of that is in their Office of General Counsel charges based on actual usage for this area. Insurance costs are going up $20,000, or sorry, going down $20,000 due to a decrease in the general liability insurance based on claims experience. Professional and contractual services are budgeted at $148,600. The decrease of $368,700 is due to the annual traffic count services consulting contract. That is no longer needed to be funded at $255,000 and the one-time sidewalk inventory contract that was funded last year at $100,000. They do have supervision allocation of $211,000 for the other areas in planning. There is a divisional summary for the four divisions, if you will, on pages 88 and 89. Unless there are questions, we'll move to the Schedule B-1 grants. No city match required. They do have a million-dollar grant expected that will fund 1,040 part-time hours. There are no service level changes. However, the employee cap is decreasing by one position through a number of items. There's an elimination of a position in the current planning division, an elimination of a planner three in the community planning division, and then the addition of a grants compliance and special projects manager position in the office of the director. Part-time hours are increasing by 1,248 for that historic preservation part-time position. We have no recommendations. Councilman Diamond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair, I'm not sure if Ms. Nina is down there or Ms. Perola, but I just wanted to figure out what our story is with, I don't know if today is the right day or if this is the right spot to figure out, have we started implementing our third-party reviewers for horizontal planning yet? That's one, the implementation of our bill from earlier this year. And then the second is, what is our plan with, assuming it's as popular as we think it's going to be, like, is that going to affect our FTEs doing that stuff? I suspect it's not. I'm sorry, can you repeat the question one more time? I suspect it's not for you. Go ahead. It's public works. Yeah, it's under public works. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, we'll pick it up there then. Thanks. No, no, I'm with you. But go ahead and answer her stuff if you've got it. She is slowly backing up. So we'll go to Councilmember Salem. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair of the administration, do we pay any benefits to these part-time people that are working? Is it, or is it strictly an hourly rate? Not necessarily here, but just in general. The part-time employees, we go based on the contract that we have with them. Some of them do get minimal things, such as, like, a $5,000, $30,000 life insurance piece. But other than that, it's pretty much just Medicare and salary and overtime, obviously. No health insurance for those people? Not that I know of. I can check the contracts, but I don't think so, no. Mr. Weinstein, can you? They don't accrue leave the way that full-time employees do, and they do get Medicare. But as far as I know, no health insurance. I can double-check the contracts when I get back and let you know if I'm mistaken. Please. Thank you. Thank you. I have no notes in the queue, so we can move on to concurrency management system. All right. Page 91 of the handout and page 319 of the budget book is the concurrency management system. They measure the potential impact of proposed development on the adopted minimum levels of service for all public facilities, except for traffic circulation and mass transit. Have a total budget of $1.2 million, which is an increase of $260,204 over the current year. Within their revenue line items, impact fees and special assessments remaining flat. This is from mobility plan management fees, charges for services remaining flat, and most of this is in concurrency management fees. Investment pool earnings is increasing based on the cash balance in the fund, and then there is a transfer from fund balance of $360,000 to balance the budget in this fund. Salaries of $428,605 is an increase of $6,600 year-over-year related to the 3% salary increase, partially offset by the defunding of one position. Pension costs are going up $11,000 based on the required contribution to the fine benefit plan and then the salary increases. Within the professional and contractual services line, there's $275,001. This is funding for a pedestrian and bicycle master plan update. Other operating expenses are decreasing $6,000 due to a decrease in the dues and subscriptions for the National Association of City Transportation Officials membership. The transfer to other funds going down to zero was a transfer last year for the group help fund subsidy. No service level changes. There are seven full-time employees, but no change to the employee cap. We do have a recommendation for the revenues to be moved from the Public Works Development Services Division Center to the Planning and Development Transportation Planning Center. This is strictly an accounting item. This will place the revenues in the appropriate cost center, which has no impact on special council contingency. Thank you. Knowing the queue, and Mr. Peterson, I believe I asked this on Monday, but technically it is an enhancement request, this pedestrian bicycle master plan update, but it has no general fund impact because it's a closed fund, correct? To the chair, that is correct. Okay. Thank you. I do not see any of my colleagues in the queue, so with that, we will take a... Oh, I'm sorry. I keep on forgetting those. Can I get a motion on the recommendation? Got a motion and a second on the recommendation. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. Recommendation passes. Jimmy Peluso is just in the queue, but I believe that is due to Steve doing some work over there. I do not see him. So with that, we're going to take a fairly quick break for lunch, probably 25, 30 minutes, and I'd like to thank the Frank H. Peterson Culinary Arts Program. Their students will be providing our lunch for us today. All right. Good morning still. We'll go ahead and get back started, and Mr. Joseph, good news. We were able to move the agenda around, so we have you from 1140 to 5, so should be some good conversation here. So we are on parks, and parks overall, there's a lot of different funds within that, but that is our last topic of the day. So Mr. Peterson, you want to get us started here? All right. Page 68 of your handouts is the parks general fund portion. It is page 296 of your budget book. Within parks, recreation, and community services department is the office of the director, disabled services, natural marine resources, recreation, and community programming, senior services, and social services. They have total revenue of $894,150. That's broken down into charges for services of $355,500, which is an increase of $22,750 to better align with recent actuals for organized events, tennis lessons, summer camps, dockage. Miscellaneous revenue is budgeted at $538,650, which is a net increase of $60,150. This is related to overtime reimbursement, rental of facilities, and other miscellaneous charges. Parks department has an expenditure budget of $58.7 million. That is increasing $1.5 million year over year. Salaries are at $19.9 million, net increase of $1,027,157, $336,000 is in permanent probationary salaries related to the 3% increase. That is slightly offset by the elimination of one position. $325,000 in net increase in overtime salaries based on recent costs within community centers. And then there's $240,965 increase in part-time salaries due to anticipated need related to the riverfront parks. Pension costs are going up $1.5 million. That's a net increase of, sorry, pension costs are budgeted at $1.5 million, a net increase of $36,000 related to the salary increases. Employer provided benefits going up $1.3 million due to the planned increase in group health premiums. Internal service charges budgeted at $11.2 million. There's a $319,000 increase in their IT computer systems maintenance. There's $196,000 in vehicle replacement costs due to fiscal year 25-26 vehicle purchases being billed for a full year as well as the planned 26-27 billings. There's $121,000 increase in utilities based on recent electricity costs and then $107,000 increase in fleets, oil, parts, and gas due to the rising fuel cost. All of this is somewhat offset by a decrease of $112,401 in fleet maintenance and repairs due to recent actual repair costs. Within their professional and contractual services line item of $11.5 million, the net increase of $64,000 is primarily due to the Community Rehabilitation Center for State Mandated in-Jail Adult Substance Abuse Education, which has a total funding of $2.1 million. The proposed funding of the $11.5 million, you can see broken down there on page 69, $3.2 million in social service programs. $1.7 million for Meals on Wheels delivery service to homebound senior and disabled residents. $906,000 for Landscaping and Chemical Services, $780,000 for Security Guard Services, $580,000 at the County Extension Office, $522,000 janitorial services, and then $456,000 for Operation and Maintenance of the Brentwood and Blue Cypress Golf Courses. Other operating expenses, $8,525,000 is increasing by $689,000, primarily due to an increase of $1.2 million in enhancement dollars being added for general maintenance, landscaping, and special feature maintenance associated with Riverfront Parks. This is somewhat offset by a one-time enhancement from last year of $500,000 for repairs and maintenance. Grants aides and contributions is going down to zero within the Parks Department. That $3,086,580 has been moved to a non-departmental line item to be consistent for other grant matches related to their senior services program. The contingency of $600,000 has been previously set aside due to a conflict regarding Jamesville and Johnson Park. That conflict no longer exists, and we have a recommendation to address that. On page 70, you can see the divisional summary for the six or seven divisions within the Parks and Rec Department. Unless there are questions, I will not address those similar to how we've handled other departments. On page 72 are the B1A grants. These are the continuation grants with no city match. Parks does have five grants at a total estimated grant award of $9.8 million. That funds nine full-time positions. On page 73 is a schedule of continuation grants that do require a city match. Five total grants at just shy of $3 million in grant awards with a total city match of $3,151,558. These grants fund 72 positions and $8,800 part-time hours. Starting on page 74 and carrying through page 76 are all of the food and beverage-related items for the Parks Department. They total $192,850. And unless there are questions, I won't walk through each of those. Then on page 77, there are service-level changes. As I mentioned, $1.2 million in additional funding for riverfront parks. That includes groundskeeping and maintenance for special features. This is expected to be a recurrent annual expense, and we have a somewhat related recommendation. There's also $264,400 for the additional 15,600 part-time hours related to riverfront parks. That is expected to be a recurrent annual expense. Pools are sometimes a hot topic. There are no expected pool closures during the summer of 26-27, and there are currently 31 pools. That would be open to the public. The employee cap is decreasing by one. A maintenance helper position was eliminated to partially fund the reclassification of another position within the parks office. And then the part-time hours are increasing by that 15,600 due to the anticipated need for riverfront plaza. There is a capital outlay carry-forward request of $25,000 for computer equipment for the Westside Community Center. That is included. This funding was previously authorized via 2025-868. On page 78 are our recommendations for the general fund. First, recommend removing the $600,000 for Janeswell and Johnson Park out of the contingency and moving it to a contractual services account as there's no longer a conflict amongst council, and this does not impact special council contingency. And then the other semi-related item is you just recently approved the contract with Jacksonville Riverfront Alliance. Part of that requires you to approve their annual budget. So, while we're talking about all things Riverfront Parks, we thought it would be appropriate for you to adopt their annual budget. We can include that as an exhibit to this budget. Mr. Parks is going to pass out the budget that's been proposed by Jacksonville Riverfront Alliance. If you choose not to adopt this, a separate piece of legislation would be necessary. All, both of these recommendations have no impact on special council contingency. All right. Thank you. No one in the queue yet, but I got a number of things to say. First off, I want to address Meals on Wheels because we've heard again recently about how City Council cut Meals on Wheels, an elderly food insecurity program. So, I just want to put the facts out there for anyone that's listening. So, fiscal year 21-22, it was $150,000, and fiscal year 22-23, it was also $150,000. Fiscal year 23-24, our first year in office, it went up to $2.4 million, primarily funded through the Mayor's Transition Committee funding that we approved. The next year, fiscal year 24-25, it dropped down to about $1 million. And then last year, fiscal year 25-26, we increased it almost double up to $1.7 million, and that is what is in the budget this year to keep it flat to last year, which I will support. So, again, just wanted to actually use the numbers as to what council has done as it pertains to Meals on Wheels and elderly food insecurity program. Council Member Johnson. I'm sorry, Council Member Freeman. He was first. Council Member Freeman, you wanted to address this specifically, so I'll let you go first. Thank you, and I think his jacket's better today, Mr. Chair. No, my question is just really simple, because I want to make sure what I'm reading and then what I hear are either aligning or contradicting. So, what you're saying, to the Chair, where did you get this information from? These are the actual amounts approved by the final budget that City Council has approved the past, going back to fiscal year 21-22, from the auditors. So, verified by our city auditors. That's correct. And we've all been taught up here that, you know, always go through ethics, OGC, and the auditors. So, truly appreciate that. And I just want to go on record saying, and we'll get into it, and I say it every time I go to our senior event, the way our city, from the administration, the council, the way we love on our seniors is evident. And numerous times, Councilman Johnson's been there. I say that I pray that in Tampa, Florida, where my mom lives, that their government cares as much about them to provide the services. So, thank you for setting the record straight, because that's a contentious point, and it's not something that I want to be a part of. It's someone thinking that I played a role in not caring for some of our most vulnerable assets, and that's our kids and our seniors. So, thank you for sharing that. Councilman Johnson. I appreciate that. And here's the thing, Mr. Chair. While I appreciate those numbers, I also want to make sure on the record, I was here at the finance proceedings when it talked about Meals on Wheels. Not to go back and forth. You're absolutely right, because I saw those same numbers. However, some of the reticence that's happening with the community is during budget last year, the half of the dollars were cut, and they were later put back. Now, I know because that was one of the things I had in my enhancements last year, and I think that was the issue. When people saw that we just cut them arbitrarily, at least to them, it looked as though we didn't care about our senior citizens. So, I don't think, you know, I know that there's been, I, too, have seen the articles in the media. I, too, have heard the scuttlebutt around with people talking about it. I do think this council did the right thing. I'm honored to have voted for that budget where we included Meals on Wheels. I think, as Councilman Freeman said so eloquently, that we do love our seniors. Terea Robinson, who works with Daryl Joseph, is out there, and they, I mean, they do just an amazing job. I come to the Council on Elder Affairs meetings, and I go to the senior proms, where it's probably how I hurt my knee a couple weeks ago. But I will tell you, we do a great job. It's just that one thing is something, when I have gone with Meals on Wheels, and I just got to say this, you know, I'll close here. There were senior citizens that I went to with that program who said that the Meals on Wheels people that they see on a daily basis is their only point of human contact in a week. So, that's why this program is so important, and so that's why when we even looked like we were going to cut it, period, there was such an outcry in the community. Thank you. And I think, kind of like we've talked about here, the budget is not finalized until the fourth Tuesday of September. And in the final budget, we essentially doubled the Meals on Wheels budget versus the prior year. And by Meals on Wheels, that includes all the elderly food and security programs. Second thing, there are a lot of moving parts going on with downtown parks funding in this budget. And so, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Parks, correct me after I try to piece together everything here. So, we had the $1.257 million direct contract to Riverfront Parks Alliance that we talked about on day one that we'll take up today. In the budget, we have $1.2 million additional in parks for maintenance, landscaping, and special feature maintenance. There's $264,000 in additional overtime added due to anticipated needs related to riverfront parks. At the same time, we still have $1.029 million in a contingency account in the current year that has not been brought above the line for whatever purpose. And then also, skipping ahead to next week, I know some of my colleagues have not gotten there yet, but we got $5.75 million for James Weldon Johnson Park, which I believe is all new capital dollars for downtown parks, correct? Through the chair to Council Member Lane, that's correct. The one thing, slightly incorrect, I don't know if it changes anything, is you said overtime for the $264,000, it's part-time. Oh, I'm sorry. So, those would be part-time hours paid for that. So, again, I don't see anyone in the queue as of right now, but it is, I just want to point out, it's a significant increase the way I'm looking at it year over year. So, Council Member Diamond, I'll go to you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What's your recommendation? I mean, you've been the bellwether. I kind of would like more information at this point, to be honest. So, Mr. Joseph, maybe we start with you. I guess the obvious question is $1.257 million for Riverfront Park Alliance, $1.2 million for parks. Get me comfortable with what the differences are. And I have met with the Riverfront Park Alliance group, and I apologize for not talking to you too much ahead of time on this. But if you could just talk about the $1.2 million in parks for the line of maintenance, landscape, and special feature maintenance, and then the additional part-time hours as well. Good morning. Good afternoon. Daryl Joseph, Parks Department. Thank you all for the question to the Chair. As it relates to the $1.2 million ask, we opened a lot of these parks over the last year, and we've seen a tremendous amount of use of these facilities. So, just to level set, the $1.2 million that we're asking for, we being parks, that is specifically for maintenance, that $1.2. And the $1.257 million that the JRA is asking for, that will go towards programming and then them setting up their operation. So, we've kind of cleared that divide so that there's no overlap on what those funds will be used for. They're going to be doing programming, marketing, and fundraising, and we're going to be focused in on making sure that we keep these spaces safe and clean and available for our citizens to come and visit. And the overtime, not the overtime, the actual part-time hours that we talked about, one of the commitments that I made was looking at our business model a little bit differently. Parks are seven days a week functions. So, we wanted to look at ways that we didn't have to pay overtime. So, we're actually shifting to more of a part-time model because these parks are open in the evenings and the weekends. And it also allows us to get some young folks come into our workforce that potentially come in at some point as full-time employees. So, what I'm hearing is that $1.2 million and the associated labor dollars there for the part-time, that's essentially going to be roughly what the ongoing cost is to maintain these parks. Now, is that just for Riverfront Plaza or is that keeping in mind shipyards west and the ones on the south bank? Or are we going to keep on getting hit every year with more incremental dollars as those parks come online? Yeah, no, this is, and we will see efficiencies over time. The overall goal is a phased approach for JRA. JRA was supposed to take over all of the maintenance and programming. We've slowed that down a little bit just to make sure we have one opportunity to get this right. So, from that standpoint, we've slowed it down to a standpoint of they will get us comfortable when they start taking over the maintenance. They're going to focus in on the programming, the marketing of these spaces. But at some point, the goal would be for them to transition and take on the maintenance of the facilities as well. Okay, got it. So, that clears it up. So, we've got programming from the Riverfront Parks Alliance. You're going to do the same thing you always do, which is keeping the parks in good condition. You're the labor and manpower for that. But the other item out there is this $1 million that we still have in a contingency account. I know you referenced another council member was looking at that. I don't know if anything, like where are we with that? And I don't know if I can ask you to speak. I basically want to know if that million dollars is available for this next year. And I don't know who that question is to, Mr. Peterson, Mary, because, again, I know Mr. Joseph said it on the record at a prior meeting that a council member was looking at it. But I don't know where that stands, if that million dollars is available. To the chair, those dollars do carry over into 26, 27 via the legislation that just went through. My understanding is that the bill that Mr. Joseph might be working on with another council member has not been filed. So, technically, it is available. Okay. Council Member Carlucci. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make an observation. As I went with my wife down to Tampa, and I looked at their model and how they do their riverfront parks, I guess, on their bay, and it's remarkable what it does. And ours will be modeled in the same way in that it will bring so much activity when you have an organization like the Riverfront Alliance having activities down there all the time, and then they're in charge of it. And see if Bob Orland knows. And so they will just do an outstanding job. I think they've got outstanding leadership in place. We just got through watching the bill signing. It's exciting to see. And what these parks will do is it's going to bring a quality of life for young families all throughout Jacksonville. And that's a huge part of being a great city. And then last but not least, it's a part of our resilience plan so that when we have those rising tides during hurricanes or tropical storms, it helps mitigate the flooding that we'll experience in these areas. And last but not least, if you're going to do it, you've got to do it right or don't do it at all. So we want to maintain them. We want to make sure we've got quality leadership putting together these events. And I will say this, as far as the expense part of it, I think that you'll see the expense probably increase a bit through the years. I mean, I just think we need to prepare for that as the shipyards part comes online and then as Metropolitan Park comes online, although I think the Jaguars will mitigate some of that expense. But I just think that we need to look at those things as an investment, and it will pay off not only in helping our downtown continue to grow, but it's an investment in our people and the quality of life for young families. And that's who we need to really be thinking of so much when we think about our budgets, is the young families looking for our city to grow and opportunities for their children. And I have learned that so many times when facing a vote on an investment, a tax, something that would move the needle for our city forward. And that's what this is. And I'm just sharing that with the committee as you consider this wonderful opportunity. And I can't say enough about Daryl Joseph, as we all can't say enough about him. The million dollars that's in a contingency, I think that may not be in this because it's, I think, would be one-time money. And I think this needs to be money that's going to be needed year after year. If we want to use it one time for one-time money, that's fine, but it's just one-time money. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Miller. Councilman Diamond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, I'd like to move the million that's in the contingency and use it for this year. Whatever we need to do, that makes sense to me because it's a million dollars. And you know on the last day people are going to come here looking for money. So whatever the motion needs to be, I'd like to make that. Mr. Peterson, could you help us understand what that motion would need to be to use that million for next year, essentially? So through the chair, you would, the dollars are already carrying over, so we will take it out of the contingency and move it to this line item, which then frees up that million, 29,000, whatever the exact number is, that becomes available for some other purpose. Okay, so we've got a motion and a second on that. I'm going to go to Councilmembers Freeman and Salem. Are you on this amendment? Okay, so what I'm going to do is we're going to talk about the amendment that's here before us now. Anybody want to speak on this? And, again, this would be an amendment to essentially use that $1 million that we did not have to bring above the line this year to allow us to use it next year. And I get that this could be a non-recurring expense, but it's still a $1 million reduction in our overall budget. I will say that I'll be open. We still have many weeks until the budget's approved. If there is potential other legislation out there, I will certainly look at that. But for now, knowing what we know before us, I think this is the most prudent thing to do. Use this million we didn't need this year for something downtown park-related next year. Who is in the queue to speak on the amendment? Okay, I'm going to go to Mr. Peterson first and then to Carlucci. A few things. First off, the dollar amount, specific dollar amount is $1,029,841. And then where is it going to which of your buckets? My preference would be, and it's not my amendment, but just talking out loud, probably for the Riverfront Park Alliance because it's coming from that to that. Would that be? Through the chair. I was special counsel contingency sending it to reserves. Let's keep in the special counsel contingency for now in case we need to move it right back out subject to other potentially pending legislation. Council Member Freeman, you got in the queue. And then Council Member Carlucci. You're not on the mic. Do, Re, Mi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Quick question. Just from my memory, in this special contingency count, how many votes is it to move something back above the line on that? Through the chair to Council Member Freeman, if it's done as part of the budget process, it's a majority of whether it's finance or council. Once we get past the budget being approved, it's a 13-person vote. Got you. And so prior to the budget being approved, it's a simple majority, 10, correct? And, again, I like asking in-loaded questions because those watching or people out there, this is how the sausage is made, okay? And this is how hopefully we can prevent moving forward any types of misunderstandings when the sausage is being made that we're taking an action that in return might be reversed later, okay? So I'm just going to make sure we're clearing that. Through the chair to Mr. Joseph, how does this impact, you know, we thank you all for meeting with me as well. How does this impact what you all are doing? I'm fully supportive of any time we can save money, but I want to understand what this does to you, and is this something that you feel that you can work with? Through the chair to Councilman Freeman, this was a council bill that was going to use that remaining million-plus. So this does not impact our parks operation. Councilman Johnson, for the first time, and then we'll go to Councilmember Carlucci. You said—thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Joseph, you said this was a council bill? This was the one that we used for the downtown piece that Carlucci, Joe, had? Through the chair to Councilman Johnson. So this is a bill that has been in form. It hadn't been introduced at this point from my knowledge. But, yes, Councilman Joe Carlucci is working on a bill to utilize some of that funding to help with some items specifically for downtown. But at this point it was not, because I remember those funds we talked about. I remember that, was it 30-some million, I think it was? So—but there was a piece that was split out from that. That's what I was wondering. Is this a piece that was split? No, sir. That has nothing to do with that fund. No, sir. So with these funds, were there anything—was there anything that was said to be, I'm going to use it for this specific thing? There was no specificity for it, correct? So there was a relationship with DVI to be able to do certain things outside of the park spaces. I haven't seen the final version, so I don't want to speak to what the bill says or doesn't say. But this was more so a funding allocation that would actually allow for things to happen in some of the public spaces downtown. So things, nothing specific. Okay, that's what I need. I'm good. Thank you. Councilmember Carlucci, you are on the amendment, correct? Yes, I am. Well, with understanding that Councilman Joe Carlucci has perhaps a bill that's being put together with some of that contingency money, then I wouldn't support this until I heard what he has and how far along he is with that bill. I just—now that we know that, I just think that's only fair. It's just my opinion. If it was your bill, anybody else's bill, I would say the exact same thing. So I think we're pulling the rug out from underneath another Councilman, whether it's my relative or not. It doesn't matter. That's what I think, number one. So I wouldn't support it for that reason. The second reason, the other question is, is the money that is programmed right now before the amendment, is that a million or a million twenty-nine thousand through the chair? Through the chair to Councilmember Carlucci, so a million twenty-nine thousand eight forty-one is sitting in a contingency right now that was approved as part of the twenty-five, twenty-six budget that was thought at the time to be going to Jacksonville Riverfront Alliance. After Mr. Joseph has worked with the Alliance on their services, that's the money that's remaining after you entered into a contract with them for services. So if this amendment passes, does that mean the Riverfront Alliance has twenty-nine thousand less money? Through the chair to Councilmember Carlucci, no. The Riverfront Alliance is fully funded at the amount they've requested. Okay. I just want to make sure on that. And just to clarify, the amendment we're talking about does nothing to impact Mr. Joseph's money, the Riverfront Alliance's money. We're simply talking about the funding source. I got that. The third thing is, memories are short. So what we're doing, if this passes, is you've got to remember, next year, you're going to have to put this million back, because this is just one-time money. But knowing that another Councilmember has a bill that is being put together to be put before the Council and to be taking that money, and I just think he's entitled to address the committee, and he doesn't know this is happening right now, and he's not here. So not fair. Councilmember Salem, you are not on the amendment, correct? Okay. And Councilmember Johnson, are you on the amendment? Is it possible for us? I mean, I certainly don't see, since it has not been, as Mr. Joseph has said, that it's not specifically earmarked for something. I certainly understand Councilman Diamond's position and understand and want to do, as Councilman Freeman said, that savings. Is it possible for us to just wait on this so that we can see the provision of Councilman Carlucci? I would be okay tabling it until wrap-up day, but here's my concern. My concern, it sounds like the potential bill, is another million dollars only for downtown. So that, I think, what we need to know, and again, the only reason we know that a fellow Councilmember is working on this is because it was articulated to us on the dais. So I'm fine tabling it, but I do think that will be the decision we make. Do we want to use a million dollars of available money to fund something for downtown, or do we want to give another million dollars on top of this for downtown? So I'm fine tabling it. If the consensus is to go to a vote, I'll be a yes on moving the money, though, as well. Might be recognized. Oh, you're recognized, sir. Yeah, so just on this, I'd like to take the vote, and here's why. And I'm not trying to beat up Joe Carlucci, but, like, there's probably 30 other things out there just like this. And I don't like this idea. On Rapid Bay, anybody can come back and say, I'd like to take this money out and do this with it. That's totally fine. I'm okay with that. There's all sorts of other contingency money sitting out there. If the other Councilman Carlucci comes and has a good idea and I like it, I'll support him. Like, that's no problem. That's true for literally every dollar that we do out here. So I think if we're being consistent and fair, that's what we ought to do. Mr. Weinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure I understand this. You're just basically moving this money from one contingency to another contingency. You're not spending it. And the new contingency has more flexibility to Councilman Diamond's position that whatever priority you decide, you can use it for and when you want to use it. That's all that this does. It doesn't harm anyone. Correct. And with Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Diamond agreeing, let's go ahead and take the vote. All in favor of the amendment, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay? I have one nay. Councilmember Johnson, I believe you're the only nay, correct? Okay. So the amendment passes. I will next recognize Councilmember Salem. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Joseph, in all your comments a few minutes ago, you said one thing that bothered me. And that was, it was my understanding that maintenance on these parks was a permanent change to your area, which I thought was a wise thing. Let them focus on programming and such. And you, who does maintenance all the time, do maintenance, but I heard you say that at some point that that maintenance would be transitioned back to the Riverfront Alliance. And I think that's a mistake, and I wanted to make sure the council heard that comment, and I think maintenance should stay with you on a permanent basis. Can you comment on my comment through the chair? Through the chair, Councilmember Salem, thank you for the question. So the agreement that was just passed in city council does contemplate a phasing plan that does allow, with approval from the city, that we could transition maintenance responsibilities on some of these riverfront spaces. Following suit with other conservancy groups similar, they do both. But there are different models where some do just the maintenance, some do the programming. One thing I am confident in, we will have a seat at the table, and if they're not ready to take on those maintenance roles, then we would keep those responsibilities. Every year, JRA, Jacksonville Riverfront Alliance will have to come back before us and present a budget. And we actually have a work plan that we'll be involved in to make sure that we're on the same page as it relates to who's going to do what. So currently, yes, we have the maintenance, but there is a provision in the agreement that would then turn over from a phased approach maintenance to JRA. Through the chair, and I'm going to ask you a question that I have asked many times in the past when this comes up. I heard you say with city approval. What does that mean? So the city will actually have seats on the board. City council will actually have a representative, a DIA, and then the parks director will actually be on the board. Again, if they're not ready to take on those maintenance roles. Throughout this, the parks department will be engaged and involved from a maintenance standpoint to some level. So that budget is going to come back to us, and if we don't think they should be doing maintenance, we could change it. From my understanding of the agreement, and I'll defer to the attorneys, I think so. The attorney has stepped out. Can one of y'all address that? I just think, I feel strongly about this, that maintenance has no business with the Alliance. I think they should focus on programming and such. I'd be curious to what Mr. Weinstein thinks on this. If I may, that topic really resulted in months of discussion and years and hours of debate with them. And we came to a very specific mechanism to determine what they're capable of doing and when they are. And we have to agree that they're capable, but we were never going to give up all maintenance. And when they come to you each year for a budget, you'll have the opportunity with a budget in front of you, and part of that budget will be maintenance, which you can either give them the money for or not give them money for. Their major function is programming and philanthropy. But to your point, we agreed 100%, and we spent a tremendous amount of time on that issue. Can you repeat that? You agree with me 100%? Yeah, I agree with both of you. I agree with you and Councilman Diamond. I just got to get Freeman and we'd be all set. Well, to my friends, I think I still have the podium, to my friends out there with JRA, I think you should think very hard about maintenance. I'll be off the council. I just think that's best done by the professionals that do it every single day. And why would you want to get involved in that when, as long as you're comfortable, it's getting done. And that's a whole other issue. If you don't think it's being done effectively by Daryl's group, that's a whole other discussion. But if it's working well from a maintenance standpoint, I would not touch it. Thank you. I'm going to recognize Councilmember Boylan for the first time, but also want to point out that we are not, we don't have an amendment to discuss on the floor right now. So really, any questions on the entire Parks Department are in play right now. Councilmember Boylan, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just in response to Councilman Salem, I do appreciate your point of view. As they said, this was well deliberated by both the Parks Department and Administration. I think the maintenance that they're going to be looking at, quite frankly, is what's necessary to maintain the programs that are established. So be very specific as to what the maintenance they want to do. But beyond that, we learned in looking at other cities, there is a common experience of seeing other cities taking organizations like JRA, taking it to the next level. But again, that's going to be monitored by both the Administration, Parks Department, and I appreciate Mr. Weinstein's comment with respect to, you know, come to us as a line item in the future JRA budget. And if we don't like where it's going, you'll have a chance to address it then. Thank you. Councilmember Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair to Mr. Joseph, I just wanted to kind of move on to something a little bit different. It's at a basic level, but I see the number of part-time hours here, 322,207, roughly 168 full-time equivalent positions, really. I just wanted to, if you could, and I know it's not on here, we kind of went back and forth on, is this overtime, is it part-time, this is obviously part-time. Could you talk about that a little bit? Because that's obviously a large, large number for part-time hours. How about overtime hours, and, you know, how is that working, and what are your plans going forward regarding overtime and part-time? Sure. Through the chair to Councilmember Miller, I will say this number includes the mass majority of seasonal employees. We have 31 swimming pools. Those hours are covered through this. So if we want our pools to be open and available and safe, I need to be able to actually have our lifeguards covered within this. During the summer, the lifeguards are working 40 hours a week, so those part-time hours come from that. Summer camp is covered through those hours as well. So this is not just maintenance. This covers all of our seasonal and part-time employees. Thank you. And through the chair, the other part of this, it's not on here, it's not broken out, but do you know roughly what you're looking at or what you have looked at this past year and projecting for overtime hours? We have it. I don't have it in front of me right now. If you could get with me later through the chair, I'd appreciate that. And the reason I'm bringing it up, because in some of the larger parts of our city government, we've seen some concerns in that area before, and I won't go into naming it, but the inspector general has looked into the overtime process, and there were some organizations that didn't do pre-approval, that didn't verify the hours were worked, and things just got worse from there. And then when they tightened things up, the very next year, that same department saved over a million dollars once they had a real oversight process by supervisors. And so given you're a large organization spread out all over 400-plus parks, I just wanted to make sure we're confident that you have a good handle on that and you have a good way forward for that. Through the chair to Councilman Miller, I will tell you, we track overtime every pay period, so we're keeping our finger on where we are on that to make sure we stay within budget. As I mentioned, parks is a seven-day-a-week operation, but there are creative ways that we can get to it without necessarily going over our overtime allocation. Councilman Freeman. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair to Mr. Joseph, and I'm probably getting ahead of myself a little bit on this. I want to thank Councilmember Carlucci for mentioning the site visits to other cities. I, too, went to St. Pete because I was very much doubting a park downtown, a passive park or an activated park. And then I also went to Miami, and I saw what happens when you activate parks. And I saw the things that can come, and it changed, and it's off of my perspective. I also shared with you in the meeting why I had some apprehension because as a district council person in 10, you know, my seniors there wanted to make sure that the park closest to them was getting some attention, and thank you all for the work that you've done at Line E. C. Miller Park and turning it into a regional park. That being said, another big concern of mine with parks, one of the largest park systems in the nation, right, is the ability to keep them clean. And so with RCA, or JRA, I want to call it, and this is why I think I'm getting ahead of myself because DIA is in charge of the ambassadors, I think. DVI started the program, but yet it's in a park that you oversee. And so what I want to just try to get an understanding of, good questions on the maintenance, good questions on the overtime, is who's going to be in charge of picking up trash as we continue to develop this park downtown? Are we going to move away from the ambassador program, or is that something that you still foresee? Because I do see value in it. Or is that something that you foresee maybe morphing into something different? Through the chair to Councilman Freeman, so DIA manages the contract with DVI, who actually has the ambassador program. From a park standpoint specifically, parks is responsible for trash and cleanliness of a park. The ambassadors, where they've been helpful, is taking care of the right-of-way, sidewalks, things along those lines, making sure those spaces are clean and safe when you actually come in to work and in the evenings. So two separate functions that they actually offer, but to answer your direct question, as it relates to parks, we maintain our parks. Thank you for that. And I probably should have asked this to the JRA in our meeting. I'm not sure if I did or didn't, and my apologies if I didn't. But if DVI tends to deviate, which I believe that there might be a transition moving forward, what is the plan for the cleanliness? The chief just said that they'll make sure that the park's clear, but as we activate and we create more programming, I just think of like Florida-Georgia game. Ambassadors are out there doing an amazing job. I mean, I've even seen them move scooters at times, right? Do you all have a plan for that? Are we going to continue with the ambassador program or will there be something more innovative that you're thinking can help with the right-of-ways and the sidewalks and things? Through the chair of Councilman Freeman, let me take a stab at that and then I'll turn it over to JRA. So one thing that we've done in communication, I feel like is key. So JRA, DVI, parks, we all got together to meet just so that there's not a blurred line as far as who does what. So we've actually put together some flow charts to understand who's doing what so there is not duplication. JRA has a clear definition of what they're going to be doing. Parks has a clear definition of what we're going to do. Same thing with DVI. But I'll let JRA add on that. I mean, I think you answered the question unless they want some TV time. If you need it, let me know. And yet again, I'm just a baseball coach here, but I love when things are clearly stated in a forum like this because it just helps people who are watching on the outside. It helps me understand who to call when something doesn't necessarily represent the things that we think it should or go the way it should. So thank you so much for the explanation. Yes, sir. No one else in the queue. Let's see. Before we wrap up, Parks, going back to what we did with that amendment, Mr. Weinstein put it well. We moved it from a contingency account to a contingency account to where two-thirds of vote would have been required either way, correct? So in some way, did we make it a little bit easier if Mr. Carlucci wants to come on wrap-up day, it would be a 10 vote instead of two-thirds vote. Now, if he wanted whatever he was thinking about filing, he could come on wrap-up day. Is that correct? To the chair, on wrap-up day, it would just be four votes because it'd be in finance. After wrap-up day, yes, it would just be the 10 votes. So it'd be four votes if he had someone to move it in finance committee or a floor amendment to get a simple majority on budget night. Okay. So I just made the council vice president's job a little bit easier is how we're going to officially record this. No one else on Parks, so we're ready to move on to the next step. Oh, we got two recommendations. I always forget this part today. Well, we have to move them separately. Move the first recommendation. So, Ms. DeFopolis, can you clarify on recommendation number two? Yes. Can you just verbalize it for us? So you can certainly move them together if that's how you'd like to handle it, Mr. Chair. The second recommendation with respect to the JRA annual budget was an either-or. So you have received a handout, which is their budget, which if you want to go ahead and attach that to the budget ordinance, you would, as part of this amendment, just reflect that you would be recommending that that budget handout be attached to the budget ordinance as a new attachment or exhibit. And rather than putting the money into a designated contingency. So that was the one nuance on that one because it was an either-or. Can I get a second? All right. I got a motion and a second. All those in favor of the recommendation say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. The recommendation's passed. And that will include attaching the JRA budget to the budget ordinance. And we will determine kind of where it makes the most sense, whether it's going to be an attachment or a schedule. All right. On to Huguenot Park, I believe we're on. That's correct, Chair. Page 79 of your handout. Page 299 of your budget book. Huguenot Park Trust Fund is funded by entrance fees, annual pass fees, camper rentals, other miscellaneous sales and charges, concession commissions, and then usually requires a subsidy from the general fund. Charges for services going down $24,250, down to $830,750. This does represent all those items I just spoke about. And the reason it's going down is to better align with recent experience. And then there is a $479,780 transfer from the general fund to balance the fund. Salaries has a line item of $563,817, which is increasing $29,000 for the 3% salary increase, the lump sum payment for non-public safety union employees, and then some increases related to employee turnover. Employee-provided benefits is going up almost $50,000 for the increase in group health premiums. Internal service charges are increasing $29,000 for building and utilities costs, parts, oil, and gas, IT systems, maintenance, and security, and then vehicle repair costs based on recent actuals. We have no recommendations. There's no service level changes and no employee cap changes. And I have no one in the queue. We'll go on to Hannah Park then. Hannah Park, page 81 of your handout, page 302 of your budget book. Very similar to Huguenot Park, just in a different area. The charges for services of $2.7 million represent entrance fees, annual passes, and camper rental revenues going up based on actuals. The miscellaneous revenue is rental and concession income, same, based on actuals. There is no plan transfer from fund balance in this fund. It is self-supporting. Salaries has a budget of $935,082, an increase of a little over $51,000 is related to $32,000 in overtime, $16,000 in permanent salaries to account for the 3% increase. Employer-provided benefits increasing $91,000 for those planned increase in group health premiums. The other operating expenses line of $522,402, increasing almost $13,000 is due to an increase in credit card fees due to more visitors paying with credit cards rather than cash, and then the transfer to other funds going down $198,000. The $74,000 that is there is being used to pay for a capital project at Hannah Park Campground. There are no service level changes, no employee cap changes, and no recommendations. And I'll recognize Council Member Diamond, and then I got a comment. Through the chair to Phillip. I just want to make sure I heard that right. Hannah Park out of the beaches is self-sustaining? Pays for itself? That's a doable thing? Through the chair, Council Member Diamond, that's correct. Thank you. I'm going to do my comments because that's what I was going to say. Not only is Hannah Park probably one of my favorite parks in Jacksonville, but it pays for itself, and I'm still just amazed that the entire expenditure line is $2.9 million compared to what the cost of downtown park maintenance. So again, that's why we ask so many questions on the cost of downtown because parks near where I live and Council Member for District 13, we see that huge park, and it's $2.9 million a year to completely maintain that. And then the other thing I was going to say, and I think I've said this every year, when you look at Huguenot and then Hannah, then Cecil, they're all either pay for themselves, kind of subsidized, or nearly all subsidized. So like Huguenot, I think about one-third of what it costs is taken from the general fund. And Cecil is very extremely highly subsidized, and then Hannah pays for itself. And again, it's just added to the list of things to potentially look into to see if we can make them more self-balancing and try to kind of move in the direction that Hannah Park is. I'm going to recognize Council Member Johnson since he's on committee. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I wanted to say, while I certainly appreciate it, and I've been going to Hannah Park, Huguenot since I was a kid and used to love those trips to Little Tabard Island out that way, I'll say, while it is certainly a good thing that Hannah is sustaining, please understand the reason why. It's a much larger park. There are lots of family reunions and other things like that. So the facility charges these fees, correct, Director Joseph? This facility charges fees that I'm building a park or redoing a park right now, a pocket park on Jamie's Road. And while there is a pavilion and we work closely with the community to make sure it's there, there's senior citizens, especially in that community, that are not going to be able to get to Hannah Park and they're not going to be able to pay those fees and to use it. So I want to make sure that those people get the same access to amenities in Mandarin, on the west side, on the north side in Sherwood, as they do of those people who do have transportation and who can get to the beach quickly. And that's why we have this kind of park system. I want to make sure that's on the record. Thank you. And I think we're saying the same thing. We want parks in every single part of Jacksonville to be nice, not just in one part of Jacksonville. Council Member Salem. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to the administration, have we considered, as many people are now doing now, of taking credit cards only for places like this and getting away from cash and the potential loss of theft and all those types of things? Through the chair to Council Member Salem, the majority of the funding that we receive at our fee-based facilities is through credit cards. There are situations where people only have cash, but from an accounting standpoint, the majority of what comes through is based on credit cards. What percentage? Do you have a good idea? At this point, we're probably close to 80% of what actually comes in. We've really gone to more of an online approach. So if you want to rent a campsite at Hannah Park, you're doing that similar to what you would do if you were booking an Airbnb. So a lot of that is, and I call it the Chick-fil-A solution, which has helped at Huguenot Park to relieve the traffic on Hexer Drive. You can now just tap and come in as opposed to waiting, you know, that full time frame. I would just encourage, through the chair, to maybe take a look at some gradual process where you get away from cash. I mean, so many places are doing that now. not only is it quicker as you're stating, but you eliminate so much potential fraud and abuse. But anyway, thank you. No one else in the queue? On to next. Page 83 of your handouts and page 305 of your budget book is the Florida Boater Improvement Program. This takes in registration fees from recreational vessels and remind the committee that projects that cost $30,000 or less, the director of parks can move forward with those projects. Anything over $30,000 requires separate council approval. This budget is remaining flat at $110,000 and that represents the fees that are based on current actuals and then the $110,000 will be utilized for city-owned repairs to city-owned boat ramps or other allowable activities. No change of service levels. There's no employees and no recommendations. And no one in the queue. And that takes us to Cecil Field Commerce Center. Page 84 of your handout in 307 of your budget book. This budget has a $1.9 million budget and that's an increase of almost $200,000 year-over-year. Cecil Field Commerce Center has the community center, the aquatics complex and then the athletic complex. Charges for services of $75,000 represents entrance fees, organized event charges and summer camp programming going down slightly just based on actuals. And then as the chair mentioned, the transfer of $1.8 million from the general fund to balance this fund. Salaries of $681,000 is increasing $124,000 due to $111,000 in part-time salaries based on recent actuals so to better align those. And then a small increase related to the 3% salary increase. Internal service charges are going up $15,854. Most of that is related to utility costs and then computer system and maintenance costs from IT. The net increase is also due to the replacement of network equipment and one PC. Professional and contractual services is remaining flat. This is for the various contracts to maintain the fields, pools and other items at the Commerce Center and Tyee Brown Regional Park. On page 85, you'll see a list of five food and beverage expenditure requests totaling $600. Ultimately, no service level changes. There are six full-time positions but no cap changes and no recommendations. Councilman Johnson. Sorry, I'm really passionate about this. Question for you. I don't see anything in here budget-wise and maybe it's in a different category to the chair of Mr. Joseph. One of the issues, I know we've talked about it, is that the people don't know even in my district and adjacent districts that the Cecil Commerce athletic facilities and some of those other facilities are there. Are there funds set aside somewhere specifically to promote those Jax Parks things in that way? Through the chair to Councilman Johnson, one thing, short answer, no, we don't have a marketing fund but we've really taken advantage of our social media platforms. They've grown over 300% to get the word out of the different things that we have available. So no, there's not a marketing budget for the facilities but we attend a lot of community meetings and one thing with the amount of residences that are being built in that area will be doing our part to reach out to make sure they know of the amenities out at the fairgrounds. We may want to and I may put it as an enhancement, I'm not sure, just on the wrap-up day while I'm not trying to add anything to it, didn't we say that we received revenues of about $75,000? What were the revenues? Forgive me, I'm not looking at it again. About $75,000. I just think that this is a great opportunity for us to not only enhance the community but to bring in some additional funds to kind of do the, for lack of a better way of calling it, the Hannah Park thing if more people knew it was there, maybe they would join, be a part of it because I know I've gone to that facility and talked to people. When I'm at CPAC meetings and other meetings I'm always promoting it but I think if we had some kind of specific effort to ensure that people knew it was there, it could generate additional revenue and of course enhance the community. Thanks for that. Through the chair, one thing that I do think is an opportunity with the new fairgrounds being our neighbors, we're going to do some cross-promoting as well just to let people know this is a facility. The construction over the last couple years I do think have impacted the number of people that have attended the facility. That construction is wrapped up at this point so we're really working closely to make sure people know this amenities there, it's open and available. All right and I have no one else in the queue. All right, page 86 is our last page. This is the Equestrian Center which is overseen by the Northeast Florida Equestrian Society. It used to be managed by SMG but NFES took it over in 2015. Total budget of $662,000 relatively flat year over year. Transfers from other funds you'll see $655,642 is from the general fund to balance the budget. We do note that the society requested a subsidy of just shy of $1.1 million which is $441,000 more than what is included in this budget. Within expenditures there are internal service charges of $173,000. The increase there is really related to utility cost allocation and then the professional and contractual services line item of $488,000 is to pay the services towards the Northeast Florida Equestrian Society. Their net revenue is budgeted to stay flat at $1.2 million and expenditures are budgeted to decrease by $20,000 mainly due to areas they've seen savings in labor, security, administrative expenses. No service level changes, no employee cap changes and no recommendations. And I do not have anyone in the queue so what loose ends do we have for today? I don't think any that we have to solve for today. Through the chair, that's correct. The only things are random emails that need to be sent to people. Random emails to send to people. All right. All right. So we'll see everyone back here at 9 tomorrow. We'll start off with we'll go three independent authorities in a row and then DIA, Downtown Vision and then the remainder of the, I believe the remainder, most of the other departments. So with that, I don't see anyone in the queue so we will adjourn at 1238. at 1238.