Finance Committee - Budget Hearing - Meeting #4 - Aug 21, 2026

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to meeting four to discuss the fiscal year 26 and 27 proposed budget by the Finance Committee. Let's start off with introductions to my left. Angela Moyer, Budget Officer. Mike Weinstein, Mayor's Office. Philip Peterson, Council Auditor. Ryan Parks, Council Auditor's Office. Mary Stifopoulos, Office of General Counsel. Good morning, Rachman Johnson, District 14. Good morning, Rory Diamond and George from District 13, The Beaches. Good morning, Chris Miller at Large Group 5. Will Lane in District 3. Terrence Freeman at Large Group 1. Mike Gay, District 2. Randy White, District 12. Nick Holland at Large Group 3. Ron Salem, Group 2 at Large. All right, good morning, everybody, and happy game day. A couple admin notes. First off, we have no excusals for today, so because of that, our quorum is five. George does not count. I asked. He does not count as part of our quorum. We have three of the independent authorities this morning. Immediately following that, we're going to bring up the Wolfson's request for approximately $2 million. This is one of our loose ends from day one. Again, there's no action on this unless someone makes a motion, but I did want to come back to that because we had agreed to table that so council members could have more meetings to discuss that. So Wolfson's will be right after we finish the three independent authorities. Like I've done every other day, just want to give a summary of where we are at, specifically with the general fund budget. So again, the mayor submitted a budget of $2.027 billion. Already, we have reviewed 88% of that budget, about $1.786 billion, and of that, we have amended approximately 1% of that overall budget. So we are down to today and then next Wednesday to go department by department, and then next Thursday, the agenda will be JAA coming in here to present their budget, and then it'll be wrap-up day, which I will get more communications out to not just Finance Committee, but all of our colleagues on how that process will work. So with that, I see no committee members in the queue, so I'll turn it over to Mr. Peterson to kick it off with Jaxport. Thank you, Mr. Green and Mr. Grevy, for being here with us this morning as well. All right, so that takes us to page three of our handout. This is the Jaxport proposed budget for $26.27. It does show the $25.26 budget, their actuals through eight months, where they project to finish the year, and then the $26.27 budget, along with comparisons. I'm going to start on page four with explanations. Operating revenues, their autos budget of $20.4 million is an increase of a little over $4 million year-over-year. That's primarily due to a new tenant that was planning to operate in the break-bulk category, converting their line of business to autos. This will be expected to generate an additional $3.5 million in auto revenue. There's also growth at the new Blunt Island Marine Terminal Southeast Toyota facility, projected to increase revenues almost $500,000. Within the break-bulk category, there is a decrease of a little over $800,000, and that is due to the conversion of that tenant to autos. That has a decline of $1.9 million in this category, but there is an offset of $700,000 due to increased vessel activity for another tenant. Within the liquid-bulk category, going down a little over $500,000 due to the loss of a regular vessel, the cruise line is increasing almost $1 million up to $9.5 million. That's a result of Norwegian Cruise Line budgeting at 100% occupancy rates compared to 90% for the prior year. They're also going to have additional cruise turns and three additional ports of call for $26.27. Within their operating expenditures, salaries are budgeted at $19.3 million. That's an increase of $1.1 million year-over-year, $675,000 of that is for the 4% proposed increase based on union contracts, cost-of-living adjustments, and various merit increases for union and non-union employees. Employee benefits going up $731,000 to $9.4 million. Health insurance premiums, pension costs, and then standby pay related to union contracts, also various payroll-related increases based on those salary increases. Within the services and supplies line, a budget of $8.1 million is increasing $350,000 year-over-year. That's related to contractual services. They are having an increase of $189,000 for St. Johns River River monitoring, along with $49,000 in new AED for state equipment. Their gas, oil, and grease budget is increasing $209,000, considering the increase in fuel pricing, but their maximum exposure is $349 a gallon. They are having decreases in parking management services. They are taking over the cruise terminal parking with part-time staff. Within their security services line, $7.9 million budget, an increase of $270,000. The increase is related to private security, and then also $70,000 for JSO cost increasing based on the MOU between JPA and JSO. The utility services line, a budget at $1.4 million. That's an increase of $100,000 year-over-year due to increased utility costs at Blount Island and Talleyrand Marine Terminal. Their birth maintenance dredging line item, a budget at $10.5 million, is a decrease of $650,000 year-over-year, and that's due to a production of reduction in cubic yards dredging. Within their non-operating revenues, debt services budget is budgeted at $19 million. That's an increase of $2.3 million year-over-year, and that's due to the projected cost of new debt to be issued this year at approximately $50 million. State shared revenues from the primary government, that's the city's contribution to JPA. The reduction there is related to prior year's contribution to the Fulton cut. We will have a recommendation as it relates to this line item to get it matched up with the city's budget. All of this results in net income before capital contribution of $14,982,006. Flipping to page nine, you can see JPA's proposed capital budget, totaling $186.5 million. That is an increase of $13.4 million over the prior year. The breakdown of the five categories there, representing the $186 million. Within the capital project funding, they have state-funded at $45.1 million, $30 million for a multi-use facility and rail development at Talleyrand Marine Terminal. You can also see further detail of these projects on pages 13 and 14 if you wanted to turn there. $9 million for birth 20, construction at Blount Island. Within the other local-funded category, there's $12.5 million for the Fulton cut power lines project. This is dollars that were budgeted in the prior year being reappropriated in the current year. Tenant contribution of $69.8 million. $50 million of that is for a port-wide terminal expansion to expand the international container business at Blount Island and to further develop container operations at Dames Point. There's also $16 million for land acquisition funded by the tenant per the MOU for the multi-use facility at Talleyrand. Turning to page 11, we do have a couple of recommendations. First is to recommend the following adjustments to Schedule I is to correct various project name descriptions. Also, then decreasing the state shared revenue from the primary government line by $118,702 down to $10,381,298 to align with the amount in the mayor's proposed budget. This will be offset with a decrease in the debt service line. We also recommend amending Schedule J to change the name of the project backflow 10-inch with shutoff valves to West Terminal Development Phase 2. These recommendations have no impact to special counsel contingency. JPA is in agreement with these recommendations, and all of these actions are reflected on the schedules following on pages 12 through 14. And then if you wanted to see the five-year CIP for JPA, it is found on pages 15 through 17. I got motion and second on the recommendations. Council Member Diamond, do you want to speak now or after we vote on this? Okay, motion and second. All in favor of the recommendations, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. The recommendations pass. And Council Member Diamond, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I always love it when Jack's Port comes because I get to say nice stuff. It's awesome. This is a, you know, we have to really keep an eye on independent agencies because we really are the people's voice when it comes to those. And over the last eight years on this council, I've had to, you know, do that. But eight years, eight years of saying great things about Jack's Port, and that doesn't happen on accident. You have to tell people the truth about this stuff. Google other ports. They have problems. They have corruption. They have issues. Ours is always doing great. It's a huge juggernaut, and that's an issue of leadership. So I want to thank Eric Green and your whole team, Joey Gravey out there. Thank you for what you guys do. Thanks for making this job easy when it comes to Jack's Port, and keep rocking. All right. Thank you, Mr. Diamond. The queue is lighting up. I'm going to go to our council president first, and then Council Member Miller, then Freeman, then Salem. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Two things I want to just say to Eric and the JPA team. Just remarkable presentation, remarkable performance. There's two things that always astound me pleasantly about the port. Number one is your diversification. You, Eric, I know that's been kind of a mainstay in the strategic goal of yours for, you know, the last five to six years. And I think it's paid off because our port is so well diversified that if there's a macroeconomic shock, we survive and we do well. And you're always looking to continue to diversify with the growth of crews and military, et cetera, et cetera. Auto is growing crazy in this budget, and that's because of the hard work you've done to make it an attractive port for auto shippers and manufacturers. The second thing I want to talk about is economic development. That's in your ethos. That's in the port's ethos. I love it. And looking at $186 million investment, that means that you're investing in our community, and you're investing in our community in ways that create jobs. In fact, every time you talk about an investment, you're talking about the jobs that you create, the economic upside that you drive. I love that that's in your ethos. I appreciate it. You're a great team. Thanks again for a terrific budget. Council Member Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair, my colleagues, my two colleagues before me have already said the main things I wanted to highlight, but I'm going to do it anyhow. I've been privileged to have an up front first row seat serving as the council liaison to Jacksport over the last two plus years. And what my two colleagues have said before me, those comments are exactly right. And I don't say that because I'm the liaison. I say that because that is the way it is. Well run, well led by Mr. Green and Beth and Joey and the rest of the team. And you see it with every issue that comes up. And what I love is they're willing to listen and they're willing to take in comments, recommendations, and they're willing to then come back and go through things with you. And they see it as a partnership between the city council representing the city and Jacksport. And they are an integral part of our city and our economy going forward. I also say I love that they strategically plan and execute for Jacksonville's future. And they're a big catalyst for the companies in our region being able to come here, have a presence, have a smooth process of everything coming and going from our port. But it's because of the work they do and looking out to where they want to go, setting that vision, and doing the work, doing the paving, doing the expansions, the things that they have to do capital-wise and infrastructure-wise to make that all happen. So I won't be saying this with everyone, but, again, I've seen it day after day and in the details as I've gone through everything they've presented up to now. So kudos to you all, and I appreciate what you do for our city. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilman Freeman, then Gay, then Salem. Councilman Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief. One, through the chair to the port, congrats, because you got my colleague, Councilman Diamond, to say some nice things about you in the budget cycle. So that, to me, is very impressive. So kudos to you on that. My colleagues have said it so eloquently, I don't want to repeat it, but there are some things that I do want to put out in the atmosphere as well. I believe our state has about 15 ports, right? And so when you look at our city, and we're always talking about the bold city of the south and how great we can be, this is an example, yet again, of the competition that we face with other ports in the state. The things that I've heard in my meetings with the port, the things that I've heard around the state, Jacksonville is so well positioned because of the great work that the port has done. And Council President Howland hit on a lot of those things with our highways, I-10 and 95, with our railways, and, you know, people are still trying to fight to get fast, the trains here, and then with our ports. I think that the port is really in the center of a lot of our economic development, in my opinion, conversations as we continue to move forward, and especially for someone like myself as I continue to move forward in my service. So thank you all for the good work that you do, and as I said, for getting Councilman Diamond to be a yes. Councilmember Gag. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I echo the comments by all of my colleagues up here, but I just want to add to it that it is so important with what takes place out of the port. And Mr. Green, y'all's team is just an excellent group that's putting the city first because, you know, the port, that's – I look at that as one of the major heartbeats of the city. And from shipping, rail, there's so much that takes place there, and especially in my district. And so many of my constituents work out there. At some fashion, they're connected with the port out there, and I appreciate y'all's willingness where we've just opened up a fire station out there to work with JFRD to make that happen. And just the openness and willingness to help and support our community just is unmeasurable, and we appreciate everything y'all do out there, and good job. Thank you, sir. Councilmember White and then Salem. Yes, sir. I won't repeat, and I agree with everything my colleagues said, but I just – and Mr. Gay just said it. I want to thank you again for the partnership you have with JFRD. And I know there's more things to come in the future, and that's appreciated by the city and certainly by me. Thank you. Councilmember Salem, and I'll only allow hard questions at this point. I have a question, but I want to make a comment first. Eric's strength, I think, is the ability to bring together a team that is super. I had the opportunity in my first term to be their liaison and saw it firsthand, and I ditto all the other comments that have been made. But I do have a question for Eric. Eric, what is the status of the lifting of the wires for the port? If I may, Mr. Chair, I'll do the chair to Councilman Salem. The project is on schedule, on time, and on budget. It's scheduled to be completed at the end of this year, this calendar year. They've already started stringing wires across, lead wires, to be able to pull the actual transmission lines. But I do want to thank our sister organization, Independent Authority, JEA. I think Jody, there they are. That was an amazing partnership, as well as the city. I mean, look, you all have sat here and you've complimented me and my team, and I do. I have an amazing team. I couldn't do any of this without any of them. But you need to compliment yourself for a job well done in allowing us to do what we do every day. And what we do every day, we wouldn't be able to do without you all and the administration, obviously. We built some great partnerships from Harvard Deepening, Power Lines, Fire Station, Ribbon Cutting just happened this week. So thank you all for allowing us to be who we are, and there's more great things to come, trust me. So you indicated at the end of this calendar year. Yes, sir. So I assume you've got ships scheduled that are much taller that will be coming through there by the early next year, that kind of thing. Yes, sir. I just got in last night about 10 p.m. from Panama speaking with meeting with MERSC all week, and we're talking about some services that have larger ships. And it's really the way that the ships are built is the house itself and some of these ship designs. But we truly can be looking at we're already seeing 15,000 TU ships, and there's a strong possibility in the future in the next year or two we can be looking at an 18,000 TU ship, which is, you know, it's like a moving city in itself. So, yes. Thank you, Mr. Green. Yes. All right. Thank you, Mr. Green, and thank you for your staff for being here today. So we're talking about three independent authorities today. And just so everyone knows, this is not the only meeting we hear about their budget. There are pre-meetings individually with all of us, so like most everyone up here, I met with Mr. Green and Mr. Grivey. And, again, our job is to look for concerns when we go line by line through this budget. And just very happy to say there were no concerns that came up when it comes to Jacksport. And really, to me, Jacksport is just more about excitement right now, just all the tremendous growth we're seeing, jobs, trade, international recognition, bringing tourists to Jacksonville. So just very great stuff going on at Jacksport. Incredibly thankful for the staff at Jacksport for running such a tight operation out there. Council Member Johnson, you're in the Q&A. Thanks so much, Mr. Chair. I just had a quick question that when I went through it, I had no questions. Thank you, Mr. Green. Mr. Grivey did amazing in giving all the details that I needed during my meetings, the pre-meetings with them. I'm just curious, though, and, again, even when you talk to people outside of the city, as you know, I'm just getting back from the League of Cities meeting. And one of the things that we are the envy of other cities around the state because of the great work of our port. So kudos, again, to you, as my colleagues have said. I'm just curious, with the new Norwegian cruise line coming up, one of the things I saw as I was pouring through the budget, when there is a decrease of what is projected, what is the thing that you kind of move away from first that you don't fulfill first? Is it the cash on hand? Is it the operations? Is it, like, where do we move if that comes in lower than projected? I didn't have that because I wasn't finished with that part of it. But if it's lower than we project, like, where do we move then? So through the chair, if I may, councilman, so you're asking if our projections from a revenue standpoint is less, where are we? What is the plan? Like, if there's a less than we projected, does that go, where does it come away from? That was one of the questions I had because I was looking at, trying to see here, because they have it at 100% occupancy based on what we saw, like, there. But if, let's say, it comes in 75% occupancy, where do you, like, is there a cut? What happens then? So if I may, through the chair to councilman Johnson. And thank you. First off, we have a strong cash balance, right? So we have that as protection. But one of the things that I started when I became the CEO in 17, we call them minimum annual guarantees. So all of our tenants have contracts, right? So we project 80%. We're always dealing with 80%, but we, our revenues exceed the 80% that they have to pay. So if they move one box or 1,000 boxes, we're still going to get that minimum annual guarantee. So we're never going to go in the hole as far as, you know, when we're talking about revenues. And I'll use COVID as an example. When COVID came about, our tenants still had to pay their minimum annual guarantee. So we never moved away. We never had any concerns about any revenues. Did I answer your question? Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Green and the entire Jack Support team. Thank you. So with that, we will now transition to JEA. And Mr. Peterson, if you want to take it away. All right. On page 18 of the handout is the start of JEA. And you can see on page 18, their total budget increasing. And I should point out, these numbers are in thousands. So that's $2.9 billion in the 25-26, going up to $3.15 billion for 26-27. That's a $255 million increase year over year for their whole system. The employee cap is increasing by 58 positions between the electric and water and wastewater systems. We show you the detail of the city contribution that JEA is making, going down $38.6 million year over year. And that was due to the one-time $40 million funding that was in last year. Flipping to page 19, this is the electric system. Explanations for this schedule can be found on pages 20 through 24 of your handout. I'm going to hit some of the high points. As it relates to the fuel-related revenues and expenses, budget of $515.8 million. The decrease of $35 million is driven by the reduction in expenses that we'll get to. This revenue is intended to recover the actual fuel cost for JEA for their generated and purchased power provided to customers. Within the fuel-related and purchased power expense, the decrease of $35 million is due to a number of things. First off, $44 million in lower natural gas futures prices, $22.5 million in lower projected purchased power wholesale market prices, which is driven by the natural gas market, $4 million in lower oil and diesel costs, and then a slight decrease in the Vogel fuel costs. These decreases are somewhat offset by budgeted sales being projected to increase by 3%, which causes an additional $17.2 million in additional cost. Within the base rate revenues and expenses, base rate revenue budget at $1.1 billion. The increase of $103 million year-over-year is due to the 7% rate increase that will take effect October 1st of this year, along with increasing budgeted sales. Other revenues are increasing $68 million. That's due to increases of almost $65 million in projected prior-year surpluses being budgeted when there was nothing in the prior year. If this amount does not materialize, JEA will reduce the amount that's contributed to the operating capital outlay. Within the expense item of operating and maintenance, there's an increase of $12 million. We'll get to a breakout of this specifically on pages 22 through 24. Non-fuel purchase power is increasing $41.6 million. The large reasons for that is an $18 million decrease in the use of the Fuel Rate Stabilization Fund. That results in an increase in cost. There's also a $7.8 million increase in their FPL natural gas purchase power agreement, as well as almost a $7 million increase in the FPL capacity payments. Under non-operating revenues and expenses, debt service is increasing $37 million due to scheduled increases in principal payments, as well as the cost of new debt to be issued this year. Operating capital outlay, an increase of $110 million for capital projects that are outlined later on in your schedule. Renewal and replacement, a budget of $83 million. This is calculated at 5% of their 25-26 operating revenues. And then there's the contribution to the city's general fund. On page 22 is a budgeted schedule of the operating and maintenance expenses. Salaries are budgeted at $200.8 million in the electric system. That's a $7.4 million increase. Reasons for the increase, they're adding 21 new positions, 4% increases for appointed and confidential employees and the PEA bargaining unit, and then 3.5% increases for all of their other bargaining units. Employee benefits are increasing due to increased in pension costs, as well as the increase in the salaries line. Supplies and materials going up $3 million. Most of that is in personal protective equipment for scheduled outages and maintenance at the Northside Generating Station. The other services and charges line increasing $12 million up to $178 million. $6 million of that is related to electric production at the Northside Generating Station, and $3.6 million for contract meter reading collection fees. Within other operating reserves, that's going down $1.2 million to cover. That line item is for unforeseen and emergency expenses, and the reason it's going down is they had set money aside related to labor negotiations that were mostly completed in 25-26, and then the expense credit line going down to almost $12 million. That's due to shared service credits for central services paid for from the electric services that are then assigned to the water and wastewater system, and $3.2 million in fuel procurement and handling credits. On page 25, you'll see the electric system capital budget, a total of $612.9 million. That's a $183 million increase year over year. Debt is increasing almost $72 million year over year, with other operating capital outlay funding increasing $110 million coming from the operations. Pages 26 through 34 are the JEA five-year capital plan for the electric system, and if there are no questions, I'll move to page... Council Member Diamond, you're in the queue. Okay, thank you. All right, page 35 starts the water and wastewater system budget, with explanations on pages 36 through 40 of your handout. Water and sewer revenues are increasing almost $49 million. That's due to an 8% rate increase that will take effect October 1st. They're also expecting an increase in the amount of water usage, and then there's a small increase related to reclaimed water activity. Capacity extension fees are decreasing $26.2 million, taking into account what is happening in the current year, and this falls in line with their actuals from 24-25. Other revenues are increasing $24.2 million. That's mainly due to budgeting prior year surplus. That is an increase of what was budgeted in the prior year. Under operating expenditures, operating and maintenance, we'll have a breakout on pages 38 through 40 of your handout, describing that $29.6 million increase, and then debt service is increasing $17.2 million due to new debt that was issued in the current year. The capacity fee transfer mirrors the reduction in the capacity fee revenue, and then other operating capital outlay increasing $24.5 million represents the funding that transfers from operations to the capital projects. Page 38 outlines the operating and maintenance expenses of the water and wastewater system. Salaries are budgeted at $104.6 million. That's an increase of almost $15 million year over year. $7.6 million of that is in overtime to better align with what they're experiencing, with $7.2 million in salaries due to the adding of 37 new positions. And then once again, 4% increases for appointed employees and the PEA union, and 3.5% increases for all their other unions. Supplies and materials are increasing $5 million up to $33 million. $2.2 million of that is in chemicals and gases based on CPI price increases, and then $1.7 million in direct purchases, once again, due to price increases. Other services and charges increasing $12.6 million. $8.1 million of that is in intercompany charges, which come from the electric system, and then $1.8 million in professional services driven by their integrated water resource plan, which is expected to be completed next year. Operating reserves going down $581,000, that once again related to labor negotiations being mostly handled in the current year. On page 41 is the water and wastewater system capital budget, total budget of $579 million. That's a $5 million increase year over year. The big two items increasing or changing are the transfer from operating capital outlay of a little over $24 million, and then the decrease in the capacity fee revenue. Pages 42 through 47 are the five-year plan for the water system. Page 48 is the district energy system capital. This is their operating budget. Revenues are increasing $2.3 million due to projections for increased consumption. The Ed Ball building is expected to be connected, fully connected, in March of 27, and then looking forward, the stadium, once it's completed, around April of 2028, will then begin using the district energy system. Other revenues are increasing. This is related to how they budget for prior year surplus revenue. Operating and maintenance, there's a breakout on the following page similar to the prior two systems. Debt services increasing due to higher interest costs for the revolving credit line, and then operating capital outlay, they're expecting to transfer $920,000 more due to how the system is performing. Page 50 is the operating and maintenance budget for the district energy system. Salaries are increasing, just $42,000 for increases for appointed employees and the collective bargaining units, and then in the other services and charges line, increasing $1 million, mainly due to increases in utilities. Page 52 is the district energy system capital budget. Total budget of $38 million. That's a $500,000 increase year over year. And then on page 53 is the five-year capital budget for the district energy system. Page 54 shows you JEA's debt and their related debt ceiling. And I'll draw your attention to the third to last line, the debt payable at 9-30-2027. You'll see within the electric system almost $1.9 billion, water and wastewater system $2.5 billion, and then the district energy system at $94.5 million. The line below is their current not-to-exceed debt authorization approved by city council. And then the last line, the debt ceiling balance, either over or above their current authorization. There is a bill pending before you that is scheduled to be taken up later in September that will raise the debt ceilings for the electric system up to $3.9 billion, for the water and sewer system up to $3.7 billion, and then they propose keeping the district energy system flat at $150 million. We do not have any recommendations, but I do want to remind you that this is one of the conflict bills that will be taken up separately as Bill 2026-512. Councilor in Diamond. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the entire JEA team providing all this stuff. Man, it's been a rough six months, so I really do hope that the next six months to a year are just calm and no drama and everything is good and Ms. KB comes back and we're all good there. That's what I really am hoping for, and I think that's going to happen. Also good news, the combined cycle plan, the PSC, approved it. That was genuinely giving me heartburn, so I'm glad that that bit of risk is off our table and it's all systems to go. Literally and figuratively to go ahead and get that built. And then every year I make mention of this, and I have to do it again in my last time, but $140 million is coming out of the pockets of the people of Jacksonville through their JEA bills and coming here to the city of Jacksonville. And they're raising rates in October, right? And we are still giving, and the mayor's budget gives hundreds of millions of dollars to downtown developers. So let's be clear. The mayor's budget does not balance without raising your rates in October. One. Two, we are literally taking people's money that cannot afford it through their JEA bills and balancing our budget. I think that's morally wrong, and I think we need to stop and keep people's rates flat, finally. I have no one else in the queue. Oh, Council President, you're in the queue now. Sorry, Mr. Chair. I figured someone else would be in the queue, and I'd let them talk before I did. I actually do have a question probably for Jody or Ted, and that question relates to this. The auditors did determine that there were $55 million potentially over the last 20 years in unbilled water capacity fees. Whether that's the actual number or not, I think both JEA and the Financial Audit and Oversight Committee and the auditors agreed that in the future we probably need to increase, change the policy and increase our collections on capacity fees for many reasons, one of which, of course, is to protect the ratepayers. Is there anything in this budget that reflects a new policy that will result in increased collection of water capacity fees? Thank you. Excuse me, through the chair. I'm Jody Brooks. I'm the interim CEO, managing director at JEA. Through the chair to Council President, we have been working very diligently on the additional capacity fee issue. We're in the process of putting a policy and procedure together that we're planning to take to the board. It's a tariff change that will require a hearing that will go to the board, call for the hearing in October, go to the board in November, with the idea of starting to collect on additional capacity fees moving forward. This budget does not reflect anything on additional capacity fees, but all future budgets will have a breakout of additional capacity fees, how much we anticipate, how much billed, how much collected. That is the perfect answer. Thank you. That means that JEA will be collecting in the future, and in some ways that will help, to some degree, put pressure on raising rates, you know, and water rates for, you know, ratepayers in the future. So that was the perfect answer. Thank you so much. Council Member Gay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to echo in agreement with what Councilman Diamond is saying about the money that the JEA puts back into the city. It's definitely something that really needs to be considered and looked at as the burden that's put on JEA, and then it's passed on to the taxpayers of their bills. And so there is a correlation there that cannot be disconnected, but it's got to be connected of the burden that's passed on to the ratepayers. So I just want to agree with Councilman Diamond on that. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Gay. I have no one else in the queue, so just a couple things, really more so for my colleagues. So, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Peterson, we will take up the JEA budget as an individual bill in Finance Committee, correct? Through the Chair, that's correct. That will be the second Finance Committee of September. Okay, thank you. And then I believe the debt ceiling bill is running parallel with that, and we will take that up for action in the same meeting. Through the Chair, that is correct. JEA has requested a deferral next week in Finance, so that the two bills could be taken up the same cycle. Okay, thank you. And to my colleagues, that debt ceiling bill is a little dense, so I'd encourage you to look at it ahead of time, get your questions answered, because it is one of the more complex ones that's come our way in a little bit of time. With that, no one in the queue. Thank you, JEA, for being here this morning. We appreciate your time and what you do for us. Mr. Peterson, I'll kick it over to you for the Streets and Highways five-year road program. I believe that's where we're at, page 58. That's correct, Chair. And the next couple, I don't know, five to eight pages, maybe ten pages, are revenues that the city collects that in one way or another we share with JTA. And so we take these city funds up and then move into the JTA budget. So on page 58 is the five-year road program, also known as the constitutional gas tax. This is a two-cent tax on every gallon of motor fuel that is sold in Duval County. State shared revenues of $4.6 million are decreasing $93,000. That's reflective of what we're seeing in actual collections. The contributions from local units is the amount that the city receives back from the fiscal agent. So the city receives all of the funding related to this. This one's a little messy because a portion of the constitutional gas tax is initially deposited in the general fund, and we talked about it on day one. The city sends all of those gas taxes to a fiscal agent who then distributes the city's portion and JTA's portion. And I should say that this specific tax is split 50-50 between JTA and the city. Under the expenditures, you can see the city is proposing to use its portion of the constitutional fuel tax between those two projects listed there, the ditch restoring and cleaning and roadway resurfacing, and then the grants aids and contributions is the distribution to the fiscal agent. There's no service level changes, no employees in this fund, and we have no recommendations. And I have no one in the queue. All right. Page 59 is the half-cent transportation tax. That is a half-cent on the sales tax. It's the first half-cent after the state's 6% sales tax, also known as the tax for tolls. This was approved in 1988 by the voters, and all of this ends up going to JTA after related debt is paid. So the local option sales tax, $123.6 million, is going down $13.7 million, and that's based on estimates by the budget office that matches up along with what we're seeing in actual collections in the current year. And then under the expenditures line item, this is the pass-through to JTA after debt service payments are made. This supports their mass transit operations. No service level changes, no employees in this fund, no recommendations. And known in the queue. All right. On page 60 is the first local option gas tax. This is the original $0.06 gas tax on gas and diesel. This was approved by council in 2013 to go until 2036. It was extended by council in the fiscal year 2021-2022 to run the full 30 years to 2046. The city receives $0.01 of this gas tax. The other $0.05 get passed on to JTA. And similar to the constitutional gas tax, the city receives all of it. It sends it to the fiscal agent. The fiscal agent sends the city its portion and JTA its portion. So the local option fuel tax is the gross amount at $31.3 million. That's an increase of $1.7 million year over year. It reflects what we're currently seeing. The contribution from the local units of the city receiving its portion of $5.2 million back from the fiscal agent. The capital outlay, you can see on page 60 how the city proposes to spend the $5.2 million. We do have a recommendation as it relates to that. Our ordinance code requires that 20% of the collections be spent on bicycle and pedestrian improvements. And that requirement's not met. And that's what the recommendation's related to. Grants aides and contributions is the transfer of the full 100% to the fiscal agent. There are no service level changes, no employees in this fund. And our recommendation is to, based on discussions with the finance department, reducing the countywide intersection improvements project and increasing the ADA compliance curbs, ramps, and sidewalks project by $22,837 to be in compliance with that 20% requirement does not impact special council contingency. I was just saying, I got Council Member Howland in the queue. And I'm sorry, Council President. And then I had a question as well. But, Council President, you're recognized. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Quick question for Philip. Who's the fiscal agent for the local option gas tax? And how much, who is it, how much do they charge, and do we need one? Can't this just come into General Fund and get distributed to JTA afterwards, unless it's ordained by code? Through the chair to the Council President. I know in years past it was the Bank of New York Mellon. I don't know if that's still, I'm getting a nod from Mr. Barnes, so I'm going to go with that's right. But the reason the fiscal agent is used is to make sure that every party is in agreement. I mean, I believe there were disagreements in the past, and so that's how we got here. This was set up when the BJP was in place in 2000. It also ensures that the debt is paid accurately. So I don't know what they charge. Maybe Mr. Barnes does or someone from the finance department. But that's kind of how we got here. It's kind of ironic because Mr. Barnes probably was in charge of it at some point, you know, four or five years ago. And now he's on the JTA side of it. Is the cost material for the fiscal agent? No. I don't believe so in Randall's nodding in agreement. All right. And I'll stop my line of questioning. Thank you. All right. Good morning, Mr. Barnes and Ms. Schepler. Mr. Peterson, one question I had. So the other five cents of this we'll get to when we go through JA's budget, correct? To the chair, that's correct. And then my follow-up question, right now that 80-20 split between roads and pedestrian bike paths, is that something we decide the ratio on? Or is that a state code? What is that? To the chair and to the committee, that is a city self-imposed requirement. That was adopted, I want to say, in 2013, 14, 15 timeframe. That can be changed. The state lays out authorized uses of the funds, but the city put that 80-20 split on itself. So that's just an ordinance could change if you wanted to. Okay. Thank you. I mean, just thinking about, like, basic infrastructure needs, 20% kind of seems a lot relative to what we spend on roads versus pedestrian bicycle. But a conversation for another day. With that, I've got a motion second on the recommendation. All in favor of, oh, I'm sorry, Council Member Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm not quite sure if anyone will remember this, but when this whole conversation was happening, I was a District 10 Council Member at the time. And one of the biggest concerns that I heard from my constituents was, you know, these things happen and none of the work gets done in our district. And so, and this was with the previous administration. And so, one of the agreements that was made, and I'm not quite sure if it was done through legislation, I kind of believe it was, was that this body would get a report of the projects based off of if it's done in Jacksonville proper or outside of it. And originally, it was going to come from the city. And then I think it passed on to JTA, and they said that they would inherit the list. And then that is supposed to be given to us in a presentation. What happened over the course of time was instead of them coming to the podium and saying, okay, here are the roads that were done. Here's the list. Nobody was skipped. It started getting rolled into our actual budget. And so, I have not seen that list yet. I didn't think to ask this question to you all when you were in my office. But being that this is my last finance journey, that is important to me because that was one of the reasons, the biggest reason, pretty much the only reason that I supported this was that my members in my District 10 that were dealing with severe flooding, rained on Monday. It was still flooded on Friday. And that was the tipping point was that they were going to be looked out for. So, you don't have to tell me now, but if someone can circle back and let me see the list of projects, where we're at on them, how they're prioritized, I just want to make sure that every zip code, every community feels like they're benefiting from this. So, thank you. Mr. Pearson, do you have information? Partially answer that or maybe fully answer it. So, this is the original Sixth Sense that was extended in 2013, or it was a 2013 bill approved in early 2014 by council. There were a list of approximately 20 projects that were attached to that extension that JTA was going to take on that were, I believe, all from the original BJP project listing. Council Member Freeman, what I believe you're referring to is the additional five cents that was added, which we're going to get to, I think, at the next page, actually, that was approved in 2021-2022 timeframe when Mayor Curry was here. And I believe Council Member Hazzari was president at that time. That had an additional list of over $400 million worth of projects that JTA was going to take on. They report on not only that list, but the list from the 2013 legislation on a quarterly basis at the BJP, what's called the FACPAC, Financial Advisory Committee and Planning Advisory Committee. They do report on those on a quarterly basis. But that new five cents had to all be spent by JTA on specific projects. There were not specific projects that the city could spend its portion on. Mr. Chair, thank you. And through the chair to Mr. Peterson, thank you so much for that. I truly believe, and I hope I'm wrong, but in that original list you gave me, there was always like a cutoff where we ran out of money. And I thought that there were some itches or some concerns of constituents about that original list and how some things that came in after the fact were superseding that original list. And so, therefore, I was trying to ensure that that process was transparent. So, like how you're saying it's being reported quarterly, you know, the ask that I had as a council member representing an area of town where the buses didn't always get them to these meetings on time, but they could come watch these and see the archive was that it was presented to us as a finance committee or to our council as a whole, which then, as district council people, we could go to our town halls or we could put it in our newsletters to communicate it. So, the fact that you just shared that they're doing it quarterly, love that, but I don't recall even getting those quarterly updates. And so, I just, like I said on my last lap around, want to make sure that when I go meet seniors, as I do often, that I can say I finished the race the same way I started, fighting hard and running for them. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Freeman. With that, we did have a motion and second on the recommendation. All in favor of the recommendation, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. The recommendation passes. And we are on to page 62. Page 62 is the new five-cent gas tax that went into effect January 1st of 2022. This is just on motor fuel, not on diesel. Diesel is subject to an additional part of the Florida statutes that's charged throughout the state. Of this five cents, the city receives two and a half cents, and JTA receives two and a half cents. As I mentioned, there are a specific list of projects that JTA has to spend these funds on. To venture away from that project list requires Council approval, and they're not authorized to use it on any of their mass transit operations until that list is completed. This operates the same way. The city collects the full amount, sends it to the fiscal agent, and then is distributed to the two parties. So the local option fuel tax is that gross amount of $20.5 million. That's an increase of $1.8 million year-over-year. The contributions from the local units is the city receiving its portion from the fiscal agent at almost $10.3 million. You can see on page 62 the capital outlay, how the city proposes to spend its $10.2 million. And then the grant aids and contributions is sending that full 100% to the fiscal agent. No service level changes, no employee cap changes, or no employees, and no recommendations. Councilman Diamond, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to jump in while we're talking about a local option gas tax, too. Obviously, we have all these different gas taxes that are in here. And so, you know, when I think anybody who's a second-termer, we voted on this in 2021. And what was presented to us was, hey, we're going to increase this local option gas tax, and then JTA is going to get their half, and then the city will get this money. And then there was that list of projects for the city that I think Councilman Freeman is talking about for the city. And then over at the JTA side, what was promised was that they were going to build an autonomous, you know, network, and we're going to deal with this stuff with the Skyway, and that's where that money was going to go. And I think all that has happened. Let's be 100% clear. But having now spoken to almost every member of the board of JTA, have got some sense where I think this council might be, there was a contract between JTA and the city of Jacksonville, an air local agreement that said, hey, you get half, we get half. Here's the list of projects is what we're all going to do with it. And I think everybody's living up to the contract. I want to be fair about that. I do think that there's probably appetite to renegotiate the contract. And I think literally every entity can win. And I just want to, I'm going to bring it back to finance at some point, but I also think it's going to have to go to TEU and probably some other committees. But at some point, I think the JTA board will give their impression that it's a good idea. Obviously, they're going to go through a CEO search and all the rest. So there's no one at JTA today who can say, yeah, we like this idea because we don't have, like, a CEO operating right now. But when we get there in the next couple of months, this committee, and I think the council should move quickly to work with the administration, work with JTA to come up with a new list about what the city wants out of that. And then we can unlock all this money that went for JTA, unlock this money that's supposed to go to autonomous vehicles and the NAVI and all the rest. If that is going to die, and I think it will, if all that goes away and they don't have that $400 million expenditure anymore and the $6 million a year for NAVI and all the rest, then they've got that money for capital. And that doesn't necessarily mean that they can't move that money around for other capital projects and unlock money to help solve their operations budget. So there is a lot of ways to do a lot of good for the city if we do a little bit of work. It's not going to be fun. It might get a little rodeo crazy. But I think at the end of the day, we'll have a better product than what we are locked into from 2021, which doesn't really reflect the reality of what the autonomous vehicle thing did. And maybe this council and the administration's priorities have evolved in the last five years. And I just want to put that out there for us to start thinking about because it's a complicated issue, but it's one that I think things could land in a good place. And Council Member Diamond, I'll put it on the record as financial chair. I'll do whatever I can to help a reprioritization of that project list because I think there is the appetite. What can we do to find the best infrastructure for all parts of Jacksonville? So whatever I can do to help expedite that, you have the finance chair's attention. I'm sorry, Council President, I did not see you there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The project list being referenced includes Emerald Trail spend, correct, Mr. Peterson? Yeah. Through the chair to Council President Howland, you're correct. Okay. I do have a question for whoever can address Emerald Trail on JTA. And that question is this. In Finance Committee last year, we talked at length about building the core of the trail and, you know, particularly given the loss of the federal grant and not doing any more work on Sections 4, 6, 7, and 8. I see there's been a lot of work done in the ensuing year on Sections 4, 6, 7, and 8, including a project development and environmental environment study. And my question is, where is Groundworks or JTA getting the money to do that PED and E study on 4, 6, 7, and 8? Ms. Shepley, you're recognized. Through the chair to Council President Howland, good morning. The money for that is coming from the local option gas tax. Okay. Thank you. So here's my discussion with the Finance Committee. We're focused this year on the core, doing the core right. Anything that's not core, we shouldn't be focused on. Of course, the definition of core is in the eye of the holder. I tend to keep it tight. Others may, you know, say near core and adjacent core are important. And we're focused on that with the general fund. I think we should also be focused on the core and we talk about capital projects. Emerald Trail is one of them. You know, I'm looking at the Hydra map right now, and sections 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, 10 seem great. They're around the areas that we're really developing, and I think you can make a great case for economic development. But I think if we're spending money on 4, 6, 7, and 8, which are out, you know, areas that probably are right now could use money on paving roads, improving sidewalks, improving lighting, and filling potholes, and we're not doing that as well as we could, instead putting money in extending Emerald Trail just to capture more districts and capture more neighborhoods, I think we're doing the wrong thing. So as we look at this project list, I'd like to see us focus on driving the Emerald Trail down to the core, the areas around downtown North Bank and South Bank, and stopping any spend on 4, 6, 7, and 8, which are way out there reaching neighborhoods that probably care more about their kids getting to school on proper sidewalks and driving on roads that don't destroy their shocks in their vehicles before they care about a fancy, you know, green-colored bike path coming to their neighborhoods. I don't know how we address that, Phillip. I don't know what the right approach is, but I'm a little disturbed that we have continued to do a design study on 4, 6, 7, and 8 when we know that we don't have the money for it because we didn't win the federal grant. Mr. Chair, I don't know how we address that. Thank you, and I do know that we do have a CIP line item next week, so at our pre-meeting on Monday, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Weinstein, let's discuss to make sure we have the right people here to kind of give a holistic update on the Emerald Trail, because I think I've been consistent in the past three years. I'm, and like I just told Council Member Diamond, whatever we can do to ensure a great infrastructure investment in all parts of Jacksonville rather than just specific parts, and if that's part of this, again, we're a big city. We need to make sure we're maximizing our infrastructure dollars at the best places all around the city. The queue is lighting up now. I'm going to go to Council President. Thank you. I just wanted one thing. I said in my installation speech that focusing on the core doesn't mean spending less on matters. It means trimming on what matters. It means trimming the extras so we can spend more on what matters, and this discussion around Emerald Trail is just that. It doesn't mean let's not spend any money. It means let's spend money on core elements, and by far, sidewalks, streets, lighting, and drainage are far more core than the fancy green bike trail with benches. Thanks. Council Member Diamond. Actually, Council Member Diamond, I'm going to go to Mr. Peterson first. He probably has some information to share. Through the chair to the committee. When we get to JTA's budget, there is a portion that they have allocated dollars to for the Emerald Trail, but that is reflective of what Council Member Diamond was saying. That is part of the list of projects that they are required to complete under the interlocal agreement. If you want to address possibly changing that, that would be opening up the interlocal agreement, as Mr. Diamond alluded to. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. And just a take from the finance chair. I think this is bigger than just what we'll be able to solve during the budget hearings, but it sounds like there is consensus to look into this and see what we can do to better optimize that capital spend. Council Member Diamond, you're recognized. Yeah, I was going to say the exact same thing. We're just kind of locked in until we look at this. And look, I actually have, like, an open mind going in. Mostly, I'm not worried about the city side. I'm worried about the JTA side, where they're locked into all this stuff when it comes to the Skyway and autonomous vehicles. I would like to unlock that value for JTA, which they're building this stuff for us, which is kind of strange in my book. You know, maybe we ought to be doing it. We've got a capital works group. We've got a CIP and all the rest. Like, maybe we ought to be doing our work, but JTA is doing it right now. It's kind of the way they sold this bill of goods. Like, I voted against it. I think maybe I was the only one voting against it. But now that we have it, like, I really do think this needs to be looked at. And I'm fine with putting guardrails on it, too, because I'm sure Councilman Peluso is going to jump up and down and say the Emerald Trail is the most wonderful thing in the world that's going to cure cancer and do all these things that matter. And that's great. Like, I get it. He's got his job to do over there. I'm glad that you showed up today. But it is something we have to unlock in order to reprioritize. Thanks. And to address the medical benefits of the Emerald Trail, Councilmember Peluso. Thank you, Chair. I'm happy to see that Councilmember Diamond also showed up today. That was very good of him. So I do want to speak a little bit about the Emerald Trail. The literal segments that you just described are all disenfranchised black neighborhoods. We want to make sure that we are providing additional transportation support for those communities, on top of the fact that it provides a massive economic development opportunity. As we look at some of these segments, one of them includes the Phoenix area. We know the Phoenix Art District is being developed right now. Part of the reason why they even wanted to go there was because of the Emerald Trail. It's just a matter of we had discussed the Emerald Trail for years now, and we were going to be putting real assets behind it. That's what part of this, the additional sense that we got from the JTA portion was meant to do. It was meant to provide that long-term funding. I'm just putting it out there now. I know it's going to be a longer conversation. I hope that it is. I also do hope that we have a real conversation about both the Skyway and the autonomous vehicles. Everyone knows how critical I've been of that, and I would work with Councilmember Diamond or anyone else that wants to have that longer conversation. But just keep in mind, this is not just about a pretty green line. It's just not. The Emerald Trail provides so much more vitality for those communities and provides real economic windfall. And if you look at the Beltway in Atlanta, you see it up there. Neighborhoods that were incredibly impoverished and downtrodden now have so much more economic vitality than they ever have. And with the work of Groundwork Jacks, we're making sure that nobody gets pushed out of those communities, right, because that's always a concern. We don't want to see gentrification. Also up here in, I think, Segment 8, you have the east side, part of my district as well. A lot of folks out there that are very much waiting for the Emerald Trail to come through. It's just kind of putting that out. You know, it's just one thing to dangle something in front of these communities, have the funding for it, and then pull it back. Keep in mind, this year we have $35 million for road resurfacing, something that I've been pushing for, and everyone knows that, more than we've seen in any number of years. We have over $11 million for sidewalks. Incredibly excited to see both of those things in the CIP. It definitely scratches that itch for now. I'd love to see those dollar numbers go up. Absolutely, I would. But just kind of putting that out there to this body at this moment that, you know, if you're going to start talking about cutting things back for a well-planned project like the Emerald Trail, well, listen, I'll be the first to say I don't think the U2C or the autonomous vehicles were well-planned at all. I think we all know that. So I'm fine pulling those dollars back, but I just think that it's wrong of us to look at the Emerald Trail from the prism of, okay, there's big numbers here, but there's a lot of planning that went into that. And we've all been at some of the ribbon cuttings. We've seen what this is doing for a lot of those communities, flood prevention, you know, environmental quality, quality of life. This is the kind of stuff that our districts want. Thank you. Thank you. And with that, I think we're ready to move on, Mr. Peterson, or did I miss a recommendation? Okay. Very good. That takes us to page 64. This is what is known as the ninth-cent fuel tax. It's actually only a one-cent tax on motor fuel. This was part of the 2021 extension or addition of the local option gas tax. This one-cent is split 50-50 between the city and JTA for them to contribute towards those projects as well and functions the same as the other taxes we've talked about. So the local option fuel tax of $4.6 million represents what we are seeing in current activity. The contributions from local units is the city receiving its 50% back from the fiscal agent. The capital outlay shows you how the city proposes to spend the $2.3 million. And then grants aides and contributions is the sending of the full amount to the fiscal agent. No service-level changes, no employees, no recommendations. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. And I have no one in the queue. Before we get into page 66, which is JTA's budget, if you recall on Wednesday when Mr. Peterson reviewed the quarterly report, there were some concerns noted specifically with JTA. And I had asked at the time to please hold your questions because we'd have Mr. Barnes here, the new CFO, to address some of those questions we may have. So as we go through JTA, we'll let Mr. Peterson walk through everything. But questions can be on either what we talked about for current year concerns on Wednesday or on their budget. So just wanted to mention that. And I did call Mr. Barnes just to prep him that there could be some questions. And I'll probably have some comments on the current year fiscal performance as well. So with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Peterson. All right. On page 66 is a high-level overview of JTA's budget. You'll see it towards the top of your page. But total budget for $26.27 of $139.2 million amongst their five divisions. It's a decrease of $23.2 million year-over-year. Their capital budget is budgeted at $46 million with a $6.5 million increase over the prior year. And then there's a table of the dollars that flow through the city to JTA, resulting in a net amount to JTA of $123.6 million. On page 67, I'll give you an overview of their total headcount amongst all of their divisions, going down 25 total positions. Their fleet is staying the same. And then the breakdown of the bus through the various systems staying the same. Flipping to page 68, this is the bus divisions budget. And we have a page like this for each of their five divisions and then their corporate allocation that occurs at the end. The bus division budget explanations are on pages 69 through 71. Their federal, state, and local grants is decreasing $5.8 million, primarily due to projected less availability of FDOT funding. The local option gas tax of $17 million. This is net of debt service. The decrease of $2.5 million is based on current collections and trends for this tax. Sales tax slash CGT, this is the constitutional gas tax. This is also net of BJP debt service, budgeted at $54 million, decrease of $22 million year-over-year based on current collections and trends, as well as the net effect of paying the debt service. Passenger fares is a slight decrease of $332,000. This better aligns with 24-25 actuals. We can't compare to 25-26 actuals because they did have a six-month fare pilot study that reduced the rates. What is not considered in here is a potential rate increase of $0.25 that would take the fare up to $2 that they have looked at implementing in 2027 in January. Federal preventative maintenance, budgeted at $8 million. That's an increase of $7.3 million year-over-year. This is due to allocating a larger portion of federal dollars they get to operations rather than capital, but does mean that there will be less money available for capital expenditures. And then the non-transportation revenue of $1.5 million is increasing $547,000. This is related to a five-year advertising contract that had a minimum guarantee. That contract was not executed, but JTA is re-advertising and hopes to have something in place by October 1st. On the expenditure side, salaries and wages in the bus system are $34.6 million. That's a decrease of $7.8 million. This is due to meet their revenue budget. We do have a note that while certain support provided indicates that this is under-budgeted by $4.4 million, JTA is adjusting and eliminating some routes that will help meet these reduced amounts and that they will need to monitor this throughout 26-27. Fringe benefits are decreasing as it relates to the changes in salaries. Materials and supplies decreasing $929,000. This is related to an across-the-board reduction in this category of almost 17%. The effect is a $508,000 reduction in inspection and maintenance and a decrease of $141,000 in tires and tubes. JTA believes they'll be able to meet this reduction by adjusting the frequency with the elimination of some of their bus routes. Services budgeted at $4.4 million is a decrease of $19 million year over year. That is just a flat 81.28% across-the-board reduction. We have a note about April 30th, but as of their June 30th numbers, actuals in this category were almost $25 million. So I don't know that they'll be able to meet that $4.4 million budget. Insurance is decreasing based on a reduction in property damage insurance. And then travel training and dues is increasing as they allocate a larger portion of their corporate allocation to this category. The contingency line is budgeted to just give them some flexibility for unforeseen expenses. But given the issues noted above, this appears that additional contingency would be needed. And then there's the corporate allocation of $23.7 million. That's an increase as they allocate a larger portion of corporate costs to the bus system. We do note some service level changes that are on JTA's website that they plan to make effective October of 2026. On page 72 is the connection budget with explanations on the following two pages. I'll just hit a couple of the items. But it's kind of more of the same federal, state, and local grants. They are decreasing $450,000 due to not allocating a portion of the grants to this area and not anticipating to receive $170,000 in paratransit grants in 26-27 that they were expected to receive in 25-26. Sales tax is receiving a larger portion in this budget, and that's just due to the increased expenditures in this budget. Passenger fares are decreasing $434,000. This is due to an anticipated decrease for the Connection Plus system with a rate increase from $6 to $10. And what is not considered here is talks that JTA has had related to a price increase in January of 2027. The city's paratransit contribution of $1.9 million is reflected here, and this is related to an interlocal agreement entered back into in 2005 that increases 3% each year. Within the operating expenditure, salaries and wages, $210,000. That's a decrease of $703,000. It does appear that JTA's budgeted salaries and wages may be under-budgeted by $336,000, so they'll need to monitor this closely. French benefits decreasing as a result of decrease in salaries and wages. Within the fuel and lubricants item, it is remaining flat at just over $1 million. However, as of June 30th, they had actuals of $1,075,000 in the current year, so that will be an item they need to monitor closely. Materials and supplies going down due to an across-the-board cut. Services, budget is increasing $10.8 million. This is primarily due to the services being under-budgeted in the current year, so this gets to a more reflective number of what they can expect of $24 million. We have noted under service-level changes that they are working to change customer habits by offering additional services and changing pricing, but right now there are no other changes to the services being offered for the Connection Division. On page 75 is the Skyway Division. Within the Skyway, sales tax budgeted at $6.3 million. That is down $2.3 million, and the decrease is primarily due to they are anticipating winding down Skyway operations during 26-27, and thus the lower revenues, which all come from the sales tax. Salaries and wages are decreasing $643,000 based on the overall reduction in revenues for the system as a whole. Skyway's budgeted salaries and wages appear to be under-budgeted by almost $700,000. Materials and supplies going down. There's a 52% cut across the board in this category as they wind down those services. There's also a planned change in service hours that are noted on page 77. Within the all-other miscellaneous category, there's a decrease of $489,000 due to reclassifying some costs to the bus division, and I will note that we were not provided any support for this change. You'll see on page 77 those decrease in service hours, which JTA projects will save them $525,000. Currently, the system runs Monday through Friday 6 to 9. They're changing it to Monday through Friday 7 to 7 come October. Page 78 is the ferry division. This is a—they receive sales tax. And I should say, I should have said this from the beginning, they receive the sales tax and then allocated the amount necessary to operate each of these divisions. There's not sales tax for a ferry or for SkyWay or for Connection. It's from the transportation and constitutional gas taxes. The $1.7 million in this budget is what's needed to balance the ferry budget. Passenger fares of $1.4 million is decreasing $480,000. This is to better align with actual collections. And here again, they are considering, but not included in this budget, an increase and change to what they charge for the ferry system. Within the various items there, they do not have any salaries and wages or fringe benefits as there are no employees. So we do have a recommendation to move those items to another line. The services budget of $2.16 million. They are projecting to go over budget in the current year, but with the projected—they're hoping to have savings of $429,000 based on the change in the operating hours that we'll discuss on the next page. And then flipping to the next page, those service-level changes, they do plan to reduce the operations of the ferry, hoping to save $429,000. Currently, it runs Monday through Sunday, 6 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. Going into October, they plan to change that Monday through Friday, 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. And then Saturday and Sunday, 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. But the ferry is not scheduled to be out of service during 26-27, as it has been in years past to get overhauled. On page 81 is the general fund budget of JTA. And then this fund receives $1.36 million from the sales tax to balance operations. And the decrease is mainly due to just overall expenditures being down. Non-transportation revenue, decrease of $905,000. They don't have any large real estate sales planned for this year, which is what was the impetus for the large budget last year. And then all interest earnings for JTA as a whole have been moved to the general fund, and that's the budget of $500,000. Salaries and wages decreasing $65,000 to better align with current year's costs. Fringe benefits decreasing as a result of that salary change. And then they are not budgeting any contingency dollars, as there is no excess revenue available. On page 83, you'll see the administration-slash-corporate allocation that is allocated to each of the five divisions. Salaries and wages going down $390,000 to better align with current costs in the area. Fringe benefits are actually increasing a little over $2 million based on current year's costs and the changes to their health insurance. Services going down $298,000. This is an across-the-board almost 4% cut in this area. And then flipping to page 85, you can see the total capital budget for JTA of $46 million. That is a $6.5 million increase year-over-year. Those within the revenues, $26.3 million, an increase of $1.9 million year-over-year. A large part of this is they are receiving a federal grant of $7.8 million for the purchase of a new ferry boat. And if you wanted to go ahead and turn to pages 91 through 92, it gives you the projects that they plan to spend all of these dollars on. Local matches within JTA, the $19.6 million represents collections of the local option gas tax, the new gas tax that was implemented in 2021, along with use of reserves from past gas tax collections. So that is an increase year-over-year of $4.5 million to a total budget of $19.6 million. And then you can see how they planned to spend those dollars in that capital budget. Flipping to page 87, this is an incentive program that they have for their employees. The total payout for fiscal year 26-27 will be no more than $570,126. And these incentives are available to the bus, connections, skyways, divisions, salary lines. We do have recommendations, but they will be taken up as part of Bill 2026-514 because it is a separate bill, but wanted to go ahead and make you aware of those recommendations. And I believe JTA is in agreement with the recommendations. And then the schedules that on page 89, 90, 91, and 92 are reflective of our recommendations. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. So like the JTA bill, we cannot take action today. We can in committee when we get to it. So we have a lot of folks in the queue. Most of my comments are going to be on current year performance, really, because I have concerns through September 30th, not just next year. But anyways, the order, we're going to go to the council president first and then the JTA liaison, Council Member Diamond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have to say, you did it calmly, Phillip, but that was probably the most pessimistic I've seen you deliver a budget report. And I got to say, there's two things that stuck out to me. One is there's only 44 days cash on hand from the projections I saw. I forget which page that was. And the second was the route elimination. For the council auditors, I'm a little concerned. What is the city's obligation if JTA runs out of cash? Do we have to support them with cash out of our operating reserves? Through the chair of the council president, I do not know that answer. I mean, ultimately, they are a quasi-state agency because they are defined in Chapter 349 of the Florida Statutes. But I'm not aware of the city's obligation as it comes to that. Okay. And I know this is going to be a joke, and I'll be accused of suggesting violation of federal law, but I do know an independent authority with 1,700 days cash on hand. I'm a little concerned about that cash, so maybe Randall can address that in a minute. But I also want to ask this regarding the route elimination. Could renegotiation of the gas tax projects involve helping JTA with some of that cash towards reconstituting canceled services? Through the chair to Council President Holland, we'll answer that question in a second. I do want to point out that that day's cash on hand is last year's number. Okay. This year's number is worse, unfortunately. But yes, the gas tax renegotiation of that interlocal agreement could absolutely transition from those projects to just funding mass transit operations. That is an allowable use. And that is what they used the first six cents on is just their mass transit operations. So if you opened up that agreement, you could transition that five cents towards that purpose. Okay. Thank you, because that would be helpful. I know they're talking on page 71 about eliminating routes 18, 25, 32, and 82. 32 actually goes along McDuff. It's right where we're planning to build Section 6 of the Emerald Trail. And I'm guessing in that neighborhood, if they could choose one or the other, they'd want that bus route reconstituted. So that's going to be an important thing to talk about. Randall, a question for you. I'm probably preempting the finance chair a little bit, but when we get to the questions around current year, the proposal or the presentation made on Wednesday, is that going to be the extent of the projected losses in this fiscal year, or do you think there could be more to come? Mr. Barnes? Through the chair to Councilman Howland, we are monitoring that situation. We definitely have some savings programmed in. Again, there was a budget amendment that occurred at the JTA level back in February that included some reductions in force, as well as some savings on contracts and furloughs. So some of those items have yet to be presented in the rest of the fiscal year. Our projections are a little conservative. Those may come to fruition, but we're monitoring and working on those the best we can. Okay. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say I'm so thankful that you've taken this position. I know it's going to be a huge challenge, but you're a strong talent and a trusted leader in this city, and I'm very confident that what you find is what the damage is, and you'll figure out a way to help repair it and put JTA on the right path. Related to that, one thing I'd like to note is the Financial Audit and Oversight Committee, which is working with JEA right now on the unbilled water capacity fees, has to deliver a report out in September. I'd like to talk with you about how we can recharge that committee with looking into potentially reviewing that project list for the gas tax or something else that could help you in your efforts to restore JTA to profitability. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Diamond. Thanks, Mr. Chair, and if the chair and the committee would bear with me. I have a lot of questions, so this is more than five minutes. I just want to be honest and up front. There are certain things that come along to this city that really need the time for people to get educated about a problem, and we have got a problem. So first of all, I'm a little upset that the CEO isn't here. He should be answering these questions, and I like him. He's a friend. I know he's leaving, but he should be here. I will say I'm thrilled that Randall Barnes is standing there. We went through hell together on the JEA matter years ago, and I will speak for myself, but I'm sure other people would agree with me. You were very, very honest and hardworking and accurate in a very difficult time for the city, and here you are again right in the middle of a storm. And so I just want to thank you for taking the job and coming back to Jacksonville and for taking these tough questions and for the very nice lady behind you, Jessica Schepler. I've not seen anyone at any one of our outside entities like this, our independent authorities, who's taking it on the chin more for their group than you have, and I know you're such a good person, so thank you for being willing to work with a really tough council person on this stuff. So, all right, let's get going on the current year, Randall. Based on the projection from last year to where we think we're going to end at the end of the fiscal year, how far off were we? For the current year, I mean, you saw the report that was through the chair to the councilman, follow Robert's rules. You saw the report, $32.8 million is what we're projecting for the end of the fiscal year, so that's significant shortfall. That's a result of everyone knows about the lower sales tax situation. Since 2024, we've seen continued lower sales taxes, so for this fiscal year, it was sales taxes and gas tax revenues about $13.7 million. We have lower interest earnings because we don't have as much cash as we expected that we might have. Lower fare revenues, and that's a result of primarily the—we had a six-month fare pilot where we lowered fares for a period of time to increase ridership. We did increase ridership, but we also didn't recover as much as we would have if we needed to match our budget, basically. On the expense side, the large items are primarily the Connection Plus program, so that's a premium ride service that we actually, I think, had budgeted to not discontinue during fiscal year 26, but the community spoke up about the service. They really like it, and the JTA board ultimately decided to continue with the service, so we didn't budget properly for that. And then also there were some employee costs that we did not budget properly for, so we are falling short on that area as well. Okay, and so for folks at home, we thought we would get more than $32 million, mostly with regards to sales tax. Those sales tax revenues dropped below what we expected, so now we're in this hole for the current year. And also for folks at home, JTA is not expected to make money. We don't run buses and make money. We lose money doing this stuff, and we do it for two reasons. One, it's a moral obligation of a city to make sure people can get to school and to work in the hospital and all the rest. Jacksonville is huge. If your hospital is over here at Baptist and you live in Neptune Beach, there's no way you can get there without a car if we don't have JTA. So we expect to lose money. It's an economic driver and a moral obligation of the city. That's why we're okay losing money. So then the question I've got for you is, are outstanding bills that we haven't paid, how much are they? Like, what is outstanding out there right now? So we currently have invoices outstanding that are greater than 30 days, so not due, of about $16 million. Okay, so we're right. Sorry, go ahead. And then I will just say there's another amount that are on hold for some reason could be issues related to line items and things like that. They're not approved because of some technical issue. Okay, we have $16 million, and we know for sure we owe. How much is in this, like, dispute bucket? That's in the close to $6 million range. Okay, so maybe it's more than $20 million to the bad on money we owe. How much cash do we have without your credit line? Without the credit line, we currently have – we did make a draw. So if everyone's not aware, we did get approved to enter into a line of credit at the last board meeting for $30 million on the operating side and $10 million on the capital side. So we did make a draw on that earlier this week, and that's going to allow us to catch up on our bills, basically. By the way, I think JTA getting a credit card and the board did a good job. You all did a good job getting a great rate, so thank you for that. But had we not got this credit card, we got $20 million-plus, how much cash? So the answer to that is about $7 million. Okay. Let's just let that sink in. That's terrible. I don't care about blame, but as we look into this next budget, how do we deal with the money we owe from last year and not hurt people this coming year with fewer services that are really essential services? It is going to be a challenge. The team at JTA is going to work very diligently to look at all options and come up with a plan to both replenishing our cash position, our reserves, as well as to pay down the line of credit that we just took out. So there's going to be a lot of work that we undertake in the coming weeks and months, but the board ultimately will opine and approve how we do that. That was a good answer. It's a tough answer, though. The truth is we don't really know, right? And some people are going to get hurt because we don't have enough. So on bus lines, which Councilman Howland was talking about, how many in the upcoming year do you expect to just straight-up cancel a bus line versus kind of like slimming it down if you've got – I see Ms. Shepler is there. Maybe she's got our answers. Jessica Shepler, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs, through the chair to Councilmember Diamond. So the routes that are proposed for elimination, as Council President Howland mentioned, it's 18, 25, 32, and 82. When we took on looking at our lowest-performing routes, we looked at ways that we could also realign and make some of our other routes more efficient. That's also stated in here. So changing up some of our routes to where even though we are eliminating these four particular routes, we are covering 90% of those riders in those areas with alternative routes that they can take in order to get to their destination. So this is a more efficient map. Is that what you're telling me? Correct. But I would imagine that means fewer buses going to each of these, like the interval will be spaced out further. Is that right? There are some frequency changes as well from the 30 minutes to 45 minutes. But the changes that you see here within your packet that are listed are what is going to be changed effective October 1. Gotcha. Okay. And then I just, and I'll try and speed up here and get to the end of my stuff. Connection and Connection Plus, I think you all got the full brunt of our opinion, which I'm not going to speak for all my colleagues, but I strongly feel there's a strong sentiment that if you are disabled in Jacksonville, we want you to have Connection and Connection Plus or something else. So I want to cheer you guys on for figuring out how to use Uber and other ride services to do that. Talking to the board members of JTA, I think there's a lot of optimism that technology can fix some of these problems for us. It's not going to be JTA invented technology, but it'll be technology that's available on the market like Waymo and Uber. So that's great. For this upcoming year's budget, do we expect to be able to finish the year, no matter what, still being able to provide Connection and then Connection Plus? Through the chair to Council Member Diamond, that is the goal as where we are right now. So I would say where we are today, yes. Okay. I want to just spoil this surprise for my colleagues. If we do reopen LOGT 2, I would like us to strongly consider using some of that funding to ensure that the disabled in Jacksonville can get to school and to work and to do social things. That dedicated funding would, I think, make us sleep better at night, that there's at least something out there to make sure that a Connection – it doesn't have to be Connection Plus, but there is some dedicated funding for what I think is one of the biggest moral obligations we have as a city, and that's just me speaking. All right. Let me ask you my last one. NAVI, UCC, Skyway, I feel like I was hammering my head against this back wall for like three years on this, and now all of a sudden everything is on the table. So that makes me very happy. So how much in this current budget is scheduled for NAVI? For NAVI, I know that we just had a contract renegotiation with NAVI, so the costs for that have been cut in half. I think we also – Jessica, can you help me with the – I think we delayed the headways as well with NAVI. That's correct. Yeah, that's correct. So it's in the – it was in the $10 million range, and now it's going to be five. Five. And I think when we talked, it's like five, six, somewhere in there. Yes. So we're still spending a bunch of money on NAVI, even though, I mean, frankly, just go outside and go out to the street, and you'll see they're still empty. So it's just my opinion. The faster we can wind this down, the better off we are. How much on capital for UCC and, like, these next benchmarks for this next budget are you all planning on spending? I think on the capital side for the Skyway rehabilitation areas, we have about $3 million on the LLGT2 projects. So that's that. Gotcha. So between NAVI and Skyway, we're at almost $10 million. Okay. And then I see Skyway is winding down and all the rest, and this is probably not for budget day. But as the board, who I have a lot of faith in, really great board, is going to appoint an interim CEO hopefully next week or relatively soon and then do their national search for the next CEO, very exciting process that we're looking to leverage our federal relationships to get out of this Skyway nightmare so that we don't have to do everything that it's saying. Again, Mr. Randall, I appreciate you. Sorry you have to take these tough questions. I know you're not responsible for any of this, but I just want to get to my colleagues, just kind of get all this out, flushed out on the record. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Diamond. I'd like to welcome Council Members Boylan and Carlucci as well. We're going to go Council Member Johnson, then Miller, then Gay, and then the visiting Council Members. So Council Member Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mine will not be long as I am just transitioning off as the JEA liaison. My question is about Connection Plus, though. It's one of the things, and while we're here publicly through the chair to Councilman Diamond, I hope that you'll champion that with, I know it was a conversation that I started with Congressman Bean and Congressman Rutherford about, or at least their offices, the Connection Plus finding a way, because JTA doesn't get any credit for that. And it is a program that people need and want, and it's very helpful, but there's nothing that they get from it, and there's funds that could be realized from using that. So I hope that's something that you'll continue to champion. And so that's my question through the chair. The Connection Plus, do we have any projection to know how, because that's something that, you know, we've all heard it. As the Councilman said earlier, people came to Council here, they've gone to JEA, we've done workshops and meetings. In order for us to keep the Connection Plus, it would make sense for the federal government to support what we're doing, because it's not something that's mandated, like Connection is through ADA. What are we doing to make sure that that program stays, number one? And two, are we pursuing it, like I said, I've been gone for a couple months now, but are we pursuing finding out what federal relief that's there that could help us make sure that bottom line number that we need is not as high in debt as usual? Thank you. So through the chair to Councilmember Johnson, so a couple things from, and we all recall what occurred at the beginning of the year with the debate around Connection Plus. I do want to update this Council and let you all know that we have been able to realize significant cost savings with our customers actually utilizing our connection service. So many of our Connection Plus customers did give Connection a try and have, so we've seen about a 38% shift from Connection Plus. over to Connection. In addition to that, we also implemented an Uber opt-in program. So that is also an option for our Connection Plus customers to utilize Uber as well, which is at a much lower cost to the JTA. So I wanted to let you know that and provide you that update. We can get you those numbers in cost savings that we've seen, but it's rather significant. So I just wanted to let you all know that. And then with regard to your question related to the counting of ridership, that is a conversation that we have had with both our JTAC committee, which is our board of citizens and customers from the paratransit community that help us and advise us as to their needs and different things that we can do. And they're really to be credited with some of these ideas that came along and that we've implemented as well in order to realize these cost savings. So we have had those conversations with that committee as well as at the federal level related to the possibility of potentially counting those ridership numbers in the future. So those are ongoing conversations, Councilmember. Councilmember Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair, I also want to say to Mr. Barnes and Ms. Schepler, thank you very much for coming today. And thank you for being open and transparent. I realize we all realize this is a tough, a tough period of time for JTA and you two coming to have these real frank discussions. I appreciate it very much. But I must say, I am, as my colleague has expressed, a little disappointed that someone, whether it's the CEO, CAO, COO, isn't here to have these exchanges as well. But I understand you two are the representatives that have been sent and Ms. Schepler has been here through all the periods of time and has always done an excellent job representing. So I'm not criticizing in that regard. Now, I will say, and I want to say some positive things here first before I get into a couple of my concerns. I also thank JTA for the flexibility on the Connection, Connection Plus, and listening to the people. We've had many people come to our committee meetings and our overall council meetings that have said, I will be on public subsistence if I'm not able to use this service and be a productive member of our society. Person after person has said, I want to keep working and I can do it if I can have this service. And I think we all would want, every one of them who wants to work, that have challenges, to be able to work. And the pride and what that does for their health and mental health and other things, you can't measure that. And so thank you for listening as representatives of overall JTA. Thank you for listening and thank you for making adjustments to be able to ensure that those important members of our city are able to have a quality of life and be productive members of our society. And they wouldn't otherwise be able to do that if they didn't have that service. So thank you very much. I will also say, what I'm looking forward to down the road, being an at-large member, I'm looking forward to the district council members' assessments and comments on these changes on the routes, the service level changes. I've looked at some of them, but it will mean more, I think, when I hear from the district folks on what the impact is. We've heard a couple of comments. Sometimes it's not the total number riding those buses because it can mean everything to the single parent who has five kids and is trying to get to the schools, is trying to get to three jobs. To me, that's really where we ought to be focused here, is making sure that people can live their lives that absolutely depend on JTA to get there. And as my colleague says, we may lose some money, and that's part of this. But I will say over the last two years that I'm aware of, this body was told JTA would be operating in the black, but they've been operating in the red, and it's getting worse. So I don't want to belabor that point, but I would just say we need to all collectively do better. And my concern on the route changes, some of these routes are going from 30 minutes wait between buses to 60 minutes between buses. If I miss that bus and I'm trying to get to work or I'm trying to get my kids to school, that's a tough one. That's a real tough one, and I get it. You guys have done all the numbers, and you've done the hard work that I really haven't at this point. But that's what I'm saying. I look forward to hearing the district council members' thoughts on those that affect their members and their routes in their district. I'm a little worried about maintenance cuts. You know, that's an obvious one when we start going deep into maintenance, lube, other categories that affect our maintenance. I'm a little concerned there long term. What are we doing by saving money by cutting maintenance? So that's all I'll say on that. That does concern me, but I don't know what degree that you all would have the expertise to be able to do that. I'm going to make one comment about Navi, and I'm going to leave it alone for now. We're going to revisit it. Thank you for making some of those adjustments and that positively impacting where we are going forward. But the bundling with Holon, I wish people wouldn't have done that and keep doing that. Everybody that I know of would love having Holon here, having them producing these vehicles for our country, for the world. And so I wish we would not bundle those, that we would be honest and transparent about that as well. And so I'm going to leave it right there. At this point, there are a lot of other people who want to speak. But thank you again, both of you, for your transparency and your honesty. I had a great meeting with Mr. Varnes. Thank you for getting into details with me. And again, being quite honest and open about that. I really appreciate that. So thank you very much to the chair. Council Member Gay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just comments here, the information that I've been compiling. I appreciate y'all coming this morning and standing before us. And sometimes it's not always easy bringing bad news. But I appreciate y'all being here. To the committee up here, Councilman Diamond, Councilman Johnson, I would fully support working with y'all about this connection plus trying to get this some kind of brought to a better service and continued service. Just looking at the whole situation, when you hear a business that's 30 days late on paying their bills and got another batch of bills that are being withheld because of some technicalities or line items, $22 million that we're looking at. And then goes and acquires and then goes and acquires a line of credit. So now when you get that line of credit, it's not just money that you're getting. It's money you're paying interest on. So the hole keeps getting deeper and deeper. And then we look at what's being done to help rectify that is reduce, reduce, eliminate, eliminate, change. And so that's the solutions to what I'm seeing is what's brought to us is we're changing what's always been done. We're not changing the pipe dreams of NAVI and these other items that have brought us to the deep hole of not being able to pay the $22 million, not being able or having to go get a line of credit. Those are red flags of a failing business. And I'm going to call it like it is that I don't think this reduce, reduce, eliminate, eliminate is going to be the bucket that's going to bail this out. It's going to take some deep, hard looks at expenditures, this NAVI and other items that's being talked about to where we've got to get back to the basics, back to what the JTA is supposed to be doing, that is providing the service for our community. It is not a profit service that we're looking. It is a service that we are obligated to our community to meet. And just it's so disheartening to hear the community come up and they're stressed out about rates going up, about services being cut. So I just, we've got to do a deep, deep dive and do some hard soul searching on this. And I'll just leave it at that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Council Member Salem, I'm not going to start the clock yet. I still haven't gotten to my comments, which are quite lengthy. But if we get a few more speakers in queue, I will be starting the clock. But for now, no clock on you, Council Member Salem. Thank you, Chair, for allowing me to speak. Bus routes, how are we communicating to those that might see changes since it's October 1 on these bus routes? And I should mention, one of the routes you're eliminating is right through the heart of Arlington. I wish Council Member Merrill was here. But anyway, go ahead. So through the chair to Council Member Salem, thank you for that question. So a couple months ago, last month, we held a series of five community meetings across the county. We also, in addition to that, held a formal public hearing. We are required to do the formal public hearing as part of any type of service changes that are considered, you know, significant, if you will. So we went to the community, in addition to just holding that public hearing, we also held five community meetings across the county where we answered, we presented exactly the changes that would be, that we were considering. We sought their input, and we had about 50 attendees that came out, and that includes the public hearing as well. And we also had, on our website, the information. We advertised the community meetings as well as the changes that would be coming on all of our buses, in addition to social media platforms, again, on our website. And then, as we approach the October timeframe, we will actually have our customer outreach employees go out on the various routes and have those one-on-one conversations with riders and also share with them the alternative routes that they can take since these particular routes would be eliminated. Okay. Okay. You have no choice but to decrease routes when you've got this type of problem. Unfortunately, that's just reality. I would encourage this type of examination occur all the time. In a private business, you're always looking at things like this. Where can we be more efficient? Where can we reduce routes and still maintain the customers and that kind of thing? It shouldn't take a catastrophe to have you be doing this. Now, let me move to NAVI if I can. And that's just a comment. You don't have to respond. You're reducing it by 50%. What is preventing you today from eliminating NAVI October 1? Are there federal money in this that keeps you from stopping it completely? Through the chair to Councilmember Salem, it's a multi-partner between our state and federal partners. It is a multi-partner project. And so that, you know, any consideration of doing something like that would require conversations to be had at both of those levels of government. We've had those discussions to reduce it by 50%, I assume. With the contractor, yes. No, no. With our partners. Yes, yes. So the partners are aware it's being reduced by 50%. They just have not approved a complete stopping of the service. Is that a fair statement? That is correct. Okay. Reduction in force in your operation, does that require board approval? Can the CEO begin moving in that direction without board approval? Through the chair to Councilmember Salem. So our board is very actively engaged right now, as you can imagine, with, you know, the situation that we're in right now financially. And so they are being kept up to date on a very regular basis about, you know, where we're at, what sort of recommendations are going to be made moving forward related to this budget. They meet next week again. And according to the state statute, the CEO has the authority to hire to, you know, he has authority over the employment area of the organization. However, our board is very in tune and being kept up to date with our employee levels and what, you know, possibilities. Well, what has occurred related to some of the changes that we've made and what, you know, may occur or need to occur in the future? Yeah, I know we're in a transition with CEOs. I get that. But I would want a CEO to be empowered not to wait six weeks for a board meeting, if necessary, to have a reduction in force, if that was deemed the appropriate thing to do. And I hope we can get to that in the not-too-distant future. Let me talk about the Skyway briefly. I see you made a comment that's going to be winding down next year. I know through your five meetings with the public you've talked about making it a walking trail or transitioning it to something else. Where is the money going to come from to make those changes? Or are we looking at the Skyway once you stop services on it, just sitting there like it is? And what is the Fed's position as we know it currently on the Skyway? So through the chair to Councilmember Salem, where we're at right now with the Skyway process is those particular community meetings were related to our service changes and potential fare modifications. The PD&E phase 2 process that's currently underway. And that is the process where alternatives are being looked at with what to potentially do with the Skyway. The first series of public meetings occurred several months ago related to rolling out what those alternatives as part of the PD&E analysis requires. The second community meetings that are scheduled are scheduled for next month right now. And so that is just part of the PD&E process, but then also once a decision is made, which, as you mentioned, we are in a transition. But in the normal course, once a decision is made, whatever is decided to do with the Skyway would require a sort of ramp down as part of that normal process. Yes. So did I answer your question pretty much? But if we're going to transition it to some other use in this financial situation, I don't see it coming from our funds. So, yes, sir, that is correct. So, I remembered as you were speaking that that was the second part of your question. Local option gas tax dollars, there is a dollar amount allocated within LOGT2, and it is allocated specifically under the title of Skyway Rehabilitation and Expansion. So, there is, on the capital side, our LOGT dollars that are allocated towards whatever is going to happen with the Skyway. Okay. Thank you. Randall, worked with you in my first term. So glad that you're here, and I'm sorry that you're taking the brunt of this, but I guess it's the position you're in. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councilman Carlucci, and I did, when you were in the back, I said I'm not starting the clock yet, but we are close to getting behind schedule. So, for now, no clock, but I may have to start in a minute. Well, it shouldn't take long, and thank you for, I had a customer who lost their electricity and they're elderly, and I'm working to take care of them. And I just had a question for the JTA through the chair. So, the question was asked by our Council President, which was a very good question, out of money, worst-case scenario, who do you turn to? Is it the city, the state? The question was asked of people up here, but I would suspect that y'all might know the answer to that, and if you don't, then just say you don't. But I need to know that question. I think we all do. Through the chair, Councilman Carlucci, I don't think that we're going to run out of money. We're going to do what's necessary to make sure that we live within our means. Okay. Well, that's some fresh, reassuring information. Would it be, just in case, is it possible to take out some type of short-term loan, bridge loan, to get you through a patch? Well, that is, in effect, what we've done with the liquidity facility that was approved by the board last month and that we closed on this week. We have a liquidity facility that we just drew down on, and that is going to give us time to make the decisions that we need to make. Okay. So that's important for people to know that you don't expect to have to, you don't expect to run out of money. You don't expect to have to come to the city or the state that you expect to get through this. And I have faith that you will, because I have faith in the leadership, I have faith in the board, and I like to say having faith in the future. And I have faith in your future. We all hit rough spots. We all do. And I have no doubt that the only way to dig yourself out of a problem is to dig yourself out of it, and I know that you will do that. And I appreciate you guys. It's a tough job, and it's not a big moneymaker, but it's a big people server, and you have to keep your eyes to the future as well. So God bless you. Godspeed. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so I'll wrap it up here, and I do have quite a bit of lengthy comments. Council Member Gay, you mentioned one thing I was going to say. We're seeing financial moves that are done by companies when they're concerned about being a going concern. So that's certainly getting a line of credit, being behind on AP. But I've commented many times since January about my financial concerns with JTA, and it really is the largest by a good margin of my financial concerns within everything we look at in the consolidated government. For those of you that were not on finance with me last year, so starting in January, so only Mr. Diamond has heard some of these comments. But I just want to recap some of the things we've talked about the past eight months. So first, there's the first finance committee of the year in 2026. We got the quarterly report ending 9-30-2025, and it showed a $19 million full-year overage. This surprised many of us because the report ending June 30th, just three months earlier, it projected a surplus of $4 million. So there's a $23 million swing in just three months. So that's kind of how we started the year in January. And so, again, that's about a 10% overage when we were told three months before to expect a surplus. And, Mr. Barnes, I think it's important for you to hear this as well, just so you know our perspective as far as what's been given to us concerning the finances of JTA the past couple of months. At around that same time in January, we learned that JTA was going to substantially increase connection plus rates. And I used the example when you looked at the fare structure, instead of being $30, it would now be $90 for a round trip all the way down from District 3 to Baptist downtown. So essentially a tripling of the fee structure. It didn't end up being quite that much, but still a substantial increase. And so that was kind of the next thing we had. Then we finished the second fiscal quarter of the year, ending March 31st. And here's the auditor's notes verbatim. The financial report for JTA for the six months ending March 31st, 2026, was submitted four days past the deadline on May 4th. But due to errors in the report, JTA had to submit revised reports on May 8th and then May 15th. JTA shows an overall deficit of $16 million in year-to-date actuals and is projecting an overall deficit of $2 million at year-end, despite making significant cost reductions throughout the year. So just in that one report, we're now at a $16 million hole, but we were told with the adjustments being made, we were hoping to end the year at only $2 million under. In May, I met with JTA to have a preliminary discussion on the fiscal year 26-27 budget. Majority of that conversation then focused on current operations and some of my concerns. And I specifically asked about having these big deficit swings, what has it done to your reserves? And sure enough, they indicated, as I expected, they were very low. I said I want to make sure that the board was aware of the cash position, and JTA did send me the slide they included at the board meeting. That was a week following our meeting. And what that slide shows is that although there's $67 million in mostly restricted accounts, actual cash on hand for operations was $937,000 at that time. So well less than the $7 million you mentioned, Council Member Diamond. And again, that did go to the board. And I mentioned my concern, just your run rate payroll. Payroll is $1.7 million a week and $937. Then this past Wednesday, our council auditors reviewed the quarterly summary through June 30th. And similar to what happened last year, there has been a dramatic swing between the two reports again. According to our auditors, the financial report of JTA is projecting an overall deficit of $32 million at year end. The unvariable variance is made up of projected $17 million shortfall in revenues, but also $14 million more in expenses. And then probably even more worrisome, it goes on to say, The main cause of the expenditure is being projected to exceed budget by $14 million is due to a projected negative variance of about $8 million within the services category of connection due to the contract for the service provider not being budgeted for the full year. And also the overall fringe benefits category of $7 million due to benefit-related expenses not being budgeted accurately. I know there's a lot of leadership going on. Mr. Barnes, every time your name comes up, nothing but great things. And like we've all said up here, we want to look forward. We want to give you time. And we want to be here to help you as well. I also have concerns about the budget as submitted. Mr. Peterson used the word hope at one point. He also wrote the word doubtful in the write-up. And those are words we just, you don't want to hear that, any sort of financial analysis. So, again, we want to be forward-looking. We want to be there to help you and to make sure our concerns about the financial situation with JTA, just to leave those concerns in the next few months. As financial chair, it would be my request that we start getting monthly updates, whether that's a one-slide update that shows cash on hand and some other key measures. Me and you can talk out outside of this to kind of talk about what that looks like. But I think it does warrant monthly updates to this body on the financial status of JTA. So, again, just want to make sure everything I said here, I have said at different times and different finance committee meetings. But apologies for taking a little long. I wanted to put it all together there to talk about, really, since January of this year, what we've been talking about regarding the financial situation of JTA. And, again, we look forward to working with you and helping to fix this and get back on a healthier financial footing. With that, I have no one else in the queue. Does anybody have anything else for JTA? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So that takes us to page 93 of your handouts. Transitioning away from fully independent agencies, this is Downtown Vision, or DVI. This is not in your budget book. All of their financials are represented there on page 93. So you can see a proposed budget, total estimated revenues of $3,077,798, which is an increase of $18,312 over the council-adopted 2025-26 budget. Their estimated revenues, the main source of DVI's revenue is a 1.1 million, 1.1 mil special assessment of downtown commercial and residential non-homesteaded property owners. There are limited exceptions where those non-homestead property owners are not assessed within their designated boundary. The budget assessment is $2,186,964, up $70,000 from the prior year. City contribution of $823,834 is the city voluntarily contributing to the equivalent of 1.1 mils of city-assessed properties within that boundary, and the city receives no early payment discount for that. Of the other sources, there is a decrease of $71,000. This is mainly due to a decrease in a contractual service revenue that DVI had with JTA related to Skyway stations that has been canceled. Within the appropriations, personnel services, a budget of $1.5 million is increasing to $243,000, mainly due to increases in salary benefits associated with a new vice president of urban systems, proposed cost of living adjustments, proposed cost of living adjustments, general increases in employer health insurance costs, and then retirement contributions. Operating expenses going down $225,000 to $1.56 million is just due to less available funding for after personnel costs, and then also related to the JTA Skyway contract that has been canceled. DVI does have a 501c3 arm that is projected to pick up the decrease in services that is under DVI's budget. We do note that DVI, they have office space in the Duval Street parking garage that does not include rent as long as they provide an equivalent value of services to the city, and we have no recommendations. Thank you. First off, we were supposed to go to Wolfson's right after that, so Dr. Joshi's still here. We were too much in the groove, so we'll come back to that. Knowing in the queue, I do have one comment. When I first saw the auditor notes, I had questioned this $243,000 increase for the new vice president of urban systems. My understanding is that person has already been hired, but it's not. That $243,000 is not due to all of that. There's a number of different moving parts there, so I was concerned about what sort of salary we'd be giving that person when I saw that, so that was my only concern. And again, it would not change the amount that we contributed one way or another based on who they hire with the other funding sources they received. If there are no questions on this, we'll move on. And with that, like I said, we got one fund further than I told Dr. Joshi, and I believe there's some people from Wolfson's as well. But if you would, again, there's no action on the table, but we tabled this item. It was the incremental request for Wolfson Children's Hospital on page 27 of the budget book. We had tabled this. I believe Council Member Freeman and Howland had some questions, concerns, and they met with Wolfson. And so I will leave it to any other council member if they want to make an amendment for discussion. But as of now, it is in the budget as is, so no action is needed unless we want to discuss and take an action. Council Member Diamond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to put on the record I was fine with it as is. Look, I mean, this is one of the few areas where I really do think we need this. And I'll put that again, like, yeah, when we talk about, like, moral imperatives, this is a missing gap that we have, and I support it entirely. Mr. Peterson, I think you're going to say what Mr. Parks just listed, that we will have a motion so we can add the term sheet. Council Member Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wasn't planning on talking again until after lunch, but since you brought this up, I will just share what my concern was at the time. It wasn't really a concern. It was an opportunity to try to get a better understanding of the process. And my initial challenge was that we had multiple entities involved in a conversation, but they weren't all in the room at the same time when I had it. Once we got to that place, I had a better understanding. The other thing was I was trying to see if we could save taxpayer dollars because you hear of you put the $2 million up, they draw down $4 million. And so in the confines of our office and just really being able to be vulnerable and have this conversation, it was brought to my attention that the only way you get the federal drawdown is from municipalities or governments putting that in. And so that was what I wanted to hold off on and make sure I had those conversations in a space where they all could tell me they're in agreement and they could answer those types of questions. So thank you for the table on that. Thank you, Councilman Freeman. Council President. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. My concerns were the same as Councilman Freeman's. The Southern Baptist Hospitals, Inc. makes loads of money, even though it's a nonprofit. So I was wondering why they couldn't use the money themselves to draw down the federal match. And I've learned that it requires municipality money. It's got to be city funds to draw the match. So I reluctantly support. Thanks. Thank you, Council President. And I said at the beginning when we started the budget process, one of my guiding principles was this is not the year for nothing or for anything new. Unless it provides a hard, direct dollar return to the city. And so this is one of the few things in the budget. This isn't a soft business case. This isn't a calculated ROI. These are actual dollars we know we'll get by putting this up against it. So for that reason, I support it as well. We do have a motion. The motion is to add the term sheet. Does that work for the motion, Phillip? Okay. We've got a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion to add the term sheet, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. The motion passes. Thank you, Dr. Joshi and the Wilson reps as well. I think we can knock out a few more before lunch. Let's see. We'd be on page 95, DIA. All right. Page 95 of your handout and 95 of your budget book. This is the DIA's kind of staffing operations. They're all within the general fund. They do have a $6,000 revenue that includes for applications that are submitted to the Downtown Development Review Board. Their expenditure budget is $736,000 in total, which is going down $10,000 year over year. Salaries represent $1.34 million of that. The net decrease, there is a net decrease of $95.70 in salaries. It's due to the elimination of funding for the DIA marketing and public relations manager position, and this was totally almost all offset by the standard 3% increase and then a couple of salary adjustments that occurred during the year due to employee turnover. Employer provided benefits increasing for the group health premiums, internal service charges going down $149,000 due to a decrease in legal charges, and then also the IT allocation methodology change. Professional and contractual services, this, while staying flat, represents the appraisals, environmental monitoring, transcription services, audits, and special projects that go on at DIA. Within their other operating expenditures line item of $192,000, they do make $125,000 contributions to various events outlined there for you on page 96. There is a supervision allocation that represents the administrative costs of DIA that are allocated to the public parking and CRA activities. They do have $1,000 of food and beverage items for their public meetings, and then there are no cap changes, no service level changes, and no recommendations. I have no one in the queue. I do see our DIA CEO out there, but if there's no one in the queue, we'll move on. All right, page 97 is a fund under the DIAs, this Downtown Economic Development Fund. This is not in your budget book. This budget actually has a net zero impact laying out there for you within the expenditures, $25.8 million and $3 million for the shipyards and Rise Doro, respectively. Those are just moving to a new completions grant account within our accounting system to be able to better track that. And then the $1.1 million for the N4 development is in a contingency brought above the line to be able to pay the grant should it come due in 26-27. This is one of the items that triggers that two-thirds vote for the budget. Otherwise, no service level changes, no cap changes, and no recommendations. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. I'll do both of my amendments at the end of the meeting today. But again, the good news here, correct me if I'm wrong, these are not general fund dollars as it pertains to revenue versus expense. These were pre-budgeted that are simply coming out of that contingency. So these are not a direct budgetary impact other than bringing it above the line to use this year. Through the chair, your last statement is correct. I don't remember. The $25 million was not general fund to start. That was risk management. I don't remember if the $3 million was general fund or not. I think it was. But at this point, there's no impact to the budget as a result of this. Okay. Thank you. Regardless, still great progress that we did as a finance committee the past couple years. Council member Miller has had legislation put guardrails on how we are required to annually budget them if not pre-funded. And then my piece of legislation allows recapture dollars to go up against previously unbudgeted cash completion grants. I said this in finance, though, on Wednesday. It's not a fund of extra money for cash completion grants. It's a fund to pay what we've already approved. And we still have $62 million of outstanding cash completion grants we have not budgeted for at this time. Oh, I'm sorry. Council member Freeman, I didn't see you there. I see the DIA CEO here still, though, if you do have a DIA question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if he can come forward, please. Simple question. My apologies, and I'm going to blame it on my office. We did not get a chance to meet prior to. And so I hope, I think she is. If Ms. Jerry's listening, Jerry, I need to make sure I meet with everyone before they come. So I don't waste a lot of time here. Just two items. And we've talked personally in the past before. One of my itches that I like to scratch when I was the president was about parking downtown. That seemed to be an issue, at least that year, my year. I know that we've had conversations since you've come on board. I've seen some new signs and some automation. Where are we on parking now? Because I mentioned that we, you know, with the parking garages that we had, at one point we had a company from out of the, it was from Miami that was trying to manage it. And they put a bid in that we knew they couldn't match. And so not to try to catch you off guard here. My apologies that my office did not get with you. But I don't want to let this moment pass by without just getting a better understanding. Where are we on parking now? If I could interject real quick, that is our next cost center we're reviewing. He can answer now, but I did want to say that after he answers the question, we're going to roll right into that as well. So good timing. Perfect. I was a lead off hitter in baseball, man. So we're just going to lead this off now. Because it should be a pretty quick answer. I'm positive. Sure. Colin Tarbert, CEO of the DIA. Thank you for the question. Mr. Sherwell is here as well if I can't answer all the details. But in terms of the parking garages, there was recently a competitive bid process through the city's procurement, which I believe Law's parking was selected. And they transitioned on recently to take over those garages. And so far it's been a very smooth process. And we are seeing an increase in revenue in certain garages. Perfect. And I don't know who the vendor was that wanted it all. But I just know that that time, you know, we talk about the Live Local and you hear about a lot of those things. And so I had some heartburn that I shared with you that we had local companies that were doing work in major cities throughout our country. And then they were feeling, and it was pretty obvious at times that they were not able to get work here. So good on that. And then the last thing, yesterday we talked about parks and we talked about all of the great things in the activation of parks downtown. And I kind of laid out the kind of the four entities that were all involved in my one concern, which was blight and cleanup. And I just want to make sure that you were aware of that conversation as well that happened yesterday, because I think a lot of that's going to fall into your laps if we keep ambassadors and those types of things that were really helping keep downtown clean. I did see the comments yesterday I was watching online, and obviously we have a very close relationship with DVI as the contract manager. And so we're going to continue to push for clean and safe in downtown, as well as kind of promoting the activations that we can. DIA has a number of properties also that we're looking to, you know, make sure that we get those back on the tax rolls as quickly as possible. All righty. Well, I greatly appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do believe that DVI, their head is transitioning out as well. So my one challenge to you, Mr. Collin, is you're going to have to step up your shoe game because somebody's got to represent a shoe game like that moving forward. Have a great one. Council Member Salem. Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on a comment that, Collin, that you just made. You said the change in the provider for the garages has increased revenue. Explain that to me. I'm going to ask Mr. Sherwell to come up to talk a little bit about the garages. It's in the, again, I think it's in the next segment here, but I think- Okay. Well, if you'd rather do it then, it just caught my ear that we've changed providers and we've got increased revenue. So it makes me wonder what was going on before. Projections. Projections for revenue. Okay. I didn't hear that. I'm sorry. If you said projections, I didn't hear that. I just heard increased revenue. But if you- However you want to do it, Chair. Let's go ahead. Council Member Miller, if your question is parking related, I'd rather Mr. Peterson- Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Miller. Or Council Member Colonel Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This will be quick. Mr. Tarber, the ambassador program. Just wanted to see. I've gone to a number of other cities and I've noticed they've had similar type of groups to be able to keep the downtown, you know, as nice looking as possible. But I've noticed a number of those organizations, they do extensive pressure washing and other things to really give a facelift to the downtown. Are we currently doing that and are we doing that to the extent that you believe helps us achieve that look that we really want for our downtown? So just a point of clarity. So DIA, we don't oversee the ambassadors directly. That's DVI, Downtown Vision Incorporated. We oversee- I'm sorry. I just did a mental shift when we went back and forth on subject. So I apologize for that. But I would like to ask that, if that's okay, Mr. Chair, to do a switch. Mr. Gordon can answer that question. Yes, and his shoe game will come up. And then we'll take care of Councilman Freeman's concern as well. I cannot see the shoes at this angle, but I assume they're great. Go ahead, Mr. Gordon. Through the chair to Councilman Miller, Jake Gordon, CEO of Downtown Vision, outgoing CEO. Yes, I thought the budget was approved. We do do the ambassadors, and we're actually proud of the confusion. I mean, we serve the city and serve the Downtown Investment Authority. That's who we work with. I think the answer to your question is basically that we have 23 ambassadors on the street, and we do as much as we possibly can. It's not really working backwards from the need. I think working with a lot of the property owners, there is more need. As downtown gets busier, there's a lot more need. We do have a full-time pressure washer that pressure washes and just never stops, just keeps going around downtown and pressure washing. But I think we welcome all the support of this council and kind of feedback from the property owners about what more is necessary. Through the chair real quick, that pressure washer, is it streets? Or are we talking sidewalks, planners, other things like that? And that's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you as well. Appreciate it. Yes, through the chair to Councilman Miller. It doesn't replace any current city support. So there is, so like the streets are still clean, public works. There's a lot of entities that help keep downtown clean and safe. We are more about the spot level. So if we see an issue, we're going to go out there and hit it right away to make sure. And it's really more of an economic development thing where we can't really have issues pop up that aren't resolved very quickly. But I do think that's a great conversation to be had by the city and with the DIA and the public works and parks and others about how we can do an even better job in terms of responding. Because I do think downtown's growing, there's a lot more investment than ever, and they're going to need more support going forward. Through the chair. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. I appreciate it. All right. And thank you, Mr. Gordon, for everything you've done for Jacksonville. Let's go to parking. All right. On page 98 is the Public Parking Fund, overseen by DIA. I do want to point out there were questions about the garages. The garages are actually under DIA's authority under the North Bank CRA, which is the next thing we'll get to. But they do oversee public parking. And so that parking includes parking lots on various streets we've got identified there for you. The garages that they do oversee in the Public Parking Fund is the Ed Ball Main Library, St. James Water Street, and Yates Buildings. They do have single-space parking meters scattered throughout downtown and then 38 multi-space parking meter kiosks for on-street parking. Within their revenues, $87,000 in permit fees is down slightly. This is for scooters and on-street parking placards, as well as wrecker and towing firm fees for vehicles that are left unattended for 24 hours. Charges for services, this is the biggest revenue in there, $4.6 million, a net increase of $490,000. That's due to an anticipated increase in monthly parking fees and special events parking fees based on what they're seeing in the current year. This also takes in the city's contribution for city employees of the 50% reduction in parking fees. Fines and forfeits of $472,000 is increasing. This is, I'm sorry, decreasing. This is a slight based on current trends. And then there is no transfer from fund balance this year. That last year's was related to the subsidy to the group health plan. Salaries of $1.8 million are increasing for the 3% salary increase, the one-time lump sum. And then there is an increase in part-time personnel costs. Pension costs are going up as a result of the salary increases. Professional and contractual services increasing slightly, almost doubling. This is a contract in maintenance services for downtown South Bank parking lots. Within the other operating expense line item of $1.1 million is a net increase of $287,000. This is due to new parking garage equipment and an increase of $100,000 for a citation management database. Used to track parking, citation payments, and then also manage their enforcement handheld devices. I mentioned transfer to other funds is indicative of the group health transfer last year, the subsidy. This fund does have 36 full-time positions. There are no changes to the employee cap, nothing on the capital outlay carry forward. There are no service level changes noted, and we have no recommendations. Councilman Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick question to the auditors. One, we know that downtown is really starting to come on to the development and the pipeline. The question I have is one that drives every morning, and I take a right on, I think it's Pearl Street, and then I have to make a left on church. And I see so many parking spots blocked by the development. Who's paying for those spots when they're blocked? Is that paid for by the taxpayers, or is that a part of DIA's package with the developers that, hey, this is revenue that the city could be capturing, and so we're adding it into it? Through the chair to Councilmember Freeman, normally when parking spots are taken out of service, the person who is requesting it to be taken out of service has to make payments to the city. I know exactly which development you're talking on, so I assume that's occurring, but I would defer to DIA in public parking as to whether or not that has occurred. Okay. Thank you so much. And so what I think I heard through the chair to the auditors is that we can't find that anywhere in our budget right now, or? No, no. They should be able to answer the question. So normally parking spots aren't taken out for what it feels like, because I come in that way as well, multiple years. Normally, whoever is asking those to be taken out, like when a bag is placed over or whatnot, there's a fee associated with that to account for that parking spot not being able to take in revenue. As it relates to that specific development, I would defer to DIA to make sure that that is what is occurring. Please. Your name and address. Peter Sherwell, public parking. Yes, that is correct, what the council auditor said, that fees are generated from the space to be taken offline. Through the chair, I would just like to hear the number. I mean, it just seems like, you know, that I'm all about the development coming downtown. I know change comes with a little bit of pain and a little sting, and there is, but, you know, parking is at a premium downtown. Downtown, so when these spots go, when they go offline, it's not because we don't have demand and people can use it. It's because we are giving space so that we can build a product, a developer can build a product that will bring more heads downtown. What is that number? Through the chair, I do not have that number offhand. Is there any way you can get that number for me on all the projects that we're doing and who's paying? I just want to know if we're basically paying for it ourselves as a city, which is a cost of doing business, or if the developers are chipping in and doing their part. Yeah, I think it's a mix of both, but I can get that information for you. Thank you. Councilman Johnson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Mine is just on deferred maintenance of those garages. One of the things I noticed through the chair was about the deferred maintenance in each of the garages. Is the parking revenue that we're getting or whatever sufficient for those things, and that life cycle replacement, what does that look like? Because I'm trying to project of what's needed for CIP in the future. Thank you. Through the chair, there is a project in the CIP for structural rehabilitation for the Water Street garage. Recently, in recent years, we just finished structural rehabilitation on the Ed Ball garage within the last 12 months. Yates was done within the last three to five years, and next on the cycle will be the Duval Street garage. So basically, it's already budgeted. Everything's taken care of. There really is no deferred maintenance. That's why I didn't see it anywhere. Yeah, currently, there's nothing deferred. Historically, there has been deferments where maintenance was not taken care of. Gotcha. Thank you. Councilman Repluso. Thank you, Chair. As we're just kind of talking about parking, one of the things that I've been wondering, especially with the JEA parking garage, right, I know that we just sold it to a developer at the moment, I think for a million bucks, but it's kind of just sitting there right now. Has there been any conversation about, you know, especially if we have other parking garages that we're doing work in, have we worked with the developer to say, can you make this either nearly free or as free as close to cheap as possible? Because I think a lot of residents still consistently say, you know, hey, parking is still a little bit of a premium in downtown. I think it would be great if we can really sort of highlight, if you're a Duval County resident, it's going to cost you only a couple bucks to park here. Like, I don't know what they're doing in that parking garage right now. And that's just kind of a thought that I've had through the Chair. I'm not aware of any conversations with the JEA garage. That's a great idea, though. All right. Let the record show. Councilman Repluso had a great idea. Are there any other questions on parking? If not, we are going to break for lunch at this time. We'll take a 30-minute lunch break and then start back up with Mr. Randolph right after. We are waiting on quorum, and then we'll get started as soon as additional finance committee members are up here. Good afternoon. And then we'll continue with the North Bank CRA Trust. I believe that's where we were. I misspoke. We're not quite to OED. We are still on the North Bank, then the South Bank CRA Trust, and then OED. I believe we're on page 101. Through the Chair, before we start, the North Bank CRA Trust, I did want to provide Council Member Freeman with an answer regarding off-street parking or taking meters offline. So, as part of the 26-27 budget, there is $100,000 budgeted for those parking meters coming offline. In the 25-26 budget, it was budgeted at $150,000. Year-to-date actuals have only been $35,000. But in 24-25, so looking back two years, there was $94,000 related to those parking meters coming offline. All right. Go ahead and move on to page 101, Mr. Peterson. All right. So, this is the Downtown North Bank CRA, which DIA oversees. This schedule is not in your – or I actually use this schedule. It's got more detail than what's included in your budget book. The Downtown North Bank CRA is made up of two separate CRAs. One's the Northside West. The other's the Downtown East. They have separate end dates, both ending in the early 2040s. And property tax revenue represents the dollars that come in above the base year in which the CRAs were established. And then I'm just going to hit a couple of notes along the way. You'll see in revenues the Adams Street Garage, Gorthouse Garage, Gorthouse Garage Tenant Lease, and Sports Complex Garage of NPS. Those are the items that I believe council members were asking about earlier. And Mr. Tarbert indicated that revenues are up. The four items combined are a $2.6 million revenue, which is a net $251,000 increase over the prior year. Total revenues within the CRA is $19.1 million. The reason being last year was budgeted for the 11 East and Carling loans to be paid off. Those were loans to Vestcor. Those loans did close Friday of last week. You probably saw that in the news. And that's the reason for the large drop year-over-year for the budget. Within expenditures, administrative expenditures has a supervision allocation of a little over $1.46 million. This represents the administrative costs of the CRA, which are allocated from DIA's general fund operations. You'll see within the financial obligations, there are a number of REV grants. All of those total, $3.9 million. Those are previously approved either through DIA itself under their authority or through council. That is a $1.1 million increase year-over-year. I will point out that the one Riverside development is budgeted to receive its first REV grant payment, as well as the RISE-DORO development. The reduction in the annual REV grant payment for Vista Brooklyn is due to a reduction in the taxable value. That facility was converted to partially affordable housing under the Live Local Act. And when that happens, their revenues go down, and therefore they get a reduction in their property taxes. Item L I'll draw your attention to, the Downtown Preservation and Revitalization Program, $3.5 million. Actually, items L and M were both one-time expenditures in last year's budget, and thus the reason they're not budgeted again this year. Within the MPS garages breakdown, all of those total $2.7 million, and is a reduction of $443,000 year-over-year. That represents the cost associated with the rent, utilities, repair, maintenance, insurance, and then the principal on those bonds that were used to acquire the properties, or to build the properties, rather, the garages. Under plan, authorized expenditures, capital projects, the McCoy's Creek Park CRA, this is $1.25 million that is being set aside for that park. That park will be at the One Riverside Development in Brooklyn on the North Bank. Additional funds will be needed to be appropriated in the future for construction of this park. Letter S is $4 million being set aside for the Riverfront Plaza Restaurant. DIA anticipates an $8 million CRA contribution, and any remainder of the project thereafter and cost overruns would be filled by the operator. The Liberty Street Improvements Project budgeted at $1.9 million. These funds are being used to create protected bike lanes and pedestrian improvements along Liberty Street. The miscellaneous grants item of $3.5 million is funding that DIA is proposing to set aside for a future possible obligation related to the Riverfront Plaza development. Pad B, you might recall where Gateway is supposed to come back to you for a development. But all of the council-approved development agreement said that all of the incentives would be paid out of the CRA, and so they are proposing to set that funding aside. And then last item is the unallocated plan, authorized expenditures, and that's just the budgeted revenues and excess of budget expenditures. They can be reallocated by the board at a future date. Ultimately, no service level changes. There are no employees in this fund, and we have no recommendations. Council President. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to ask either council auditors or Collin, will you alert council, entire council, when the city receives the repayment for 11 East and Carling? Please. Through the chair to Council President Howlin, alert. The city received it. The city has received the payment. Alerted. Thank you. You did exactly as I asked. I want to hail this as a win because, keep in mind, this was one of the original longer-term, lower-interest-rate loans for development downtown, and that's a mechanism that this council, over the last two or three years, has preferred to use rather than completion grants or cash grants. And there's a reason this council preferred to use it, and that's because even though we might be getting paid back at an interest rate which is lower than we probably could have made just having that money sit in a Marnie Market account, we're furthering an agreed objective in the case of Carling and 11 East, downtown housing. In the case of what we've recently done several places around the city, affordable housing. We always know we're, again, making less than what we could if we held on to it, but it's imperative for governments to use their money when they can to develop community objectives. And in this case, I wouldn't, you know, I'm generally looking disfavorably upon pulling anything out of the reserves for cash grants, but with the success that we just had getting repaid from Vest Corps on 11 East and Carling, I think we've stumbled on what I think is a pretty thoughtful and effective mechanism to support future initiatives through lower interest rate loans if we need to out of reserves. Thanks. Councilman Carlici, and then I have some questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That was something I was going to touch on because I knew that Mohamed Bacovic just bought those properties, and he's a new wonderful investment gentleman in Jacksonville from Indiana. And we should be welcoming him, and I know that I have, with open arms. He's got other investments he's going to do in Jacksonville. So, you know, when folks come to Jacksonville and they invest and they find places to live and they put down roots, we should be very, very thankful. And so would the recent purchase of those, would that have made these sheets look any different? Philip? Through the chair to Councilmember Carlici. Through the chair. No, sir. The DIA budgeted to receive those payments last year. I'm expecting it was pushed back from March, but those dollars were already reflected in last year's budget. I will note that the funding that they received from that is being set aside as part of the future Riverfront Plaza Pad B gateway development to be able to make that. But that would have changed what's in front of you. Okay. And then I had one other question, Mr. Chair. On the downtown preservation and revitalization program, is that the trust fund that was developed some 20-some-odd years ago? Through the chair to Councilmember Carlici. No, sir. That item was related to the two developments that are at the corner of Laura and Monroe Street for, I don't know the developer's name, but when that development got brought to city council, council had requested DIA to fund those developments out of their CRA dollars. And so that's what that program was. Okay. Now, the downtown historic and preservation trust fund that I'm referring to, is that still established, and is there any dollars in it? Through the chair to Councilmember Carlici, the trust fund is still out there. The last time we looked at if there was available dollars in there, it was very, very minimal, less than $100,000. Yeah. But it is still in existence. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. All right. I got a couple of questions, and I believe, Mr. Peterson, you can probably answer them. If not, we have the DIA CEO here. McCoy's Creek Park CRA item R. I always get nervous when I see the note that says additional funds will need to be appropriate in the future for construction. Would these be additional CRA funds? Through the chair, that's a great question. I believe that's the intent, but it doesn't stop DIA from asking for general fund dollars. Okay. Well, the DIA CEO is nodding yes, so I'm assuming that means the intent is CRA dollars on this part. Okay, great. And then let's see. My other one was on footnote V, and we kind of already touched on this. So 2025-319 was basically the Riverfront Plaza land swap. I believe there was a countdown that something had to be done by a certain date, and I feel like it's been a while since we've heard about this. Can I just get the one-minute update maybe from our CEO on where we stand with that deal? Check, check. Okay, there we go. Lean it in. In terms of the Riverfront Plaza, what we refer to as Pad B development site, that project is moving forward. I believe there's a deadline to submit some review documents for design to DIA, which they did do. We anticipate taking that project through the design review process in September, and hopefully through our board in September as well for review of the incentives. Our financial consultant is looking at the project right now. Great, and I believe that was the one that's also going to be 100% CRA funded, correct? That was part of the legislation? That's correct. Great. All right, thank you. We have no one else in the queue, so time for the South Bank. All right, the South Bank is on page 106 of your handouts. This CRA is set to end in 2041. Total ad valorem revenue of $7,458,748. That's the revenue collected above the base year value of 1980. There is a supervision allocation for DIA costs to this CRA of $464,000. Under the financial obligations, there's a number of REV grants there. They total $1.2 million, and that's an increase of $75,000 year over year. It does include the first anticipated REV grant related to the Artea multifamily development, and then the final anticipated REV grant payment related to the strand development. Under the plan authorized expenditures, Broadcast Place Park, $578,479, going towards a joint project with DIA and Parks and Recreation. The CRA's total contribution to this project is anticipated to be $3 million, and this should be the final contribution to get to that $3 million. This park will be located near the Artea development on the South Bank. The Flagler Avenue shared street development of $3.9 million brings total appropriations to $4.9 million for this project. The St. John's River Park restaurant project, $500,000. This will bring the total CRA appropriations towards this project of $3.75 million. This will be a restaurant on the South Bank, owned by the city, leased to an operator near Friendship Fountain. And then the last item is the draw your attention to is the planned authorized, unallocated planned authorized expenditures of $55,000 represents the balance of budget revenues in excess of budget expenditures. Ultimately, no service level changes, no employees in this fund, and no recommendations. Note in the queue, I do have one question, similar to my last question. When I look at Broadcast Place Park, I believe the note was the CRA will pay up to $3 million for it. Is that the price of the park, or is that just the CRA contribution? Through the chair to Councilman Merlain, that is the CRA's contribution towards the park. I believe the parks department, I think the number is $3.9 million, has already been appropriated in prior years towards this park. So we've approved it in prior years, and the CIP plus the CRA contribution gets us to a fully funded cost of completion right now? Through the chair to, or to the chair, yes, this should get us to cost of completion based on what they know now. And Mr. Parks just let me know that the city's parks contribution is $6.5 million. Okay, so it's going on a $10 million total park then. Okay, all right, but regardless, we've at least already funded it, and it's no new money. Okay, all right, no one else in the queue. Time to go all the way out to the beaches. All right, page 109 of your handout. There are two CRA's out in Jack's Beach. Total revenue between the two CRA's, $12,341,860. All of that gets contributed to Jack's Beach. The city collects it and sends it out to Jack's Beach. And then there's a small chart at the bottom of the table that just kind of shows the value, net revenue to the city from beach properties at $37.7 million. There's no recommendations that we have. And no one in the queue. All right, page 110 is a CRA that is overseen by the Office of Economic Development. This is the King's Sutel CRA, where the city council sits as the board for this. This CRA is set to expire in 2038. Has budgeted revenues of $5,447,093 above the 2008 base year. Draw your attention to the supervision allocation of $202,759. This represents the administrative costs of the CRA from the Office of Economic Development. Fifty percent of the CRA coordinator's position is budgeted, is allocated here. The position is budgeted in the Renew Arlington CRA. And then there is a rev grant that is scheduled to be paid out, $39,000. And then the remainder is put in the unallocated plan authorized expenditures of $5.5 million that will require the CRA board, which is the city council, for approval in the future. No service level changes, no employees in this fund, no recommendations. And no one in the queue. All right, that takes us to page 113. This is the Renew Arlington CRA. And this one is set to expire in 2035. This has a total property tax revenue of $3,070,854. And that's the value of the taxes above the 2015 base value. The position is budgeted here. The CRA coordinator position with, like I said, 50% allocated back to the King's Hotel CRA. That's the supervision allocation line of $119,393. That reflects, that's net of the cost allocated to the King's Hotel CRA. And there's also administrative costs from the Office of Economic Development. Infrastructure development grants for College Park at $400,000. And then the remaining revenues over expenditures in the unallocated plan authorized expenditures of $2.559 million. That will require future council approval. We do have a recommendation to remove the $400,000 for the College Park Incentive and increase that unallocated plan authorized expenditure. Last year included the final payment for that development. And so we do not need to budget for that. That will revise the CRA schedule that is included in the budget ordinance and on page 116. But it has no impact to special council contingency. I got motion in a second on the recommendation. I have no one in the queue. All those in favor of the recommendation say aye. Aye. Any opposed to say nay. The recommendation passes. Still no one in the queue. So time for the Office of Economic Development. All right. Through the chair, this is page 117 of your handout and page 233 of your budget book. The Office of Economic Development oversees the redevelopment at Cecil Commerce Center, the Northwest Economic Development Fund. As we just discussed, they provide staff support to the community redevelopment areas and then also includes the Jacksonville Film and Television Office and the Office of Equal Business Opportunity. Excuse me. They have zero dollars budgeted in revenue this year. That is related to JEA's prior contributions to the JSEB program. JEA has their own program. And since the agreement that outlined that contribution has now expired, JEA is no longer making that contribution. So a reduction of $66,000 in revenue. OED has a total expenditure budget of $3.3 million, which is an increase of $244,000 year over year. $2,035,000 of that is in salaries that are going up $70,000 due to the 3% salary increase as well as employee turnover and position changes that occurred during the year. That's partially offset by a decrease in part-time salaries. Within the professional and contractual services line of $628,000, that includes $240,000 for four JSEB entrepreneurship and workforce development centers within the city. There's one located at the main library, one off of Golf Fair, one in the Phoenix Arts District, and they have one at Cecil Field. There's $35,000 for the JSEB boot camp services agreement with UNF and $340,265 to bring the total JSEB funding, excluding salaries and benefits, to $750,000, which is a requirement of the ordinance code, of which a minimum of $200,000 shall be for training programs, community outreach, and program marketing. Within the other operating expenses line, there's a decrease of $12,050. Most of this is due to the elimination of OED's contribution to the Players' Championship. Grants, aids, and contributions budgeted flat at $208,000 is a grant to the UNF Small Business Development Center. And then they have supervision allocation that is allocated to the Cecil Commerce Center, the King's Hotel CRA, and Renew Arlington CRA. They do have one food and beverage expenditure request for $200 for coffee when they have meetings with business prospects. Ultimately, no service level changes. The employee cap is remaining flat at 19 positions and no recommendations. Councilman Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to, one, brag on this group. One of my last times to be able to talk more about economic development as I get ready to roll off to council. And also just put some things in the atmosphere for when I leave. Hopefully some things will still continue. One, the work that they're doing in trying to promote, you know, business and growth and small businesses, I really commend. But there was something that I put out in the atmosphere many years ago, which was connectivity. We always talk about the silos and connectivity in the aspect of workforce. And workforce has been something that I've been championing time and time again, year and year again. And I'm going to continue to champion it, God willing, as I continue ministry of service. And the continuity I'm saying is between what happens with KHA, with kids, what happens with public service grants, per se, and then what happens with JSEV or the EBO office. I'm never one for trying to grow government, not trying to do that. But if there are ways that we can find synergy. And I believe that it will happen. I don't care who gets the credit. But I do want to make sure that I put it out in the atmosphere so when you all hear, if it does come back later, that this is something that I was working on since 2019. And it's another thing that I think will add value. And it's going to take the right people and communicate it because I obviously was not able to communicate it in a way that it made sense. But just to give an example, and I'll close, when you go to the London Air Show and you're over there talking to a widget maker, and then they come back. And we know that the city partners with the chamber to do that, right? The chamber does a lot of the recruiting. And when they're sitting at that table talking about it, I'm saying that there should be somebody from workforce development, economic development, at that table as well, listening. And then coming back to the workforce ecosystem here in Duval County and say, we need widget makers. What organizations are doing widgets? And now we're going to create it so that when that company they recruit gets to Jacksonville, we already have cultivated a workforce that's ready to meet their needs and meet the demand. That's the void that I've learned has been present. That's what I have been in communication with others trying to move forward. And I really hope that at some point it does. And, again, it does not matter who gets the credit to me. Thank you. Councilman Johnson. We obviously haven't talked, but interesting that you say that. I want to say through the chair, thank you, Councilman Freeman. You have been a mentor to me since I've been here. Obviously, you being here longer than me. But small business has been something I'm passionate about. You'll be happy to know, thanks to Mr. Weinstein and the team over in the mayor's office, we sat down Monday? Was it Monday, I think? A couple days ago. But there is a plan to do exactly what you're talking about. The administration has been so generous. I came up with this plan to work with the office. And I had talked to Mr. Wallace over at Jack's USA Partnership, with Mr. Davis from the chamber itself, and working with the workforce office of innovation that's over at KHA right now, but to bring it home. So that'll be a part of it, to bring it home, to make sure that the businesses aren't just, that we aren't looking at businesses just for procurement prospects from the city of Jacksonville. But the research that I've done, and that's why I asked for that meeting, showed that there, and some of them are small moms and pops that are just consultants, but in total 66,000 businesses across our city, this would be a wraparound opportunity. So I'd like to thank you for the work that you have done in helping to create the JUMP program, creating other things. And regardless of who gets credit, you have been here. You have done the work. So thank you for that. And I'll let you know. I think we have a timeline, and I think Representative Weinstein brought it up, said, like, December. So we're going to hopefully have something on track by December where these businesses understand that we can truly make manifest the words that we will be the small business capital of the southeast. Thank you. Councilor Freeman. Through the chair of the councilman Johnson, thank you. That means a lot. I've always said it's about the kids. And the one thing we do in Jacksonville is we come together to get each other's backs. And so what this is going to do, I'm telling you, it's going, in my opinion, this is going to be a prototype that we will see from my conversations around the state and how much I talk workforce and sharing this idea. This is going to be something that we see others. This might be another thing that I champion as I continue to look in this ministry of service. So thank you for being able to get it across the finish line. I think we're about to do something big in northeast Florida and truly back up the words that we've been saying since 2019, you know, small business capital of the world, workforce capital, I think is coming. And I'm really, really, really excited that we as a council are coming together to do it with collaboration with the administration, with the individual officers. Because I've had talks with all of them sitting out there. And each one, and Brittany, I don't see her now, but I even spoke with her. I made sure I went down the line. And if any of them at one point said, bad idea, I'd have said, thank you. I'm a father of four daughters. I hear that every day in my life. And just keep moving forward. But not one of them said it was a bad idea. And that's why all these years I've just continued the conversation until the Ph.D. was able to put it into some good writing and language. Have a great one. All right. And with that, no one else in the queue on to page 119. Through the chair of the committee, page 119 is the CISO Commerce Center. It can be found on page 236 of your budget book. All revenues received or earned by the city from the development operation of CISO Commerce Center are deposited into this trust fund. This year, there's a budget of $10.1 million, which is an increase of $5 million year over year. Annual revenue is typically in excess of around $3 million. Under miscellaneous revenue of almost $12 million, this includes $10 million, $421,000. Well, there's a typo. How about we just stop at $421,000? Previously earned gain loss on sale of real estate. This is related to the sale of the mega site to Cosentino. The purpose was to be able to fund previously authorized debt for projects related to the development of the mega site. With these dollars, and that's what's occurring in this budget. Investment pool earnings are going up based on that increased cash balance within the fund. And then in the debt funding line, there's a removal of a $2.5 million in previously authorized debt associated with the infrastructure project at the mega site. To replace that funding with the cash now that it is in hand. Within the expenditures line item, professional and contractual services budgeted at $3 million. This is mostly for the building and property maintenance contract at Cecil Commerce Center. The decrease of $77,000 is due to the continued need for funding for roof repairs. Funding that was included last year of $927,000 was supposed to be a one-time expense, but there's a continued need. Economic incentives budgeted at $212,500. This is the second of two installments for the Boeing Infrastructure Grant. Supervision allocation receives a portion of the administrative cost of OED staff for the time they spend on activities related to Cecil Commerce Center. Transfers to other funds at $8.7 million, $5.6 of that is to replace debt funding for the Cecil Wetlands Project that originally was borrowing debt to mitigate the wetlands out at the mega site so that once the mega site sold, we would replenish that as a way of not having to come up with cash at the time. Same thing for the infrastructure improvements project at $2.5 million, replacing that debt funding. And then $1,827,000 is additional funding for the rail spur project that is going on at the mega site, bringing it off of the rail line that rides adjacent to I-10 down to the site development for Cosentino. These increases are offset by a reduction in funding for the logistics lane road extension project, which we'll have a recommendation next week when we get to the CIP as it relates to that. There's no service level changes, no positions in this fund, and we have no recommendations. I have one question, although the council president just hopped in. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Quick question for Philip. Do any of these transfers or investments or looking ahead to the capital line, for example, the wetland, the mega site, the rail spur, or the road extension, any of those go from Commerce Center into the airport side? Or are they all projects and expenses totally within the Commerce Center? Through the chair to Council President Howland, they're all within the Commerce Center on the north end of the Commerce Center. That was always deemed to be the most valuable piece of property, but related to our agreement with Hillwood, they weren't able to sell that until they had done certain things, and that occurred when we got to the Cosentino. But all of that development was what was needed to make the mega site functional, if you will, and it stops there. Okay. Then I'll probably ask again during CIP if there's any investments in the CIP on the city side that cross into the airport side. I'll ask that next week. Thanks. Mr. Peterson, I had one question. So yesterday we talked about all the different parks. Some fully pay for themselves. Some have a fairly large subsidy. So the Cecil Sports Complex, just reading the description of this, use for improvements, repairs, or maintenance costs of the city's facilities, would that be a possible use for this fund? And then my follow-up question, what is the actual fund balance of this fund? So through the chair, or to the chair, the parks-related Cecil Commerce activity is kept separate from the economic development side. The economic development side pays for itself. The park side, as we saw yesterday, has a heavy general fund contribution. I don't know that there's funding that could carry over, and I don't know that we have the fund balance. So before all this activity is $18.4 million, but that is because of the sale of the site, is in that it will go down once we've done all these activities to replace the debt that was issued. Okay, maybe we can just take that offline and just see if that would be a permittable use of that money. No notes in the queue? On to the medical examiner. All right, medical examiner is on page 121. The medical examiner provides assistance to Duval County, Nassau County, Clay County, the Department of Corrections of Union County, and then parts of Columbia and Hamilton counties. The charges for services is $1.9 million is their revenue, and it is reducing or decreasing by $177,000 based on forecasted projections, based on current trends. The fees that are charged by the medical examiner are set by city council, and the current fee structure is in place through September 30th of 2028. Within the expenditures budget of $7.9 million, an increase of $810,000 over the prior year, salaries are $4.4 million of that. Salaries are going up due to the 3% increase, and this is offset slightly by employee turnover. Employer-provided benefits related to the group health premium increases, as well as certain employee election changes regarding health coverage. The professional and contractual services line is a net increase of $172,000. This is due to a contractual increase in cost for their body transport contract, as well as their toxicology contract. Other operating expenses are increasing $171,000 due to increased maintenance costs at the new facility. Ultimately, no service level changes. Employee caps remaining flat at 38 positions, and we have no recommendations. Councilman Diamond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sure this budget is dead on, but I always like to just, I know, I can't help it. But I do want to take the chance to give the ME's office their laurels. Anybody who is up here during COVID or during the opioid crisis knows how important the medical examiner is. So thank you all for what you do. The leadership over there, as we all know, is really great. And I certainly appreciate what you do every day, because without you, we'd have a public health crisis on our hands. So thank you for everything. Councilman Boylan, do you have a joke? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure if this question is Mr. Weinstein or Mr. Peterson. Employer benefits, obviously a significant increase there. But I know there are some agencies, or maybe I should put in this form, what agencies are not enjoying the same benefit? For example, JHA, whose employees use our services as well, aren't seeing the city absorb those increase in costs, and those are going to be passed on to the employees. Are there other agencies besides JHA that are impacted adversely by this increase in the employment premiums, insurance premiums? Through the chair to Councilmember Boylan, it's the three, I think it's three entities that were discussed as part of the DOGE committees. CareerSource, I think, is one. Northeast Florida Regional Council, thank you, Councilmember Salem, and JHA. Well, the impact on JHA is dramatic. I know that for a fact. I can't speak to the other two, so I just wanted to bring that to the attention of the committee. Thank you. We'll go next to Councilmember Johnson. You recognize. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. My question, and I'm not sure if it comes to you or somebody from the Medical Examiner's Office, that new facility, are there any projected savings? That's something I didn't see. Is there something because of the difference of the facility? Is there anybody that can speak to, should we, although those funds were put out and it isn't a sizable expense, is there something that we should say, hey, we're going to realize this because this new facility is there? Thank you. Through the chair to Councilmember Johnson, I would ultimately defer to someone from the Medical Examiner's Office, but I believe due to the size of the facility compared to the size of the prior facility, we're only seeing increased costs. Now, that could be factored into the rates that would be adopted at a future time, but as for now, I believe we're only seeing increased costs. I have that rate again at, through the chair, 2028. We'll revisit the rate in 2028, correct? The Council will. Well, I don't know if you can revisit it sooner. I'd have to go back and look at that. The current rates are set for a five-year period that would expire September 30th of 28th. I don't know if they can be revisited sooner. That's something we can look into. Got you. Thank you. I'll be in touch. We'll go next to Pastor President Freeman. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I just want to go on record as well, thanking the ME's office for the work that they do. I heard Councilman Diamond sharing it, and if you haven't had a chance to go and visit it, I strongly encourage you to do it. If you're like me, you're not going to want to go back. But I did go to the new one, and I've gone to the old one. I stayed quiet during most of the discussions because I understood the frustrations of the community. But once you go visit, you'll understand the value of what they're doing because in their original spot, I asked the question, why do you have bulletproof glass here? And I know many of you are like me. You walk in, and you notice certain things, and you just ask. The filter doesn't catch it. And when they told me that in some cases, if somebody's looking to retaliate, they know that where the friends and family are going to identify someone makes them a soft target. And so you look at the construction of this space now and the barriers that it places between bad actors trying to retaliate and the families that are trying to have, as I say, with dignity, say their last goodbyes to a loved one. I'm completely supportive of it. I did have one question through the chair to anybody that might be able to answer it. But when JSO put this ad out for new positions with, I guess, going out on the field and taking pictures, I heard that it might have affected the staffing there. Have they found ways to address that issue? Is that going to be a conversation late? I know in Mr. Lean's budget, I get all of that. But this is another reason why I say sometimes I'm not for that flat across-the-board cut because in some areas, some people may need it, where others, we could probably reduce it. But through the chair to whoever can answer that, I would just let them know if they were able to replace them. Through the chair, if that's okay. Poaching that goes from one part of our city government to another is a major issue. It happens all the time. And JSO took maybe seven, eight, or nine of the forensic investigators or the investigators for ME, took them over to JSO, then allowed JSO officers to get back on the street. And the medical examiner, every time there's a vacancy to be filled in our executive branch, they end up with me because we're trying to keep our numbers down. And they have, in fact, been filling them. But they took them all basically at one fell swoop. But they have been absolutely been filling them up. All right. Seeing no one else, Q, I'll just make one comment before we move on. I've also visited the new location. And obviously with a lot of public concerns, I wanted to see and see, smell, everything for myself. And I'll tell you, I'm quite impressed with the facility, quite impressed with the staff. I think we're very fortunate to have the people we have there taking care of us. And I think that facility will serve the city well for many years in the future because of how it's designed. And I know there's a debate on the location, but the facility is impressive as can be. And if you haven't toured it, I would recommend you do so. Then you can actually separate back from things that might be said that may not totally be true. And be able to meet the great people and see the process. And this location, not the location, the actual facility, so much better. They had reefer trucks all over the place, not even part of the building itself. I mean, it was just a terrible situation. And hats off to all those people who all those years worked in that less than adequate facility and stuck it out. And now they have a facility, there's not only, you know, one that they can be effective and efficient in, but also is better for our employees as well. So that's all I have to say on that. And we can move on to the next one. All right. Through the chair to the committee, we're on page 123 of the handout. This is the Duval County Health Department, can be found on page 152 of your budget book. The Duval County Health Department receives its funding from the state, the city, and from county fees for vital statistics, communicable diseases, primary care, environmental health. The expenditure budget of $2,062,241 is $694,000 of that as an internal service charges, which are increasing $46,000 due to an increase in the building cost allocation for the Ed Ball building due to an increase in the space offset partly by decrease in building maintenance costs citywide. Security is provided at two locations for the Duval County Health Department, at their health department and at the West Jacks Family Health Center. Grants Aids and Contributions Line, $1,305,535 is increasing $100,000 year over year to fund two part-time obstetric and gynecologic service providers. In the primary clinic, you can see a table of the four programs that the city provides funding to right there, totaling the $1.3 million. The additional services being provided are a service level change. There are no city-funded positions in this area and no recommendations. Councilor Diamond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just another shout-out to another department. I don't think it's enough credit, but the Duval County Health Department does critical work, again, protecting public health. I'm no surprised that the work that always strikes me as important that people don't talk enough about is the effort to prevent STDs and all the work for AIDS and HIV in Jacksonville. So I appreciate everything you all do. Thanks. Council, or I'm sorry, Council President. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I might be a little bit off of my numbers, but I just want to note some things. This council fully funds public health and indigent care. If you add $56 million for UF Health, I want to say $26 million in the CIP that's going to UF Health, $23 million for obligated Medicaid payments, $1.3 million, $2 million for Wolfson's, and here $1.3 million in public health. We're well over $100 million. So we contribute, and it would be unfair for anyone to say we don't. We contribute generously to public health in the city of Jacksonville. Thanks. Council Member Carlucci. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And in addition, though, I would like to say when it comes to public health, and I think this needs to be said in all due respect, if you're a young family and you're in between jobs and you're facing tough times or maybe you just don't have a lot of money and you don't have health insurance and you have children and one of them's got strep throat, bad cold, do you want to take that child to UF Shands emergency room or do you want to take that child or would you want to take advantage of a telehealth and go to a clinic where you can get some clinical care in a nicer environment and it doesn't cost as much and it doesn't cost the taxpayer as much, and I just think that needs to be said because I've been to UF Shands with a family member that went there and I said, look, you don't need to go here. There's another place that you can go. So, yeah, we put a lot of money in health care, and I fully respect that. But it's not just that. It's not just throwing money at something. It's about putting ourselves in the position of a young family and where we would want to take our children or our parent or a friend and to get the best care that they can get. And that's why telehealth is so important, and that's why these clinics are so important. And that's what concerns me when we just cut those dollars because it's not that much money in the big scheme of things, but it lends itself to a higher quality of care and a more dignified type of care. So I just ask you, when we get closer to the budget, think about that and put yourself in those shoes and walk around them in a little bit as if you were in that kind of position. Thank you. Okay, and let's just get the record straight, though. The Finance Committee has fully funded all of the mayor's proposals for safety net clinics. We also fully funded Telescope with half below the line. So let's just make that clear what the Finance Committee has done. But there may be, Mr. Chair, I don't mean to interrupt, but we have put half of that below the line, and there may be an amendment to put that above the line because it's not that much. And I'd like to see all of that restored. And we did leave the clinics alone, and that was in part thanks to you, sir, and I appreciate that. But by the same token, when we get to the budget like we did last year, then all of a sudden everybody wants to start cutting everything. You can't cut yourself to a great city, and you can't cut yourself to the quality of life of our families. So, look, I'm just throwing it out there because I've been there, and I have a heart for people that need to have access to something better than just going to an emergency room that's kind of gloomy and you have to wait and wait and wait and wait. And I think we need to think about that, and I hope we don't have a raid on these health care projects as we get closer to the budget. And I thank you for making that clarification. Councilman Johnson, is it on the Duval County Health Department's budget? Dr. Nichols, is he here? Hey, thank you. My question, thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to ask about the, there's this, and one of the notes I took as I was going through the budget was about the, and again, and I want to start out by saying this before I start getting to the questions. Thank you for the work that you do. I echo the sentiments of my colleagues. When something is needed, especially when it comes to a public health crisis, our health department is there. I know I was trying to do some stuff when I started, and specifically you helped me to navigate me in the direction that would help for the constituents in my district. So we owe the department a very big debt of gratitude for that. I wanted to talk about OBGYNs. That was a question that had come up with maternal health outcomes as well as prenatal care and OBGYN. There is a demand that exists in a program that has come up that would help us to increase the numbers of those doctors that are servicing those patients. Can you talk to me a bit about that as well as does this satisfy that need? And if not, what are the other needs that could be satisfied so that we can make sure that these outcomes for our youngest citizens are taken care of? Yes. It's a great question. Thank you. Through the chair to Councilman Johnson. I think that initiative runs complementary to what we're doing at the county health department. What we have seen in our community that there is a great need for maternity care. There are a lot of mothers who are out there not receiving proper maternity care. And by that, it continues to weigh on the low birth outcomes for our community. And so the dollars that we're asking for specifically in our budget is to account for the increase of those mothers who are coming through our doors so that we can assure that they do receive proper prenatal care. And the other initiative, I think, runs complementary to that as it increases the access and availability of more OBs within our community to meet the demand. But this will help, the funds that you've requested here will help augment that, what we're doing, what is being done. About other providers, too. Obviously, the health care providers, the Baptist, the Mayo, the other providers in the city. But this will help to augment that, correct? That is correct. Gotcha. I've got it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for your service. All right. Thank you. And I did want to make a couple other comments, too. Again, if you're keeping track, the mayor submitted a budget with a bunch of similar items as last year. The finance committee has approved everything, including a $2 million plus up for Wolfson's, which I think is a good business case. We're going to get hard dollars back. This budget here has $100,000 extra versus last year. It's essentially an enhancement that we're going to keep in the budget, it looks like. So, again, the only tweak we have made for anything medical related is we've put half a telescope health below the line of the $1.5 million. So, I just wanted to clarify what we have done as a finance committee on what the mayor submitted as far as different medical area line items. So, with that, no one else in the queue? I believe we're going to go back to medical examiners. Correct, Mr. Peterson? Yes, sir. Through the chair, able to answer Council Member Johnson's question about the raising of fees. I've spoken with a medical examiner. They have representatives here. The city can raise those fees any time before June 30th of any year. So, if you wanted to do it, it needs to be in place prior to the beginning of the state year, essentially. And, Mr. Peterson, we have no action to take going back to that. Okay. All right. Well, I see a lot of folks from the Neighborhoods Department out there. So, it's time to go to them. Mr. Peterson? All right. Page 124 of your handout and page 179 of your budget book. The Neighborhoods Department includes Municipal Code Compliance, Housing and Community Development, Mosquito Control, and the Office of the Director. They also oversee the Blight Awareness Campaign and the Office of Neighborhood Services. They have revenue of $350,000. The miscellaneous revenue item is increasing $9,000 to better align with recent trends. This is related to inspection fees in the Municipal Code and Compliance Division. A total expenditure budget of $12.3 million, which is ultimately only an increase of $52,000 year-over-year. Salaries represent $5.9 million. The net increase of $72,000 is related to the 3% increase, the one-time lump sum payments. And then these increases were offset by the net effect of employee turnover and other position changes within the department. Employee-provided benefits are going up for the group health premiums. Internal service charges are increasing due to increased OGC legal charges usage, $114,000 in IT computer systems maintenance and security costs, and a change and a decrease, I apologize, of $132,000 due to an overall decrease in Ed Ball building costs. Professional and contractual services, budget at $370,000 is a net decrease of almost $54,000 to align with current year trends. The department has stated that staffing issues has caused there to be workflow issues due to insufficient staffing and changes in leadership and Municipal Code, but they do hope that the staffing is actively being addressed and the usage is expected to increase in 26-27. Within the grants aids and contributions line, budget at $400,000, the decrease of $900,000 is last year's budget included the one-time funding for the local capital stack development program. You'll see a divisional summary broken out on page 125 for you of their four divisions. Flipping to page 126, they have a number of food and beverage items, all of them total up to $8,500. Ultimately, no cap, employee cap changes. There's 101 full-time positions. The service level change noted is the decrease of local capital stack funding of $900,000 being removed, and then no recommendations. Councilman Diamond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is the only place where I think this is the right place to talk about this, but it's just a little odd issue that I think the council should give cover for the administration to fix, which is to say Al Ferraro was put up for a job several years ago. If I had not been on deployment, I would have voted for him to get it. Now he's shown really good work for the city. I think everybody has been lauding him. And he's kind of slotted into a position, but he's not even paid for it properly. And I don't know what needs to happen, but I would just like the administration to know whatever it takes to, like, clear the air there and get him where he ought to be. I personally, I can only speak for Rory, would support that because it just seems like he's earned it. Everywhere I go, people are saying what a great job he's doing. Mr. Weinstein, I believe he's acting director of administrative services. Is that correct? Okay. But I would echo those comments. I didn't really know Mr. Ferraro until the past year because there was kind of that two-year period. He has been great for what he has done to my district, and so would probably back that as well. And I would just, sorry to interrupt you, sir. I would just say, you know, let bygones be bygones. Like, that election was a long time ago. I have no idea what happened a couple years ago. I don't actually care. I just, like, he's doing a good job. Let's just treat him with some respect. Okay. I know Mr. Weinstein is hearing that support. Do you want to add something, Mr. Weinstein? Just to let the council know what our plans are. Basically, when it was set up through council, it was set up as an office rather than a department. We're coming to you with an ordinance that Mary's working on for us, as a matter of fact, to make administrative services just like all other departments, where you would confirm the director just like you do for all other departments. The office that was set up didn't have you confirming. But we're going to change that and make it like all other departments. Councilman Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And for those who know me now and they've learned how I operate, I like to have those meetings behind closed doors. And I shared that same sentiment in my meeting with Mr. Inderhees and Mr. Smith a couple days ago. Although I will proudly say I was there and I will gladly share my thoughts. Back then, I did say back then, give me a year and come back and we'll be able to move everything forward. I know you were off in deployment, so you probably missed that part of that. So I want to make sure that this is not an indictment of my colleagues on here who, in the moments right after a very tough period, were facing some very challenging opportunities to make decisions on confirmations or not. To your point, a lot of time has elapsed. And more importantly, as I keep saying, we can get in the arena and we can battle it out. But at the end, when we get up here, we're working for the people and we're all one team, period. And I've seen the work as soon as he started, especially in Arlington, where my first home was and where I do a lot of my life still. I saw a lot of those things done. So there is no doubt in my mind that he's going to be able to do whatever role they put before us. Now it's our job to do whatever it takes to support that. And that's what I'm here for and that's what I shared in that meeting. Thank you. Council President and then Council Member Gay. I was just going to say, Mr. Chair, it sounds like if the rule chair were to assign the Ferrero legislation to finance, it'd be an easy sell. I really appreciate the spirit of collaboration. Thanks. And again, I just want to clarify that Mr. Waters is the head of the Neighborhoods Department. So we've kind of gone off onto a straight path here, but it sounds like Mr. Ferrero would have near unanimous support if something was to come before us for that. So with that, Council Member Gay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wouldn't want to miss an opportunity to express my full confidence in Al and just the tremendous duty he's been, service he's been doing for us district council members. I mean, the amount of blight that's out there and the homeless and issues that we face in our districts, he's really pulled a lot of service for us there to help with that. And I appreciate everyone's vote of confidence in him and in this new role that they're created. I think it'll be tremendous for the city in a whole. So thank you. This meeting is going better than Mr. Waters ever could have imagined. Council Member Salem. Thank you, Chair. I was president when all this occurred and remember it very well. I can give you all the details, but that's three plus years ago and let's don't go back. I did pursue this when I heard what had occurred and Mr. Ferraro, as I understand it from the administration, is titled Senior Operations Administrator in his present position because, as Mr. Weinstein said, it is not a department. It's an office, it's an office, and that was part of the compromise three and a half years ago when they went through a reorg that I remember very well. I'm told he got a significant raise at the time he was put into that position, so it appears like he's been treated pretty fairly from what I can determine because I asked all those questions having been intimately involved the first time. So, and I agree with what everyone said. He's done a great job. He's been very responsive any time you've called him on any blight issue that's occurred. And I don't know who's doing blight now. That would be my question, but I guess we'll get to that. Thank you. Mr. Carlucci. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I totally concur. He has gone above and beyond with his job. I get his text of every district that he works on and that he helps. I get pictures of what he's cleaned up. I mean, he is so thorough. So, I have developed a wonderful relationship and friendship with Al Ferraro. He's just one of the – he's a great American. That's what he is. And I truly love this guy. And just a little passing observation. Perhaps if we had left the mayor $500,000 instead of cutting it, she might have had a little wiggle room to do a little something to give him a raise. Thank you. And again, we cut $247,000 from the proposal to keep it flat with the city council's growth rate year over year on an expense basis. There was not a $500,000 cut in the mayor's budget. I stand correct at $247,000, but the mayor has different responsibilities than we do. She's administrative. We're legislative. She has people like this that she could give raises to. We don't, Mr. Chairman. With that, O'Nell's in the queue. Mr. Waters, we also like you and your department. I hope you have a great weekend. Next. Through the chair. We're not done with neighborhoods. There are other funds that fall within neighborhoods. But we can talk about other things as well. So this is mosquito control. Mr. Peterson, Council Member Johnson just got in the queue. I'm going to go to Council Member Johnson, and then we'll go back to Mr. Peterson. For some reason, I was in there, Mr. Chair. I don't know. But nevertheless, I was going to say, one of the things that we didn't, and I know we do have some funds to talk about, but I do want to recognize the neighborhoods department because of the CPACs. I know I've spent a lot of time with CPACs, Mr. Waters, and the code enforcement team, which we'll get to later, but all of them have been extremely responsive and helpful. And while I certainly understand that that's not our reason for just being here, and I did go through that, and I will have some questions when it comes to a few things as it relates to some of those other funds that Mr. Peterson will describe, I just wanted to give kudos to all of you from the neighborhoods department right now. I know there have been some major challenges in District 14, specifically across the city, but specifically in 14, and any time I call, they're there. And I really appreciate you, especially, Mr. Waters, just even in the evenings, if it's late, sometimes we don't get out of L-U-Z until late, you're there to answer, and I appreciate that. Thank you. All right, Mr. Peterson. All right, page 128 is our mosquito control state fund. This fund only represents the state funding received by mosquito control. And they're required annually to budget prior year unexpended state funds. They did that earlier this year through Ordinance 2026-225. Revenue budget at $65,000 is the, the majority of that is the estimated revenue from the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services. There's a small amount of investment pool earnings. And the other operating expenses of $65,000 is the appropriation of those dollars. Most of this goes to operating supplies with a small offset in miscellaneous services and charges. Ultimately, no service level changes, no positions in this fund, and no recommendations. And I have no one in the queue. All right. Page 129 is the Jacksonville Housing Finance Authority. This is, the explanations for this budget are on pages 130 and 131. JHFA provides funds to support development of housing for low to moderate income families through the issuance of tax-exempt bonds. Only, only enough revenue is budgeted to cover their administrative operating budget pursuant to chapter 52 of our ordinance code. So, within revenues, there's bond issuer fees of $396,903. This is anticipated bond revenue needed to cover the administrative budget. Professional services has a budget of $270,200. The JHFA does not have any employees and relies solely on contracted labor. They do have an interlocal agreement with the housing division to pay for, to pay the city for services that are rendered. There is an internal service allocation computer systems maintenance budget, but we have a recommendation. They do not utilize any city-assigned systems or technology. And then banking service charges. This represents the housing authority paying to its commercial bank partner. We have a recommendation to increase that amount. There is $20,000 set aside for the Sadowski Education Fund, which is an annual contribution at the state level to educate and lobby for Duval County and directly impacts the appropriation of SHIP funding. There are no service level changes, no employees in this fund. Our recommendations are to amend schedule end of the budget ordinance, schedule in of the budget ordinance to remove that computer system maintenance security allocation and to reduce the bond issuer fees by the same amount since this area does not utilize the city's services. And then also to increase the bank service charges by $3,000 up to $9,720 to better align with actuals, the change will have an offsetting decrease in miscellaneous services and charges of that same $3,000. Ultimately, no impact of special counsel contingency and the revised schedule is on page 132. I got a motion second on the two auditor recommendations. With knowing the queue, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed to say nay? The two auditor recommendations pass. And I have knowing the queue, so we can forge ahead. All right. And that completes the Neighborhoods Department. Page 133 is the... Thank you, Mr. Waters and team. Page 133 is the Office of Ethics, Compliance, and Oversight. This is in the general fund. It can be found on page 240 of your budget book. Revenues of $40,235 are going down $14,870. The ethics department or ethics office receives revenue from various independent authorities for the ethics training they provide. The decrease is mainly due to a request from JEA for a reduction in the amount they contribute. Which is partially offset by slight increases in other independent authorities. JEA's reduction will align them with the other independent authorities' amounts that are paid. Within salaries, there's a budget of $505,000. There's a net increase for the 3% salary increase. And that's offset some by employee turnover. Employer-provided benefits is for the planned increase in the group health premiums, as well as the employee turnover and changes in elections by employees. No service level changes. There are three positions in this fund. No change to the employee cap and no recommendations. Okay, now in the queue, Kirby, Council Member Diamond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to, again, cheer on Kirby for all the work she does. We've been keeping you busier than normal lately, unfortunately. So thank you for everything you do. And I'll keep on cheering on our ethics department. And is your chair gone? She's still here? She's here. She's not the chair. But thank you very much, Council Member Diamond, for recognizing her. Through the chair, I just wanted to thank Chief Beckham, who is a member of the Ethics Commission, one of our newest members chosen by the Ethics Commission through an application process. And she's retired from the Air National Guard. And she has taken a really keen interest in the work of the commission. And she has supported us in many, many ways. She's attended some of our trainings and done after-action memos, which I didn't know were a thing. But she tells me it's a thing in the military. And they've been really well, and to provide feedback to our trainings. So many thanks to Chief Beckham for your support. And next to Chief Beckham is Andre Mahone, the new ethics attorney that I believe most of you all may have met during the training. So thank you so much. Thank you. And we've got a lot of people in the queue. I'm going to start off with the Council President. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I just want to say to Kirby, the few times that I call you on questions, you are so responsive. It doesn't matter when it is, what day of the week it is, you get back quickly. I really appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you so much. Council Member Johnson and then Freeman, then Carlucci. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. And I echo the same sentiments, Ms. Oberdorfer. I appreciate the fact, not even what day of the week it is, but what time of day it is, she will always answer. And so I'm thankful for that. And because you got such a great introduction, Mr. Mahone, I will not bore you with asking you your opinion on the Salem Amendment. Since you're already here now, I won't haze you in that way. That's our little trick in L-U-Z. It's named after you, Council Member Salem. But that's why you don't know about the Salem Amendment. He created the Salem Amendment. Yeah, yeah. So my question, how many do you know off the top of your head the cases that you've heard this year? I know there were obviously some changes on the state level, which brought about some changes to your office. What would you say is the number of cases that you heard that you had to issue an opinion on from your office this year, number-wise? Okay. Thank you, through the chair to Council Member Johnson. So we, our office functions separately from the Ethics Commission, and so we don't handle cases, so to speak. We handle inquiries on guidance. We have a proactive function that we serve it to provide guidance and training to the officials. And last year, that was about 520 or so, 550 inquiries. And I don't have the numbers off the top of my head for this year, but I'm happy to give that to you. In terms of complaints, in case that might have been what you were asking about, no, okay. Those come into the Ethics Commission through our office, and just so that you know, we've had four so far this year. Council Member Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through the chair to Ms. Obendorfer. I'm sure you're glad that I wasn't one of those four this year. So, but I've had my fair opportunities. But I'll just say this. As one of our second-term council members and someone who, I still say this, I hope it doesn't anger him or upset him, but was the first person that I ever spoke to when I was considering coming into the space of public service, Matt Carlucci. If you, as an elected official, run your bills or your thoughts by auditors, OGC, and ethics, I'm telling you, if you've got a good bill, you're going to find yourself being able to work it through the process. And I want to thank you for always being willing to sit down and talk with me anytime I've called, regardless of the time, weekends, during the week, and advocate on my behalf. I know I didn't always feel that way, and I probably didn't always respond that way, but I know that you have a tough job. You all have a tough job, and it's not to tell us what we want to hear. It's to tell us what protects the city and what protects us. So I'm a huge supporter of it, a huge advocate, and will continue to encourage my colleagues to leverage your office. Thank you so much. Councilman Carlucci. It would be like sin, Mr. Chairman, if I didn't say anything nice about the Office of Ethics and Kirby Orbidorfer. You have continued a line of excellence in leadership in that office. So I thank you for what you do, and just like everybody else has shared here, you call us anytime, and you are intuitive. When you see maybe me not thinking about something I should be thinking about, you call, say, Hey, Councilman Carlucci, I think maybe you should think about this. Oh, okay, I will. Thank you. And I'm not sure how many of you all know just how much continuing ed that they do for how many agencies, authorities, and so forth in our city government. It is astounding. It is just absolutely astounding. And I'm just so proud of what the Office of Ethics has become. I'm disappointed in the legislature with how they made some very detrimental changes. And I'm in hopes that Senator Gates, perhaps when I'm out of the council, I would like to talk to him and see if maybe he can restore to the Ethics Commission statewide the powers that they used to have before a certain senator took them away. But I also want to say one other thing that's very important is Kirby's relationship with the Florida Commission on Ethics. It's very close, and it's very tight. She has great relationships there, and she works closely with them to make sure that the things that she's thinking and the things that they are thinking, they're on the same page of the hymnal. And they always are, and they make sure that they are. And that way you know you are on double safe ground, and I just appreciate you, and I hope you don't retire for a long, long time and stay put right where you're at. And I love you, and I appreciate you. Thank you so much. And you come from a wonderful, dear family. All right. I'll see if Council Member Miller can top that. Well, Mr. Chair, through the chair, yeah, I'll keep the love parade going here. But, you know, I think your office, Ms. Oberdorfer, Kirby, and the next one coming up are obviously near and dear to my heart based on my background. But also because I think it's important we recognize the folks who are there to help keep us straight. And anyone who would say when they step over a line willingly that I didn't know, I'm sorry. They have every opportunity, we have every opportunity to go to you before we make that call, before we make that decision, before we step over that line. And I'm glad I don't have to pay you for all the times that we interact because I'd probably be paying more than anyone else. But I just really appreciate, like others have said, and even when I tell you, don't handle this tonight, don't do this this weekend, wait till next week, you don't listen to me. That's the one thing, you know, maybe I would ask you to do that. You have a personal life too, so maybe I should keep some of those till the following week or the following day. Maybe that's my lesson learned. But thank you for being so professional, so responsive, so thorough. Everything you and your team have provided me over these last three plus years has been spot on. And so I appreciate you all for what you do and how you help us make the right decisions before we make the decisions so that we don't have to get other involvement after the fact. So thank you so much for all you do. Thank you. All right. And Kirby, I can't possibly echo everyone as good as they already said, but thank you. You are always so quick to respond with any question I have. I did want to also mention, last week Kirby reached out to me, and I imagine she reached out to some of you as well, asking for input on what we'd like to see in their annual report. So if there's any sort of data or reports that you think would be useful, please go directly to Ms. Kirby and give her that feedback. And have a good weekend. Thank you so much, and not to belabor, and thank you all so very much for your proactiveness and your continued support of the ethics office. It has been fundamental. The reason the city has an independent ethics office is because of you and your brethren before you. And we would not be in the posture that we were today, and I would be remiss if I didn't thank our outgoing council members that I won't see again at another budget for all the support and all of the feedback and everything that you've done. I won't forget about you, Council Member Diamond. I promise. But I just, I wanted to make sure I took an opportunity to say all that because it's a true collaboration, and it's for the betterment of the city and for the betterment of the citizens. So thank you all very much. Thank you. All right. We have one more group to go, and then I got a couple amendments going back to day one, and then we are ready for the weekend as well. So let's go with the Office of Inspector General. All right. Page 134 of your handout and page 270 of your budget book. The Inspector General has revenue of $153,000. This represents contributions from J-A-A-E-A-H-A-P-A-T-A and P-F-P-F based on memorandum of understandings they have with each of those agencies. The current MOUs expire at the end of this fiscal year, but they are working on it to get new MOUs executed. Salaries are budgeted at $1.167 million. That's an increase of almost $19,000 due to the 3% salary increase. However, reorganizational changes of unfunding one full-time position and using that funding for two part-time positions has offset some of the increase. Pension costs are decreasing due to the change in staffing mentioned above. Internal service charges are increasing almost $30,000 related to reallocation of IT costs. A decrease in OGC costs and a decrease in fleet vehicle replacement due to paying off of one of the two vehicles that they have. Ultimately, no service level changes. The employee cap changes. There is one less full-time position funded, but not taking away the position and an increase in the part-time hours of $2,080. We have no recommendations. Thank you. Councilman Diamond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I get to say all these great things. I'm such a critic of government generally, and I love it when I get to highlight the awesome people. The IG's office, Matt, you guys are killing it. You guys are just tremendous. And literally, I think maybe the most important function of government is to keep an eye on government. And, you know, you took this spot a couple years ago. It was an absolute mess. I had lost complete faith in the office. And just great leadership. Thank you for everything you've done. Please keep on kicking. And don't let anybody up here ever kick you off the path. Not that we could if we wanted to. Thanks, sir. Council Member Miller, then Salem. He couldn't help himself. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the chair, Mr. LaSalle, I'll just echo what my colleague said. You and your team have done an absolutely excellent job. And in my opinion, you're on track, and you're doing the things that your people in your office are supposed to be doing. And you're an independent entity, and you're working for the taxpayer, not for us, not for the administration. And that's clear. And because of that, and because you lead them in that way, it's paying off real dividends for our city, improving our systems, our processes, saving taxpayer dollars. And we've seen it over and over and over again because of your efforts. And so we thank you. There's a lot more I could say, but we're near the end of our day. So the only thing I will ask you, though, you sent out an email to us recently, to the body recently, about combining two positions. And then with the intent, if that's okay, combining those salaries, to go out and try to find someone. I mean, I would say, and I know that it's with the experience and the skills, knowledge, and abilities to be able to address and go deeper into, and I would say forensic, but I know some people think that's finding, you know, finding something in a civil or legal wrong kind of way. And that's not what we're talking about here. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I agree with you wholeheartedly and believe we need that capability that your office is, I think, more limited in their ability to go down deeper and say, did they make good decisions? Did they use the money as they could have and should have to make maximum use out of that money, not just were they allowed to use the money the way they did? You know, was it okay what they did? You're helping in the improvement and effectiveness enhancement if you bring someone in with even more of that capability, especially in the accounting, auditing side of the house. And so I'm in full agreement with what you've proposed. However, I mean, I was getting ready to fight, and I don't know what my colleagues think. I believe you could use one or two more people as well. But I know we're in a situation right now, and we've been going through this, where we've got to be real tight on our dollars, and you've recognized that. And so I'm a little torn right now. I'd like to see you not only do what you said, but also add one to two more people so that we can do all those things I said earlier that you guys have actually proven. And you've earned more than earned your money for this city, and I'd like to see more of that, more probing, more helping us improve in our processes and systems, et cetera. So I'm a little torn. I'll just wait, but I certainly support what you've proposed as far as combining those two salaries and getting that enhanced capability for our city. So I'll just leave it there right now and see what our colleagues have to say. Councilman Salem, and he is the last one in the queue. Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me. I didn't say anything when Kirby was up. I love you, Kirby, but I wanted to emphasize what I'm getting ready to say. I view the Inspector General with police and fire. This team inspects us, as he has shown. He inspects the administration and the authorities. We should show the public that he is fully funded to do whatever he needs to do to make sure we're all doing the right thing. When I say all of us, I mean the entire government. And I know at one point he asked for a couple of extra positions. I personally would have supported that. He's made some changes that I hope don't hurt us in terms of inspections. But if he should come back to us middle of the year, whenever it is, and says this isn't working and I need more help, we should respond as a council to support whatever he needs. Because I think it sends a message that we're all trying to, we want to be all doing the right thing, all of us, and he's the one that watches over us. So if he thinks this is the way to go, I got your email, that's fine. But I agree with Councilmember Miller that if he determines he needs other positions, I'd put this at the top of the food chain, personally, because of what he does. Thank you. Thank you. Sir, did you want to make any comments in response to either of those? Yes, through the chair to the entire committee, thank you very much for your support. I think it's important to note that right now we're pretty gainfully employed as you see our output. I mean, we're constantly churning and burning in terms of trying to find efficiencies in the city. If I had more bodies, I could probably articulate or argue that we could do more. But where we're at right now in terms of budget dollars, I don't want to take away from the core services that are being used right now for city dollars to bolster the office. To Councilman Salem's point, if during the course of the year we find that we're in a position where we need expertise or additional bodies, I'll be certainly very willing to come forward and ask for that. This last year when we looked at JEA and got the assistance of the city council auditors for a particular project, I think that kind of highlighted our shortcomings in terms of our abilities. I don't know that it would warrant a full-time body to do that, but certainly to be able to reach out to the resources and hit the resources when we have an issue like that come forward, I think is probably a more prudent way to spend the money. So as opposed to asking for bodies up front, I'd rather have the, I guess, the assurances from this body that when we do need or the need arises for additional bodies and additional resources that will have your attention at that point in time. Yes, sir, it certainly seems like you're going to be top of mind certainly if those resources come available to us. Council President. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to summarize and tell Matt, I think not only do you and your team do the job exceedingly well, but you and your team also play the role exceedingly well. Like when you slip into the back of a room, or particularly Rick slips into the back of the room, there's like a big hush. You guys are exceedingly intimidating, and I think that's the role of IG, and you're doing a great job, so keep it up appropriately intimidating, not exceedingly appropriately intimidating. Thank you. All right, Mr. Peterson, that concludes our agenda. Okay, so colleagues, we've got two more action items. This is going to go back. I'm going to have two amendments. I'll hand the gavel off in a second. This goes back to items we discussed on day one. And I want to be very clear, as a result, if these amendments pass, which I'm sure they will, one of my concerns has been the fact that the way the budget was submitted, and actually one of the reasons is due to a bill that I passed this year, which I'll get to here, it required a two-thirds vote. My goal is that we have a 17-to-do vote, or even better. Maybe we'll pick up an extra vote on the budget. But I want a supermajority vote. I also, last year, remember very much at 4 a.m. when we were stuck at nine votes for many hours. So going into the budget cycle, I want to make sure we have the flexibility as well as to where a simple majority will get the vote passed, as it has been many times the requirement. So with that, I'm going to hand off the gavel, and then I will make my motion. Mr. Chair, you're recognized. Thank you, Vice Chair. My motion is to remove the funding of completion grants from contingencies within the multi-year fund of $8.1 million and the Downtown Economic Development Fund of $1.1 million from the budget. Second. Okay, got a motion and a second. Council Member Freeman says the clock should start on me. So this will be real quick. So as a result of these being a contingency, which were put there as a result of my legislation, not only am I asking these to be removed from the budget, I will then file separate legislation. Within that legislation, I'm going to work with the auditors and OGC to modify Section 106.215 to put these in the bucket that require a simple majority, not a supermajority in the future. Otherwise, as long as that fund exists there, each year we get the budget submitted to us, it's going to come back to us automatically as required two-thirds of a vote to pass the budget. Yeah, to put us in the right posture, I just want to make sure, are we on one on all of what he's just stated? Okay. All those in favor of the amendments you just heard, please signify all. Oh, now we have Councilman Johnson in the queue. You recognize. I just want to make sure, and thank you for that. I think it's a good idea because it allows us to move it above the line quicker. Could you, because the auditor gave me some feedback on that, I just want to make sure that we're in the right space on that, that while I'm not really keen on the removal, I do want it to be in a bucket where if it needs to be moved properly, then it can be, without the additional weight of a two-thirds majority. Through the chair to Councilmember Johnson. So as Councilmember Lanon explained, there are probably four specific contingencies that do not require a two-thirds vote, one of those being a fine, the funding that is set aside for the Florida Inland Navigation District projects. You appropriate dollars to a contingency as part of the budget every year, but it's allowed to get brought above the line, and it doesn't trigger that two-thirds vote. So what I think Councilmember Lanon is saying is that by introduction of that separate legislation, he's going to add the multi-year and possibly the Downtown Economic Development Fund to that so that it can be included in future budgets, but that doesn't initially trigger that two-thirds vote, and that without pulling from reserves, that budget would only require a ten-third, a ten vote, sorry. All those, seeing no one else in the queue, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment passes. All right, we'll back over to the chair. All right, my second amendment, I make a motion to remove the funding of $26 million for the three public safety-related projects and amend Schedule AF to state the carryover is intended to be used for the same purposes outlined in Ordinance 2025-771E. We have a motion and second on the amendment. We have Council President Howland. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Just for completeness, have you discussed with JSO, and are they okay with it? JSO is aware that I intended to go down this path and that I would be filing separate legislation. Thank you, sir. Seeing no one else in the queue, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment passes. Sorry. Wrong thing. All right, with that, Council Member Salem, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Chair, I understand the intent here, but we also put some stuff in some contingencies during the budget process, which requires a two-thirds vote, and those are in the budget. So, is there a plan to address those at some point? I think I know the answer. I'm going to hand it over to Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson. Through the chair to Mr. Peterson. Through the chair to Council Member Salem and to the committee. Putting something into a contingency doesn't trigger the two-thirds vote. It's when you're pulling it out of a contingency. So, the actions that have been taken by finance so far to put dollars into specific contingencies is an okay that still only requires ten votes. May I follow up? So, we can pass it in the budget, but if it ever comes out to be used, that will require a two-thirds. That is correct. Okay. Okay. And just to make sure I didn't cross myself here, Mr. Peterson, anything that we put in a contingency through the budget process, by ten votes, we can put it in a contingency. It still allows for a ten-vote overall budget approval. Then, after the budget's approved, if it was in a contingency, it requires two-thirds of a vote to come back above the line and be appropriated. That is all correct. All right. Thank you. Mr. Weinstein. Yeah. Because we did this. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just two things. The first amendment you passed, which is a fine amendment, but the term you used that you took it out of the budget may be misunderstood by a lot of people, just that language. But on the second one, I just want to make sure we get on the record that the initial $26 million, and they assured me, but I wanted to – it's still going to the things that the sheriff wanted and the things the fire chief wanted. You're really talking about future monies that may go into a similar category to be used for different things, but for public safety. I think I understand the question. So my intent is to file the separate legislation by extending the original $26 million. I will then file the separate legislation and get starting to work with that right away to fund the $26 million for the three items, two of which were JSO and one of which was JFRD. I think we're saying the same, Mr. Peterson, to go concurrently with the budget. Through the chair. So let me – I'm sorry. If I can clarify, just so there's no confusion, absolutely nothing was cut as far as what is getting funded. The accounting and the mechanism of the funding is what was changed by those two amendments. And like Council President said, I did contact JSO so they would not think there was a loss of funding through this mechanism. Councilman Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just wanted to go on record and commend you and compliment you on the process and how these finance meetings have gone. I think it is an example for future finance chairs as they move forward. I think it's an example for future administrations as they move forward. And I think it's an example to all of us what happens when we are willing to sit down and have the tough conversations. You meet with them. They have an understanding of where you're at in your mind. You have an understanding of where they have a heartburn or rub. And then you allow us each to have this conversation. And what I appreciate the most about it is it is done in a manner that is – we're treating each other with dignity. We can agree to disagree. And I think that's because of how you structured it. So thank you for that. I believe in giving people their flowers while they can still smell them and before we get to the budget night when I may change everything that I think right now. I already approved your final excusal for budget night. Let's see. Anyone else with that? And again, thank you to our audit team. We only see two of you for the most part, but we know there's a whole team working this time of year near 24-7. And thank you to the administration as well. I think we got a lot of good work done here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And I will see everyone – I will see y'all at council on Tuesday night, I guess.