Finance Committee - Jun 02, 2026

All righty. Good afternoon, everybody. We're going to go ahead and get started. It is one o'clock, June 2nd. Welcome to the Finance Committee. We're going to start with introductions to the left. Brittany Norris for the administration. Colleen Hampsey, Council Research. Mary Stafopoulos, Office of General Counsel. Kevin Carrico, District 4, God's Country. Good afternoon. Rory Diamond, District 13, The Beaches. Ron Salem, Group 2 at large. Joe Carlucci, District 5. Will Landon, District 3. Jacoby Pittman, District 10. Matt Carlucci just visiting at large, Group 4. All right, and we do have an excusal for Council Vice President Howland, and I know Council Member Arias is running a few minutes late, but with that, we will go ahead and get started. We'll go through the agenda real quick. We only have one minor change, and then we will go to Mr. Parks, I think, for your presentation after we go through the agenda. Okay. All right, just to get everyone up to speed. So items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, sorry, are deferred. Item number 8 is what we'll be starting. Actually, let's go all the way to the back page here, guys and girls. Page 27, item 43, 2026, 466. That's going to be taken up as number 1. All right, Council Member Carlucci. Can't have you on the phone here. Thank you. Y'all liked that. I know you did. All right, item number, so we'll go to item number 43, 2026, 466. That's an emergency amended move. We're going to wait. Sorry, we're on just the agenda meeting. We're going to take that up first. We're waiting on Council Member Johnson. He asked for that to be taken up first. So then item number 8, up for action, and really everything else is pretty much the same. So with that, Mr. Parks, you can go ahead and lead us off with your presentation. Yes. Through the chair to the committee on, sorry again, on May 22nd, we issued the first follow-up on the procurement audit informal purchase supplies. The original audit objective was to determine whether the procurement division processed requests for informal purchases of supplies in a manner that was consistent with the municipal code and procurement manual. We had 15 issues that we noted in the original audit. Six of those have been cleared with nine remaining. The remaining issues, we have agreement from all the applicable areas, including technology, procurement, and the accounting division that they're working to address them. One item was ICW-1, was a few internal procurement processes were not yet documented. ICW-2, there were some requisitions that could still inadvertently bypass the procurement division. We still had some excessive access rights issues that they are working on. We still found issues also where some solicitations were set up to where it was only beneficial to, or only possible for like one vendor to reply. We also had some OFIs during the follow-up. We found that three out of the 32 suppliers on the city's barbed suppliers list did not have their accounts deactivated in a timely manner. They have put in controls, they say, to address that to get it done in a more timely manner, and also to implement review procedures to ensure it's being done going forward. So those are kind of high-level comments if you guys have any questions. All right, we don't have any speakers in the queue, so thank you so much for that. All right, so yeah, now we'll kind of go, I guess, officially into the meeting agenda. And so, again, items number one, 2024, 627, 966, 361, 775, 227, 318, 320 are all deferred. That brings us to action. Item number eight, 2026, 327. Looking for a motion on the neighborhood substitute. All right, we, yep. Can we get a second? All right, thank you. So we have a motion second on the neighborhood substitute. Can someone please explain the substitute? Through the chair of the committee, the substitute attaches a revised BT to correct an account code. It also includes details on the steps that would be taken by the city in making the decision, the declaration of necessity, and place applicable surveys, studies, and reports on file to document that declaration. It attaches a list of the 17 affected properties as a new exhibit. All right, thank you for that explanation. We have no speakers in the queue. All in favor of the substitute, signify by saying aye. Signify by saying aye. All right, substitute passes. All right, we have a motion and a second on the bill as substituted. Do we have, and welcome Council Member Arias. No, go ahead, Ms. Pittman, you're recognized. Just for clarification for me, in fact, if you could just explain about the replacement. I know we're kind of using money from another place. Can you share a little bit about that and how long we have to wait for the replacement to put it back? Through the chair to Council Member Pittman. So this ordinance is transferring dollars that have already been approved for the Emerald Trail from the construction line into the land acquisition line to be able to acquire the 17 parcels that have been identified. It is not at this time expected that additional dollars would be needed for this project, just moving dollars within the project, but it crosses the threshold whereby the administration can handle it administratively. It requires Council approval. Okay, I just wanted to know, I know there were a lot of moving parts where money was attached to the Emerald Trails, and I just wanted to make sure I understood that. Thank you. All right, next we have Council Member Salem, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to whoever can answer this, I know we had a discussion of which of these businesses there were active businesses in this area. Has that been answered? I've not received any correspondence unless it occurred to another committee that I'm not familiar with. I believe that question has been answered, and I know Nina and Renee Hunter can answer that right now. Thank you, Ben. I missed it. Good afternoon. Nina Sickler, Public Works, and through the chair to Council Member Salem, yes, sir, after our last finance committee meeting, our real estate folks went on site to verify everything that we had on paper, and so it was determined that the parcels that are being looked at for purchase are none of them are residential. That was one of the questions that was asked. Secondly, the ones that are there that are commercial, there are no active businesses on those sites. There are no buildings on those sites. There are two parcels that have appeared to have been paved for parking, but when our staff went out there, there weren't actually vehicles parked in those spots, but there were, I don't think it was striped, but it was a paved area, but there are no active businesses in the parcels that we're looking at acquiring. Okay. Thank you. All right. Council Member Diamond, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think, Mary, is this where I've got language, wherever she is, for an amendment? Thank you. Through the chair to the committee and to Council Member Diamond, yes, during the last finance committee meeting, there was some discussion about authorization to proceed with a condemnation action without further council involvement or approval, and at the time, I believe it was the Council Vice President Howland had mentioned he had consternation about if it goes to the point where the city is prepared to file suit for a taking, that there be some additional council input and approval before that step of the process, that last step of the process, were to occur. So I believe, Council Member Diamond, and your intent was to offer an amendment to revise the legislation to provide counsel. It's going to go to the point of the city filing suit for the taking, that it would come to council for approval through legislation first. Thank you. So I'll make that motion, and just to explain, if anyone's unfamiliar with eminent domain, first thing that happens is, like, the city has to decide, yeah, we need this piece of property or some or all of it in order to do something. It's almost always a road, but in this case, it's, you know, we're dealing with, like, flooding in a creek and stuff like that. And so the first thing that the city does, it tries to get an assessment on what they think it's worth, and they go to the property owner and say, hey, we're willing to offer you X for this. And if they say yes, this amendment wouldn't have any effect. They're willing to take the money, and they're happy about it, fine, game off. But if the city wants to pursue eminent domain, it essentially goes immediately to court. You present the offer to the court, and you have to check, like, five boxes. And if you check all five boxes and do everything right, the other side has to then hire a lawyer and get another assessment and show that they're being cheated out of the value of the property just to fight for their own property rights. And even then, even if they win and they get more money for it, they still lose property that they might want to keep. So I'm always going to vote against eminent domain like that unless there's a really, really good reason. And so I'd like to at least have the council to have the right to say, yeah, no, no, no. Let's just take a pause. Let's make sure this makes sense that we are not empowering the city just to go and take people's land. So that's it. It's just one extra step to make sure that we're not using eminent domain in a way that our constituents would be like, whoa, that's not what we're looking for. Secondarily, I'm voting against this. Generally, we're going to be $300 million in the hole if all this stuff passes. And here's $12.6 million. I know we're just shifting in between accounts. But look, people are wondering how we're going to cover the homestead exemption increase. Emerald Trail should be top of the list. Thanks. All right. Councilmember Salem, you're recognized. Yep. A question through the chair to Mr. Diamond. What is the time frame for that process you just described if it goes to court and all those types of things? Yeah, through the chair and OGC can answer this too if they're experts. I've done a lot of eminent domain work. And I'll say through the chair to Councilman Salem, it's regulated heavily by statute. And so there's like you make an offer and then they can refuse it. Then you file. So it can be as soon as they say no, you can go to court. And then you file it like just any other lawsuit. And so you've got, you know, 30, 60, 90 days to respond to the lawsuit. And then you have to start, you know, engaging in the process of attacking either how they did the eminent domain with the assessment and all the rest and the filing or try to negotiate a deal on the value or come up with your own expert who say, no, it's really worth X and you're paying me why. And then you have a mini trial on this and the judge will decide. They almost never go to trial. I think I'm one of the few people in the world who's ever gone to trial on an eminent domain matter. But that's how it, that's how it goes. It's like any other lawsuit. It's usually done in about a year if it's just a small piece of property. If it's something really complicated, it could go on and on. Thank you. All right. Council member Matt Carlucci. Mr. Chair, I'm not up to date on this like I should be, but just curious. Is this a substitute by the council member or is this a substitute by the administration? We already passed the neighborhood substitute. We're on the diamond amendment. Okay. So we're on an amendment. Okay. Yep. Yep. The neighborhood substitute passed. I would like to know then what the administration's view is on the amendment, since this is mostly an administrative call on these type of things. So if the chair of the administration's here can speak to that, I would like to know what their thoughts are. Ms. Sickler or Ms. Norris, you're free to answer. Nina Sickler, Public Works, through the chair to Council member Matt Carlucci. In terms of eminent domain, we think it's in the interest of the city and of the project to keep it within the bill. The reason being is the longer it takes to get through that process. As we all know, prices go up. The cost of the city could go up. Could we make it work? Possibly. But it's really certainly more effective to give the authority within the bill. So do you support the amendment? Go ahead. Through the chair to Councilman Carlucci, we do not support the amendment. Okay. I think that's important to remember and to understand because this is generally, I think, a lever, if that's what you want to call it, that is administered by the administration and not by the city council. And it just, it gives me pause when we're not on the same page with the mayor's office and possibly the general council's office. I don't know if anybody here is for the general council who can address it. Maybe Ms. Topopoulos can. But to amend a bill that is not supported by the administration just over something like this causes me concern, Mr. Chair. And could we find out maybe if Ms. Topopoulos has an opinion or otherwise? I'd like to know what the general, I mean, I'm not on the committee, obviously. But if I was, I'd want to know what the general council thinks about this clearly. And I'd like to know what the general council thinks about it from the office of the general council. But Ms. Topopoulos, I'd like to at least hear what you're going to say. So ultimately, whether or not to amend in this fashion to add the additional requirement that it would come back to councils solely if it's going to be filed as a suit, it's a policy decision. So what I would say, administration has indicated their position on that matter. If you would like, and if it would be helpful to the committee, I can ask Councilmember Joe Carlucci, you can call up Chris Garrett, who's the deputy general counsel from our office who handles these specific types of legal proceedings. And he might be able to walk the council members through kind of what it would mean to the timeline and the effect this amendment would have potentially on the proceedings so that you have that, the benefit of that information before you make the decision whether or not to approve the amendment. This is not trying to be, Mr. Chair, I'm not trying to obstruct Councilman Diamond's amendment. I'm really not. I just would like to know what our general counsel thinks about this because they're the ones that are going to be handling it. And I am not for voting on an amendment unless I know what that body and what the general counsel thinks. That's just me. It's my opinion. And I think that's how most councils in the past would handle something like this. And so I offered to the body of this esteemed committee to deliberate on it as you will. And, uh, but that's what I think. All right. And we also want to welcome Councilmember Ken Amaro and Councilmember Johnson. Thank you for being with us today. And next we have Councilmember Arias, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll just be very brief. I'm not going to support this. Um, anything to do with eminent domain, I'm not in favor of it. Um, the American dream is for, for homeowners or, or business owners to own a piece of property, um, whether it's passed down from generation or they actually, they worked their tail off to get to that point to then have big government take over their property. It's a no-go in my opinion. I'm not supporting this. Here's my amendment that I do want to add though. Should this take place and for some reason, um, our government has overreached and takes their property, I want to make sure that we cover their attorney costs because if they're going to take it to court to fight us for this, for us taking away their property, I want to make sure that not only that they, cause they're going to lose their property, but now they're also going to have to lose on attorney fees, that if we're really serious about this, that we cover their attorney fees, period. So that's going to be my amendment. And I would like to have a second on that to see how we can incorporate that. But once again, I'm not supporting this. I don't support anything eminent domain. Um, but if, if it does pass, I want to make sure we protect the property owners to make sure that their fees are covered. Um, because if the city's really willing to really take on this, then we should pay their fees as well too. Thank you. All right. Yeah. Cause we're on the, uh, we're on the diamond amendment. So we're going to, we're going to go ahead. If you want to make that amendment, let's do that after the diamond amendment. Um, and, and I think Nina, I would recommend before we address attorney's fees in any capacity, you hear from deputy Garrett. Yep. Because there's a lot of that is statutorily mandated. It's not a matter of us deciding something here at the local level. All right. Is there anyone else in the queue for the diamond amendment? Yeah. Councilman Salem, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. One other point. Um, eminent domain won't be used unless you are not able to negotiate. Number, number one. Number two, if this amendment passes, I assume you'll come to the council at the beginning of that eminent domain process. So we're not slowing down in any way, shape or form the process of eminent domain. Six week process. You come to us. If it takes 18 months, we're well ahead of the game. Correct. I'm looking at Ms. Sickler. Okay. So, um, I think it's a reasonable thing from my standpoint. Thank you. All right. We have no one else in the queue. So all in favor of the diamond amendment signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. So we will, oh, did you want to speak Ms. Pittman? Oh, we have one nay, uh, from Councilwoman Pittman. Um, all right. Councilman Arias, did you want to make a clarification? Why don't you just go ahead and clarify with the OGC attorney? Yeah. Um, Mr. Fabulous, if you don't mind, or Mr. Garrett. Good afternoon. Chris Garrett, Office of General Counsel. Is it on now? Can you give us a test? Is it on now? I don't know. Can't tell. Um, I guess I can. Yeah, it's on. Chris Garrett, Office of General Counsel. Is that working? Yeah, yeah, we're good. Um, to, to address your questions. So, uh, briefly, the, the process is required by statute is that we have to have appraisals. We then have to make a good faith offer based on our appraisal to purchase the property. Um, we then have to negotiate for 30 days. All that's required by statute before we can file the lawsuit. Um, at any point where we've invoked eminent domain or the threat of eminent domain by statute, we have to pay certain attorney's fees, which is a contingency fee, essentially, on top of the amount that goes to the owner, uh, along with the owner's reasonable expert costs. Um, so essentially, uh, under Florida law, they get full compensation, which is all of their costs and all of their damages. So, um, that's already covered by the statute. Well, that definitely makes me feel a lot better, sir. Uh, thank you for the clarification. Um, you know, if that's the case, then I will still be not voting in favor of this just because of the word eminent domain. I don't want to take away any property rights from anybody. I understand the role that we have to do as government to, to ensure that we facilitate growth in our city, in this case for the Emerald Trail, but at the expense of, uh, property owners, I'm not willing to take that, that gamble. So thank you, sir. All right. We have no one else in the queue. Uh, we have a, um, do we have a motion on the actual bill? If I could, can we roll in the diamond amendment into the substitute? Yep. Okay. We'll do that. Um, it was my understanding that the administration had discussed with council member Pittman, another amendment being offered on this bill. I don't know if she was no longer going to be offering it. My only concern was, I don't, I didn't want eminent domain as well, and I'm not supported. I just want to make sure I understand. You're saying the mayor doesn't support this, the bill the way it is? No, ma'am. I understood that you had had discussions with the public works department about offering an amendment on their behalf. No, I'm removing one of the parcels from the parcels that were listed there and updating some of the parcel, um, information that was included in an exhibit. I can, Mr. Chair, if you want to have Ms. Sickler come up, maybe she can explain the proposed amendment. And if another member wants to offer it, then you can take that up for consideration. Yeah. Yeah. Ms. Sickler, does there need to be an amendment about removing a location? Are we good on that? Yes. To the chair and, and to, uh, council member Pittman through the chair. There is one parcel that was on the previous list in the, um, in the legislation that was, uh, incorrect. And so the, the, uh, amendment, uh, seeks to remove that, what was labeled as parcel one from that list. And then there was some minor, uh, very minor, uh, parcel size adjustments, just, uh, transitioning from property appraiser to the sketches and legal. So, um, but the primary purpose was to remove that parcel one because it is not part of this project. Yeah. I just want to, because there were two maps, I want to make sure that the, the one that was supposed to be taken off is, is that, because I know I missed a meeting. So is this the one that it was taken off? Yeah. What's currently in the, in the legislation has 17 parcels and the correct one should have 16 parcels. Okay. Parcel one should be removed from the list. And that was what the purpose of the amendment is. Okay. So that's what this is and the substitute. I just, no, ma'am, that was the amendment that they had requested your assistance in offering to the committee to remove that parcel. Okay. But if some other member wants to move it, if you're uncomfortable, then I would leave it to the chair to call for a motion on that amendment. Okay. If you would. Okay. Yeah. Is there a motion? Yes. A motion. Take it out. Motion in a second. Um, all right. So is it, you're not on this, right? Customer Diamond. Okay. So we have a motion in a second on the Pittman amendment. Is that right? Okay. Is that right? Okay. All right. All in favor of the Pittman amendment signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Yep. We'll roll them all up. And now we need the bill as, all right, we have a motion in a second on the bill as substituted, including the Pittman amendment and the Diamond amendment. So, Council Member Diamond, you're in the queue. You need to be, okay, go ahead. It's a quick clarification through the chair to Council Member Arias. So, uh, OJC is absolutely right. You get your fees and your experts and all that paid. However, you have to win, right? If you go and you lose, then you're stuck. Yeah. Uh, so just want to make sure that was clear. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen anybody get their fees paid if they lose and they get, they get less money. I would love it if that were true. Um, let's get clarification through the, to the chair. Through the chair, the, uh, the owner never pays attorney's fees. The attorney's fees are paid by the condemning authority. So, if the, um, if the owner doesn't get more money than we've offered, then there's not a contingency on that. But that's a, the, that's at the attorney's risk. Yeah, that's my point, though, through the chair, is, like, if I have a piece of property, you offer me $100,000 in the first 30 days, and I say, no, this is worth $150,000, and I go get a lawyer and, uh, oppose your eminent domain lawsuit, and I pay $20,000 to a lawyer, you're not paying that if I still get just $100,000. So, the judge is, like, no, I agree, his assessment is right. You still have that money. Through the chair, the, the owner would not pay any attorney's fees. They wouldn't pay their attorney. The attorney's doing it based on a contingency. Um, so, and they would still get, even if they did not show any additional amount, they would still get their expert fees, their reasonable expert fees. Yeah, yeah, I, I understand you. I, look, I know there's a bunch of lawyers who do this on contingency. Fully tracking. I've done it myself on contingency, so I gotcha. But, but, if you incurred attorney's fees and did not get $1 more, and you had to pay those fees, that would be on you, correct? Through the chair, I, I haven't seen whatever the situation is you're talking about. It would probably be fact dependent. Yeah, I, I, through the chair, I'll just, I'll, I'll spoil the surprise. It's rare. It usually happens when there's a really, really rich person or company that has a bunch of land, and there's something going on, and they go and hire their own law firm, and they go to battle with the government. That's usually when it happens. It's not usually when someone's house is, like, a street is getting wider, and they do it on contingency. So, I just wanted to be fair that, like, you could, it's just rare. This is not worth our time. Thank you. Okay, we have no one else in the queue. Let's open the ballot, record your vote. Four yeas, three nays. By direction you've approved, 2026, 327. All right, now, committee members, we are going to go, as previously discussed, all the way to page 27, item number 43, 2026, 466. Need a motion on the emergency. Motion to second on the emergency. All in favor of the emergency, signify by saying aye. Are any opposed? The emergency passes. We have a motion to second on the amendment. Can someone please explain the amendment? Is it just the removing the waiver? Through the chair to the committee, that's correct. Removing the waiver is, these dollars are going to KHA. KHA is allowed to advance up to 25%, which is what this term sheet was requesting, so there's no need for the waiver in the legislation. All right. Anyone in the queue for the amendment? Council President Carrico, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's not only amendment, but it's relevant to the conversation. Before we get started, through the chair to OGC, any KHA bills, I'm always weary of whether I have a conflict or not. This doesn't appear that way because it's funding that's being appropriated directly to an organization that is not mine. Is it your quick legal opinion that this is not a conflict for me? Through the chair to Councilmember Carrico, assuming that Boys and Girls Clubs doesn't work with Vision for Excellence on this particular program, then this is a direct appropriation specifically to that organization for that specific program. Then I don't believe you would have a conflict on this item. Thank you. Just wanted to get that on the record. All right. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. All right. We have a motion on the bill as an emergency as amended. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Accord your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-466. All right. Committee members, we are going back to item number nine, 2026-335. We have a motion to second on the amendment. Can someone please explain the amendment? Through the chair of the committee, the amendment will correct the fuel cap within the legislation for the 28-29 year. Also places a revised amendment to the agreement on file to correct the fuel cap within that agreement. Remove a fiscal year that is not applicable to this agreement and then correct a section reference. All right. We have no speakers in the queue. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. We have a motion to second on the bill as amended. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-335. Item number 10, 2026-377 is deferred. Item number 11, 2026-380. Motion to second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-380. Item number 12, 2026-335. Motion to second on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Motion to second on the bill as amended. No discussion. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-381. Item number 13, 2026-382. Motion to second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays. One nay. By your action, you've approved 2026-382. Item number 14, 2026-383. Motion to second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays. One nay. By your action, you've approved 2026-383. Item number 15, 2026-385. We have a motion to second on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment passes. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you have approved 2026-385. Item number 16, 2026-386. Motion and a second on the bill. No discussion. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays, one nay. By your action, you have approved 2026-386. Item number 17, 2026-387. All right, we have a motion and a second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Four yays, two nays. By your action, you have approved 2026-387. Mr. Chair. What's going on? I was going to ask if I could make an observation on the last bill. Oh, yeah. Go ahead. That was on the referendum, correct? I believe so. Yep. School tax referendum. We were on 2026-387. I'm not asking for another vote. I just want to make... Oh, we have a... One second. We have a motion to reconsider by Council Member Arias, who is on the prevailing side, and we also have a second by Council Member Salem. All in favor of the... I don't think you have to be the prevailing side to second, do you? Correct. All right. All in favor of the reconsideration, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion to reconsider passes. So, we need a motion on 2026-387. All right. We have a motion second on the bill. Everyone ready? Okay. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Three yays, three nays. By our action, 2026-387 is deferred for failing to get a majority vote. Mr. Chair, if I could, I just want to mention for the record and for the Council President's consideration that it's likely he'll be getting a request to discharge this item because they have a certain time by which they have to make the ballot. And so, this really needed to get through this cycle in order for them to be timely with the Supervisor of Elections Office to get the referendum information for the ballot. Okay. Understood. Council Member Matt Carly, do you recognize? Well, I guess I request to speak. I take it off before the vote in the way that the machine works. I wanted to make a couple of observations on it before the vote was taken, but I guess it's of no value now. But I will make it successful to you as a chair. Sure. Okay. First of all, if the referendum is time-sensitive, I would recommend that somebody change their vote just to get it out of committee. And I wish somebody would do that. If this does not pass this November, just to let you on the committee know that our teachers will take a pay cut of about $8,600 a year. But not only that, the school police will take a pay cut as well. I want you to think about that. Since this one mill has passed three and a half years or four years ago, our city has since become an A-rating school district. That's the milestone for Jacksonville. It's not a new tax. This just simply continues the tax that was passed four years ago. So it's not a tax increase. And even with this that we passed four years ago, New Volk County still lags in teacher pay. So, you know, I think we need to do our teachers a favor and allow them to keep the raise they got four years ago for the good job they've done in bringing our schools up, which is good for the city as a whole. Also, if this does pass, the referendum that passes by the voters, it will also not only keep the teachers pay where it should be, but it will increase the pay for school police and get them up equivalent to where the teachers are as well. And I thought y'all might want to know that. Now, this is on a very time-sensitive time frame. And I think it would be well if one of those who voted no would change their vote to a yes to get it through committee. Then you can vote no at council all you want. I think that would be a reasonable request, and I would ask that one of the committee members would be serious enough about our schools and our teachers to reverse their vote to get it out of committee. Thank you. All right. Council Member Landon, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to Council President, will you discharge this? If not, I'll do a motion to reconsider. Vote no. I'll fully support it next time as forwarded to us on a five-to-one vote. So myself and Council Member Diamond's school board representative voted yes, and I believe it's a perfunctory vote anyways that we'd have legal ramifications if it did not pass anyway. So it's kind of silly to vote no on it. But I'll do a motion to reconsider and vote no if the council president will not discharge it as is. Thank you. Through the chair, I'm not willing to go on record to say that I'll discharge it at this moment, but I'll take any calls that conversations need to happen. The phone line's open. Thank you. Then through the chair, I'll do a motion to reconsider, and I'll change my vote to no so we can get this passed, and I'll vote yes on full council. All right. Oh, okay. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? All right. We have a motion, a second, to reconsider. All in favor of the reconsideration, signified by saying aye. Any opposed? Okay. All right. Let's do a hand raise. All in favor of the reconsideration, signified by raising your hand. Any opposed? Did you vote? Okay. Okay. So the reconsideration passes. All right. So let's move. What are we on? 2026-387? Okay. All right. Do we have a motion on 2026-387? We have a motion, second, on the bill. We have no one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Oh, are you in the queue? Oh, okay. Council Member Salem. Yes, sir. I just wanted to say I requested a meeting with the superintendent about two months ago and did not hear anything until Friday afternoon about three or four o'clock on this issue. Very important to me, and several inquiries were made, and I heard nothing. So if this is so important to the school board and the community, somebody needs to respond. Thank you. All right. Council Member Arias. Thank you, Chair. I was on the queue for the same reason. Now, while I did not reach out to them, the way I see it is they need to reach out to us, point blank. The whole notion about teachers paying salaries, that's a false narrative because at the end of the day, just like we have to trim a lot of fat here on City Council, they also have to do their due diligence and trim their fat as well, too. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of dollars they could save without affecting teacher's salary because at the end of the day, I want to support teacher's salaries, but we also need to start cutting unneeded expenses over there on the school board. So I could change my mind by next Tuesday, obviously, so I give it, you know, the power to whoever it is to reach out to me, to talk to me, explain to me what their process is and how this will affect them, and show me numbers. Don't just tell me that it's teacher salaries because that's a false narrative once again. But I'm going to continue with my no vote as it is right now. Thank you. Mr. Favlis, you're in the queue. Do you need to say anything? Through the chair to the committee, I just wanted to reiterate something that Councilmember Lane and alluded to, which is that the council's action on this bill is pretty much ministerial in nature. The statute indicates that the school board shall direct the council to coordinate putting this on the ballot for the supervisor of elections. In this one particular type of ad valorem millage, they don't have the authority to directly submit it to the supervisor of elections. They have to go through the council. There has been case law to this with respect to this type of action that indicates that the council is required to put it on the ballot once they receive an appropriate resolution from the school board directing them to do so. So I just wanted it to go on the record that in this instance, this is somewhat of a ministerial action of the council to approve putting this on the ballot. Yeah. All right. Councilmember Salem, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. And I just want to make one other point. I voted for this four years ago when this first came up. And it generates somewhere around $110 million a year, a mill. So it's not like, and I think the world has changed with what's going on in Tallahassee with property taxes was one of the reasons I'm voting no. We have got to give relief to our citizens in this situation. And that's why I'm voting no. Thank you. All right. Councilmember Arias, you're recognized. And one more thing. You know, through the chair, had our city been stagnant and were our populations not growing, fine. But we are moving. We're one of the fastest growing cities in Florida and the United States. So to say that the delta between how much money we're going to bring in by not approving this is going to be significantly detrimental to the school board is a lie as well, too, because our city is growing, meaning more taxpayers are coming on board. So even if it doesn't go to 4% and it stays at whatever number it is, we're still generating a lot of additional revenue to our school board. So those are reasons why I'm still on the opposing side of this, because there's a lot of money that's being brought to our city just by people moving here as it is. And any kind of additional tax on people, just like we did, you know, earlier this year with reducing the property taxes as well, too. This is in the same line as this, which is why I right now cannot support this. Thank you. All right. Councilmember Macrogee. Well, I detected a little bit of snark there, so I'll give a little bit of snark back. If I had a nickel for how many times I've called somebody to meet with them about something they wanted and they didn't call me back and I gave them the benefit of the doubt and called them again and then they met with me, I'd have an awful lot of nickels in my pocket. They're pretty busy with their school board, too, especially the superintendent. We don't pass this as a council, which we will pass it, because we're just a pass-through. That's all it is. We don't want to go back to the shall means may days, please. Let's have courage. I know what they're doing in Tallahassee, and they're not demonstrating any courage over there. They're just pandering to the voters. Folks, come on. We know that. Everybody in this council who's a council member knows that they're pandering. We know what it takes to pay the bills, to provide the services, to pay the bonds that are helping make our city great. And this is just a pass-through so teachers can keep a pay increase that they got four years ago. And I will tell you, I will put you in front of anybody in front that doesn't vote for this up here, in front of a bunch of teachers, when this doesn't pass and they get their pay cut, there's going to be some tough explaining to do. So let's grab a hold of our conscience and understand that we have a responsibility. And I've got to tell you, if this council didn't pass this, the corporate community that would like to come to Jacksonville, Florida, would take serious pause before they want to bring their corporate community and employees and students to this city. And I am telling you the truth, because that's what they ask about. What kind of education do you have, system do you have in Jacksonville, Florida, if I'm going to move my business here? So you can make up whatever you want to. I've heard it all. Over 19 and a half years, I've heard every excuse in the book, including everyone that's been given here. And I'll make up my mind when I get ready. When I've heard, listen, we're just, this is just a pass-through vote, pass it through, put it on the ballot, and let our voters decide. And then when they decide, it's done. All right. We have no one else in the queue. So I think, have we gotten a motion in a second to, okay, on the bill? So we have a motion in a second on 2026-387. Open the ballot. Record your votes. Two yays, four nays. All right. By your action, 2026-387 fails. All right. Moving on to 18, 2026-388. Motion in a second on the bill. No one in the queue. Oh, Councilman Lane, you recognize. Thank you, Chair. I will be supporting this. I did have a conversation, both with JEA a couple times, actually, and the applicant. I think one of the good parts for us, that by approving this, there's a huge cost avoidance on what the actual demolition, if they ever headed that way. But I talked to the applicant, too, that I hope he buys this with the understanding that he can make a good business case with it, for buying it for a million dollars, and not with city funding. As we all know, that it's probably going to be harder and harder to get incentives as we go along. But I do look forward to seeing what he can do with purchasing this building. And I'll be a yes on it. Councilmember Salem, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. As I said in neighborhoods, one of the points is the due diligence expenses are the responsibility to the developer. And in speaking to the developer, that could be $2, $3, $4 million over the next 18 months to two years to determine if this building is appropriate and what needs to be done. So even though it's substantially below the appraised value, I'm not necessarily comfortable with the appraised value that JEA came up with. And it's going to save JEA, as I recall, about a million dollars a year in maintenance on the building. I'm getting a thumbs up. So it's a win-win. Hopefully, we'll look back and this building will be a wonderful condos, apartments, retail on the bottom with a Publix a block away a few years from now. Thank you, Chair. All right. Councilmember Diamond, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to explain my yes vote today. Look, I think a common-sense conservative view of this is this is going to be a drain on city resources. And getting a million dollars for it might seem low to someone who's just kind of doing a drive-by, but I think the amount of money they're going to have to sink into this thing is wild. God bless you. I hope it works out wonderfully. I hope you make a killing on it, really. But when I looked at it, I was like, there's no way I would touch that one. So God bless you. Get it done. All right. We have no one else in the queue. The bill has been moved and seconded. So let's go ahead and open the ballot. Record your votes. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved, 2026-388. Item number 19, 2026-390. All right. We have a motion and second on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Motion and second on the bill as amended. No discussion. Open the ballot. Record your votes. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved, 2026-390. Item number 20, 2026-393. 2026-393. All right. We have a motion and second on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. We have a motion and second on the bill as amended. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved, 2026-393. Item 21, 2026-394. Motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved, 2026-394. Item number 22, 2026-395. Motion and second on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Motion and second on the bill as amended. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved, 2026-395. Item number 23, 2026-396. Motion and second on the amendment. Can someone please explain this amendment? Through the chair of the committee, the amendment clarifies that there's no maximum for the annual number of endowment grants that can be awarded under this program. It updates the department slash office names and corrects various scriveners within section 111-635 and then revises the public investment policy to reflect the appropriate date upon this approval. Council Member Arias, stay on the amendment? No. All right. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Motion and second on the bill as amended. Council Member Arias, you're recognized. Thank you, sir. Just add me as a co-sponsor, please. All right. No one else in the queue? Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays, one nay. By your action, you've approved, 2026-396. Item number 24, 2026-398. Motion and second on the bill. No discussion. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved, 2026-398. Item number 25, 2026-416. All right. We have a motion and second on the amendment. Is Ms. Lavie here for the amendment? Do you mind explaining the amendment to us? I'm sorry. Are you Ms. Lavie? I am not. I apologize. Okay. We'd like to hear from Ms. Lavie. Oh, of course. You drafted the bill, Ms. Lavie? Yes, that's correct. Okay, great. Can you give us a little bit of explanation on this amendment? The amendment, I didn't actually draft. I believe the amendment may have come from the council auditor's office, but I was not involved with the amendment. Oh, you drafted the bill? I drafted the bill. Okay, and the amendment was produced because? I'm actually not sure. I wasn't involved with the amendment. Okay. All right. We're just giving you the initiation. That's all. Thank you. Yeah, we had to do it. Had to do it. No one else wanted to do it. All right. No other questions on the amendment. We won't say that on the record. All right. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. All right. Motion and second on the bill as amended. Council Member Lane, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. I just want to be added as a co-sponsor, always in favor of finding available cash to put up against our committed cash completion grant liability. So thank you for doing this. All right. Thank you. No one else in the queue? Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays, one nay. By reaction, you approve 2026-416. Thanks, Ms. Lavie. Sorry we had to initiate you on that one, but it comes with the territory. All right. Item number 26. 2026-418 is deferred. Item number 27. 2026-444, 445, 447, 448, 449, and 450 are all in second reading. Is Council Member McGaffney here? Is Council Member McGaffney here? I saw him earlier. See him in the green room? All right. Okay. We'll wait. Yeah. They'll go. We'll go. They'll go get him. While they're going to get Council Member McGaffney, I'll go ahead and read the rest of the second readings. Item number 35. 2026-453. 454, 455, 457, 458, 459, 460, 463 are all on second reading. And we already took up item number 43. And we want to welcome back Council Member Johnson and Council Member McGaffney. Just be available for questions, I guess, at this point. But item number 33. 2026-451. Can we get a motion on the emergency? All right. We have a motion and a second on the emergency. Are you on the emergency or on the bill? Oh. Okay. Go ahead. On an abstention? Okay. Ms. DeFopolis, can you advise Ms. Pittman on the abstention? I need you to weigh in on this, if possible. The Clara White Mission has... I'm going to chair the Council Member Pittman. The re-grant program is limited to those entities that have annual revenues less than $750,000 per year. So if Clara White Mission or any of its subsidiary organizations is all above that, you wouldn't qualify to apply for these dollars. You know, I just always like to be safe than sorry. Understood. Thank you. I appreciate that. All right. All right. We have a motion and a second on the emergency. All in favor of the emergency, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The emergency passes. You guys finishing each other's sentences over there? All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill as an emergency. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays. One nay. By your action, you've approved 2026-451 as an emergency. Item number 34. 2026-452. We're looking for a motion on the emergency. Motion and a second on the emergency. All in favor of the emergency, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The emergency passes. Motion and a second on the neighborhood, substitute. All in favor of the neighborhood, substitute, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Substitute passes. Motion and a second on the bill as an emergency has substituted. Council Member Salem, you're recognized. Through the chair to Ms. Mary, was there an amendment about the money coming back to the general fund that's left over, or was that a commitment by Council Member Gaffney? Commitment? Yeah. Okay. It was a commitment that he would bring that by separate legislation. Whatever's remaining in that traffic calming account after this legislation moves through the process, he indicated he would file a bill to move it into operating reserves. Okay. Thank you. All right. No one else in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your votes. Seven yays. Zero nays. By reaction, you've approved 2026-452. And committee members, that concludes the agenda for today. We've already read all the second reading bills. Do we need to not gavel out and go through? Okay. We'll go through now. We'll have our little extra time on property tax, question and answer. Mr. Peterson, you'll kind of lead us through that. But, you know, we can take as much or little time as possible. But I'll let you go ahead and take it away. Through the chair, do you want to do property tax or the JTA issue first? Um, well, yeah, exactly. We'll, we'll, we'll go through the property tax first. Um, and yeah, so go ahead with that. Absolutely. So there was a five page handout placed at your chair, um, just outlining, um, taking a look at the city's 2526 budget. You'll recall I sent an email to the council on Friday, uh, outlining our estimates of what a $250,000 homestead exemption would look like, uh, as it impacts the city. Uh, we estimate that it would be about 265 million based on 2526 values. Uh, given that the property tax reform would not go into effect until January 1 of 2027, that would be applied to the 27, 28 year we're looking at two budgets away. So that 265 million would probably be closer to 300 million, if not higher. And that does not include the reduction of the cap on non homesteaded properties from 10% down to 5%. Um, yesterday we did receive, um, estimates from the property appraiser on what they calculate those impacts to be. And they are very much in the same ballpark. Uh, the first $150,000 exemption, uh, would estimate to be about $193 million. Now that is based on the 2026 in progress values. So that's as of probably the June 1st, uh, estimates that they provided to you. And, um, those numbers will continue to change up until July 1, but that's a, it's a better number than what we were operating off of. Um, and then the 250,000, once that ticked up to that, what they estimate would be approximately a $300 million impact based on the 26, 27 values. So it would probably be north of that 300 million, uh, once the, if the, uh, law were to, or referendum were to be approved by the voters. Um, our office has been monitoring this, um, yesterday and today as the, um, the special session is in place and it does appear that, uh, both sides, um, have approved, uh, the bill. And so it will, it does look like it will be headed to the voters, uh, in November. Um, on your five page handout, just wanted to lay out kind of high levels. Page one identifies, uh, the large categories of the city's, uh, $2 billion general fund budget. Obviously the largest portion being public safety at almost 1.2 million. Uh, you'll see breakouts of the other departments at 290 million, citywide activities, $154 million, contingencies that were in the budget at just over $26 million, and then the transfers out to other funds, uh, $234 million. Uh, those are on the following pages. One thing I also do want to note is the box that is on page one, uh, was word for word pulled from the Senate file bill, uh, from Friday as to what the dollars could be spent for. Uh, there was an amendment yesterday, I'm not sure if it's in the final bill, that expanded what ad valorem dollars could be used for, uh, beyond what, uh, was originally in there. And it does seem to provide much more flexibility, um, as to how those dollars can be spent going forward. Uh, pages two, like I said, that's, breaks down your other, um, other departments, uh, in addition to your public safety, and then the remaining jack citywide activities to get to the $2 billion budget. And I should also note, these are restated numbers based on all of the, uh, budget bills as a whole. So, KHA being broken out separately, uh, public service grants being broken out separately. This is a restated for the whole number. Uh, so you wouldn't be able to find all of these numbers just strictly from the budget. Uh, looking at page three, um, these are the citywide activities. There are a large number, uh, or a couple significant numbers on here. Economic incentives at almost $24 million. Uh, the state required Medicaid program contribution, almost $23 million. Um, and then once you hit the, kind of the Arden Public Places insurance down, that's kind of, uh, a way to look at the non-profit spend, uh, directly within the general fund budget, um, in addition to what is in KHA. Page four of five is the, uh, balances within the contingencies, if you were, wanted to look at, and then lastly, the page five is the transfers out to other funds. But just to give you an idea of, uh, this is the $2 billion budget, and we would have to cut, or you would have to cut, approximately $300 million out of the $2 billion, uh, to just give you an idea of what you would be looking at, uh, for an operational standpoint. Happy to answer any questions the best that we can. All right. We have Council Member Salem, Council Member Landon, Council Member Matt Carlucci. So, Council Member Salem, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Brochet, could you come forward for a minute? There she is, yeah. While you're walking forward, it's, I think it's everyone's understanding that this does not impact the 26-27 budget, but does kick in for the 27-28 budget. I have feelings about what we should do, uh, to the 26-27 budget. Through the Chair to Ms. Brochet, um, can you tell me the strategy of the administration? Do they intend to, uh, propose a, a normal budget, or do they intend to begin the process, anticipating, uh, passage in November of reducing the 26-27 budget in some fashion to get ahead of the game and try to prepare ourselves for a potential two to two to three hundred million dollar hit? Uh, Anna Brochet, finance through the Chair to Council Member Salem. We're in the process of evaluating that very question. So, no, I can't tell you right now. When do you feel like, through the Chair, would be able to inform the Council of the intent of the administration? Um, I, I, I will, I will get with everybody and make sure that we have an answer, um, certainly, uh, before and or on or by July 20th. Well, that's when you make your budget presentation. I would hope we would know something before then, at least of your strategy. Okay. I guess I'm not going to get an answer. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Yep. Council, uh, Member Lane, you recognize. Yeah, thank you, Chair, and, uh, just to the committee and also to the honors, thanks for putting this together for us. Uh, I just kind of want to go through the scale, uh, what Phillip put together is something similar to just rough numbers I was playing with, but it's really 300 million on a base of about 800 because, again, 66% of our budget is committed debt expense, which we can't change from one year to another, uh, too significantly, and then, uh, 58% of our budget, which was the highest in recent history, is public safety. So, again, just kind of the way I'm thinking about this, we have a little over 800 million, and then general fund, uh, debt expense was about 130, so that knocks you down to 700. So, again, if this passes, it's a 38% reduction across the board on all non-public safety, uh, budgets. Uh, I've talked a lot about non-profits. It's obviously our non-profit strategy is going to substantially change. KHA will look a lot different, public service grants, uh, UF Health, if there's a way to retool that one. But even if you took out all the non-profit spend, which is $140 million in this budget, that would still mean 22% across the board. And, again, uh, when you look at our budget, what remains the three big material budgets are public works, parks, and libraries. Uh, my thoughts, I mean, we need to assume this will pass. We need to start preparing, uh, now, because this isn't the type of thing that we can let the next year's budget look the same and then figure it out all in the next year, just with the length of some of our contracts, uh, because we have a lot of expenses that have a long, a long lead time. And, again, just to reiterate, relative to what $300 million means, our entire non-public safety headcount expense is about $130 million a year. So, again, remove every other city employee and you're not halfway there to $300 million. And then, just within the budget, there's a lot of things that we can't change. Like other operating expenses, Phillip mentioned that there's a significant amount of state Medicaid, state juvenile justice. So, within these buckets, there's a lot of things we cannot, uh, we cannot move anyway. So, again, it will be a challenge, uh, if this passes. One question I did have through the chair to Mr. Peterson, uh, again, just reading the news, the state sponsor, uh, he said that this would not impact veteran services, libraries, or animal welfare. Do you have any more information on that? I mean, that, that's the exact quote from the bill sponsor in the state. I could not find any protections for those. Through the chair to Council Member Lane, and I have not seen any protections for those either. Um, I, I actually don't know that there are protections for any, um, expenses. I think everything is on the table. Did it be up to the local governing body to make the decisions on how to, um, where the cuts could be made? Okay. Through the chair, thank you, Mr. Peterson. And, again, that's just because, uh, the only reason I asked, that's what I saw, uh, that his comments were that those services were protected. But then I couldn't reconcile that with anything else I read. So, uh, again, bottom line, where I'm thinking is we just need to start saying no for when you know you have a revenue reduction, you say no to any new incremental expenses and you start hoarding cash. So I think that needs to be our strategy and our thought, uh, going forward, starting, uh, starting now. All right. Council Member Matt Carleji, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had, uh, questions, uh, for Council Auditor, uh, Phillip. Uh, I, I, I missed this, Phillip. Uh, what, what, uh, passed? Does it shield public safety from, uh, these cuts? Through the chair to Council Member Carleji, and that's what I was just confirming. I do not believe that public safety is shielded. Uh, there was original language that Evalorm could only be used for six specific instances, but there were no, I did not see any shielding of any specific expense types, if you will, uh, in the legislation. This, these cuts could possibly affect the raises and pension, uh, that we, uh, bargained for. Is that correct? Through the chair to Council Member Carleji, I believe we're heading into the last year of the collective bargaining. It would be the future year's collective bargaining that would be, um, the, the, in jeopardy, if you will. Yeah. But, but the second year would be then. It could be. So, the, the 26-27, if my recollection is correct, was the third year of the collective, current collective bargaining agreements. Um, so, this law would go into effect for the 27-28 budget year, which would be year one of a new collective bargaining agreement. Um, also, I'm just wondering, what about any effects, possible effects on our bond, um, on our bond ratings that we have out there? Through the chair to Council Member Carleji, I have not, uh, we have not explored that. Um, right now, our debt is about 125 million. Um, so, there will still be plenty of revenue to meet that obligation. I don't know from a reduced revenue standpoint if that will have any impacts to future bond issuances. Uh, Ms. Brashe and I have not had that discussion. What impact could this have on future CIP projects? Through the chair to Council Member, Council Member Carleji, uh, there will be less revenue, so I would suspect a less ability to do, uh, CIP projects in the future. Uh, so, my, my thinking is there should be at least two strategies. Uh, one is to be mindful of, if this passes, uh, I'm not sure it will pass. I, I think once people begin to understand the, um, uh, the law of unintended consequences, uh, it's, it's not necessarily given that 60% of the people are going to vote for this. But, they may. So, we need to be, have some type of strategy as a Council in mind and let the Mayor have her strategy in mind. Uh, the second one, though, is I think that this Council needs to be speaking with our constituents and just let them know exactly what this type of cut in property taxes will bring to the services that we work hard to provide for our constituents every day. And we take for granted, uh, the mowings of the, uh, parks throughout our city, uh, the public works projects, uh, that are ongoing throughout the city, uh, the fulfilling of consolidation promises that we talk about wanting to fulfill. You can't do it on the nickel. You can't do it cheap. We, we, we've got to, we've got to share with our constituents that these are things that will be at risk. Uh, we've got to be statesmen and women up here. We can't be politicians. We've got to share the raw truth that people want, um, they, they, they won't, uh, relief with taxes. I, I, I get that. We all do. But I've seen it over the years and that more times than not, given the choice between lower taxes and less services, people will always want more services. They'll want to retain their services. And I think it would be well for us to remember that because if we don't and we just play along with the popular, uh, theme of the day, if we're going to cut property taxes, we're going to cut property taxes and then the services go away. That's going to be a tougher, uh, explanation to make. I promise you. And the, the not for profits, I was glad Councilman Landon made the comment. They're easy to pick on, but they're not, it's not that much money. That's not where the real money is. So let's think this thing through very much. Thank you for having this, uh, workshop. Uh, by the way, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Yes, sir. All right. Council member Salem, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, Mr. Vice President-elect. Um, I agree with much of what my colleague just said. The public needs to be engaged in what's going on here. No question about that. I, I meant to make this comment, uh, at the time, but, uh, item number 16, 2026, 386, which was this, uh, uh, development for affordable housing. It's a loan over 20 years. Um, I supported it today because it was already in the process and we've done loans like this for other affordable housing in the past, uh, that this similar to a VESCOR type approach that we've done, but the world has just changed on us. Uh, we can't afford, uh, uh, loans like this at 1% that's paid back in 20 years. Um, I hope the development community is listening because we just can't, uh, we've talked about ending completion grants, but, but it really becomes important as we look forward. Assuming this thing goes through, we've got to look at other innovative ways. Uh, somebody called me about, um, almost like a mortgage for our house where you, you, you pay, uh, you know, you, you, you pay for that $20 million loan over 20 years and we hold the mortgage, so to speak. There are various innovative ways that maybe we can use to support our development community, but, um, we just can't do it the same way we have been, in my mind, uh, with what's going on in Tallahassee. I, so I just wanted to make that point on that bill. Thank you. Council Member Diamond, you're right. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so on my Twitter over the next, uh, couple of months, as we roll up to this, I'm going to be highlighting the spending that we could cut. The people of Jacksonville are incredibly frustrated. The reason why this is happening is because local governments aren't listening to the people. They just aren't, and they're, people are frustrated. That's why they sent the legislators to Tallahassee and Governor DeSantis by 20 points back to Tallahassee to give us relief. Right now, it's $3,700 into the pockets of a middle-class family in Jacksonville. I guarantee you, if we ask them, would you like the Emerald Trail, or $3,700? Would you like to have another downtown park that you never visit, or $3,700? Would you like to have $14 million sent on PSG and arts grants, or would you like to have $3,700 in your pocket? They are taking the money every time. And the only reason why we have to have it by referendum is because this council has not had the guts to say no. $1.3 billion budget when I came into office. The last budget is over $2 billion. We did not have $700 million of new people coming in and inflation. It's not even close. So this is a lack of statesmanship. It is a lack of spine by the council to cut. It is a lack of spine by the administration to say no to the next new fancy project, $1.5 million for telehealth, hundreds of thousands for some dentist program, hundreds of thousands for roofs, hundreds of millions to billionaires and millionaires downtown. It's going to pass in some form. The legislature is going to get this right. The fear-mongering about police fire, picking up the trash on roads is going to get dispelled. And then we're going to do the one thing that this council has not had the guts to do, which is to say no, because we're going to have to. The only way to cut government is to starve it. I commend the state legislature. And I can't wait to talk to my constituents about this. Absolutely right, Councilman Carlucci. I can't wait. Because my district gets hurt the worst in this. You've got families just trying to hold on to their house, and they're paying $18,000, $19,000, $20,000 in property taxes for a house that is four bedrooms and, you know, two TVs. We're not talking about mansions. So I can't wait for this. I'm working with council auditors to find all those places where we can cut that are not essential services because we do a lot of fancy spending around here. It's not investing to have another art project. It is not helping people just to throw money at yet another public works project that does not actually make it easier to get to work or to school or to move water away from homes. All right. Those are city services that we need to fight for. Absolutely. There's more than enough at $1.7 billion. Thanks. All right. Councilmember Ken Amaro, you're recognized. Do you want to speak? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know what to say after my colleague. I'm sitting here and I thought about something Churchill said during the war. He says, when you're given difficulty, you look for opportunities. And I concur with what Councilman Will said a second ago that there's going to be a paradigm shift and we're going to have to start looking at things through the microscope, if you will, to be able to determine what's best. But I also concur with what Councilmember Carlucci said. You know, there's a 60% of the votes. That's a high threshold. And within the next few months, you can bet there will be a lot of money spent on television trying to persuade one side over the other. And it's in that communication process we're really going to find out what voters really think. You know, you ask me to cut my taxes, I'm going to say yes. But when you tell me I'm not going to have something, I may have second thoughts. If there's anything good that comes out of what's taking place in Tallahassee, it's going to force us to actually be physical conservatives and spend wisely, if nothing else. All right. We have Councilmember Johnson, and then we'll go to Councilmember Landon. I'll be brief, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much. And ironically, I do agree with my colleague, the gentleman from the beach. I think it is important that we do understand people are frustrated. But I also believe that my colleague from the beach does not have a quite grasp of reality of what normal people are going through. When you call dental programs and medical programs and things like that luxuries, it shows a lack of grasp with reality and what people are going through on a day-to-day basis. As a member of the Board of Directors of the League of Cities, I'm working with the league. We will be not just traversing at least my district but throughout the state and making sure that people understand if these kinds of cuts are put in, it can be catastrophic. Jacksonville can withstand some of those things. But I have to think about our brother and sister cities, especially in North Florida, because our services are connected to their services in some way. We have to look at those things. But I just think back, feeling in my Ken Amaro way. Councilman Amaro always has such wisdom to say with us on Council, but it reminds me of that Bible verse in Matthew where it talks about what you do to the least of these you do unto me. And so I think we have a responsibility on this Council. I believe I am a conservative when it comes to many of the things that we spend. But I certainly believe, I am not going to run around and think that this Council just frivolously spends dollars. I truly believe that we work together collectively to ensure that the way that our districts are run, that all of the districts put together, that we are finding these things that are centric to those districts and we're moving them forward. This will be a process of belt tightening. I do believe that, but one of the things that the reasons that it's going to be belt tightening is because people are spending less money, which means there's less sales taxes coming in. So there's other ways that reductions are happening. But when it comes to this, it's something I believe we need to ensure our cities and communities, not just Jacksonville, but North Florida in conjunction with our brother and sister communities here, are working together to make sure people are taken care of. So I'm going to be holding multiple town hall meetings in my district, and I look forward to working with all of us so we can make sure that we take care of Jacksonville to move them forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. Next we have Councilman Merland. Thank you, Chair. One thing I want to say, and Councilman Salem said something that made me think of this. I believe July 13th is when the mayor proposes her budget. And if we don't have details by then, I feel like it's going to almost be too late to the process. So through the Chair to Ms. Berchet, whatever advanced communications, conversations we can all have, because my media thinking is, like, we can't have a revenue equals expenses budget next year. We do plan a surplus on the assumption that this will pass in November and that we don't have to take care of this all in one year if it does pass, that we have to, I don't know if ease into it is the right phrase, but aggressively move in that direction on the assumption that it will pass. Thank you. Okay. And Councilmember Diamond, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have anything extra to add, but are we done with this segment? Because I do have a motion. Yeah, we're pretty much done. But I did want to hear from Ms. Berchet on just, like, what the mayor's plan is exactly, or your plan. Do you have any – I mean, can you please come to the podium? I mean, we're not trying to make it difficult, but it's June, and I think, you know, can you just give us some, like, reassurance confidence, like, what you guys are thinking over there? Are we going to get one budget and just say, hey, here's the budget, or is it going to be, you know, hey, here's two different kind of scenarios for us to talk through and think through? Because I think that's sort of what we're trying to understand. Anna Brochet, finance to the chair. As I shared earlier, we're starting budget hearings for NBRC tomorrow, coincident with that process. We'll be evaluating exactly what we put forth in determining that strategy to be able to share for the mayor to give her budget presentation on July 20th. And so I'm sure, as has been the case even before now, that there have been budget conversations happening with, you know, as requested and I've been having conversations with a number of you. We will continue to do that. So, no, I do not have the strategy to deliver to you and exactly how it's going to unfold. Just like you all are working through what you think is an appropriate approach for you all to have, this is a big deal. We have been tracking, and we agree with the numbers and the significant impact that it will have, and we will continue to move forward with having information that we can share with you in the future. Okay. And perhaps after we kind of see how everything goes today and I guess at the end of, is it this week or next week? Is it with the actual vote on the property tax? Is it today? Right? Okay, so it's either day or tomorrow. So then, you know, that'll be kind of, obviously, we think it's obviously going to pass. But, yeah, and, look, I'm happy to, you know, continue to have these little post-finance committee sessions if that's, you know, the will of all the colleagues and everything just to kind of get everyone's thoughts out there prior to, you know, July 20th. But really it needs to be, like, prior to June 30th because most of us are going to be gone on vacation or doing family plans or whatever. So that's what we're trying to do. All right. No one else in the queue? Councilmember Diamond, and then I guess we have something else from Mr. Peterson. Move to reconsider item 17. Okay. Hold on. What bill number is this? All right. Okay. So we have a motion to reconsider 2026-387. Okay. We have a motion and a second to reconsider. All in favor of the reconsideration signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The reconsideration passes. All right. We have a motion to defer 2026-387. Councilmember Matt Carly, is she recognized? I totally disagree with that motion. Um, this is, is it administerial or ministerial, uh, through the chair to Ms. Tafopoulos? Through the chair to Councilmember Carlucci, it's ministerial or perfunctory. There's, there's no reason to defer the ministerial function of this body. We are to vote on it so simply it can go on the ballot. And I see no reason, was given no reason, for deferral, except perhaps to hold it up. Come on, folks. You know, we're here. We, we, we, we, we've been talking about trying to have a partnership with the school board. Well, this is a great way to kind of foul that up. Now, uh, we need to leave it like it was. Councilman Landon, uh, again, has demonstrated statesmanship and courage and, uh, did a vote he didn't want to do, but he did it in order to get this thing out. Now, the school board did have some people here that I didn't know that were, that were here to address it, and now they're gone. And now we're going to change our vote after they're gone. I don't think that would be fair. Um, so we're, we're, we're playing games with, uh, something that we, we ought not to be playing games with. I mean, I, I don't, I don't know how to explain it any simpler. This is a bill that's clearly spelled out in, uh, the Florida statutes, I believe, that we shall take this and put it on the ballot for the people to vote on. We are not to debate it. We are not to get into, well, I don't support it for this. I don't support it for that. That's not the, that's not the issue. You could vote, you could vote because you don't like it once it gets on the referendum. We are to put it on the referendum for the people to make those decisions. Let's stop it with this deferral business. Stop it with this other nonsense. And use the kind of courage that Mr. Landon has demonstrated, uh, not more than once on this council. And let's get this, let's, let's put this to, to bed and let it go to council, let council vote on it. You can vote no. You can get up, talk about how you're against property taxes and all you want and, and cater to the, cater to the voters. But there's going to be enough councilmen up here that understand the importance that education plays in the role of the advancement of the city of Jacksonville. And we can play around with it if we want to, but you're playing with fire. You're playing with students. You're playing with teachers' lives. And by the way, um, if this were not to pass, the teachers will take, I mean, the school police will take a $5,000 pay cut as I just was texted by Randy Reeves, uh, the president of the FOP. And I'll be glad to send him a, uh, text and let him know what problems we're having in finance committee. So, uh, don't, don't fall for this, uh, silly motion and, um, vote it down and let's let the bill go on to council like we're supposed to. Thank you. All right. And I want to go ahead and welcome back Councilmember Gaffney and Councilwoman Clark Murray. And we have one speaker in the queue, Councilmember Pittman. And again, the motion on the floor is for the deferral. So we have to keep all of our comments geared towards that. Thank you. Chair, I, I must say I feel, um, very bamboozled by opening this back up when we voted on it. Um, and I also feel like we're hurting the very people that put us here. And I always like to keep realness when we're talking. I, I, I really feel like we should give our community an opportunity to vote on this just to get it out of committee today. Um, Councilman, um, Diamond, I, uh, I just, I just think this is just unacceptable to just open this back up and give, you know, I, I, I know we all have our own opinion about how we want things to go, but let's, let's give the people an opportunity. We may feel the way we want to feel about the school board not being here. And maybe there's a reason why I don't, I don't know. I'd rather at least be fair and give a chance unless if there is some question or something you don't like, um, give them an opportunity to have a meeting between now and the time we're supposed to vote on this. I just, I, I don't understand some, some things, you know, we, we as a community, as a community and as representatives of our community, we need to act like we care about what's important. And if, you know, I know Ms. Mary said this is a ministerial kind of thing, but I, I, I like for this to be holistic and for everybody to weigh in and at, let the chips fall where they may, but let's not make a bamboozled decision that we haven't gotten all of the the, the, the peace is in and people to weigh in on it. All right. We have Council Member Clark Murray, Council Member Matt Carlucci. We're going to go ahead and put three minutes on the clock because this is a deferral motion. So go ahead, Council Member Clark Murray, three minutes. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon to everyone. Um, through the chair to Council Member Pittman, the word bamboozle is so perfect. And you know what? I bet you learned that word, first of all, through a teacher. Yes, yes, ma'am. So with that being said, um, through the chair to the body, to this committee, yesterday I did watch the Senate Appropriations Committee and I listened to their discussion in regards to, um, 2F. And with that being said, there were eight amendments. I don't know how many of you watched it. There were eight amendments. Several of the amendments were voted down, but there was one or two amendments that were approved. One of those two amendments was, was given by Senator Trumbull and that amendment talked about ad valorem taxes and carving out ad valorem taxes in regards to schools. So I'm not exactly sure what Mr. Diamond's impetus is for wanting to defer this particular bill, this resolution, to help, to, uh, support our teachers in this community, but I don't think it comes from a very good place. And so the teachers, DCPS, DTU, may not be here today, but they were here when we met in April in regards to this referendum and there was discussion about the referendum for teachers and for the millage rate for it to continue. It's not a new tax and you all know that. So don't you be bamboozled by his discussion. Don't be bamboozled by his words. You will do a great harm to 7,000, my numbers may be a little low, at least 75,000 constituents, members of the DCPS family who go into schools every day and work with children, who sacrifice their own dollars. And you should know by now that Florida, our teacher pay is the lowest. It used to be maybe 47th. It is 50th. What a disservice we will do to the sacrifices that teachers already make if we defer that bill, it will mean, in some cases, $5,000 to $8,000 less, less. And once again, their pay for a beginning teacher is probably about $48,500. And you want to defer putting this, voting on it so that it goes to the ballot in November? Shame on us. Shame on us if you allow yourselves with your intelligence and your acumen and your drive to be here to represent people, if you allow yourself to be bamboozled by what he said. Thank you, Chair. Councilmember Matt Carlucci, you recognized him. I just want to restate that at 1.43 p.m. I received a text, but it was while I was speaking, so I didn't see the text come in. The text came from Tiffany with the school system. She said, DCPS is here to answer questions in all caps. Councilmember Carlucci, there are two cabinet members here in the audience from DCPS. They can speak to this. Well, I didn't see it. And I said, so sorry. I just now saw the text. And then Randy Reeves with the FOP confirmed that, yes, school police will lose the yearly bonus that they receive now. Even with the bonus, their salaries are drastically low compared to others. They should just be voting to put it on the ballot to let the voters decide. That's from Randy Reeves. So defer it. And I guarantee you, you're going to hear from your constituents. But that's not the point. The point is doing what's right. Despite how many constituents feel this way or that way, before you make a vote, Councilman Salem and Councilman Carrico, before you make a vote up here, the thing you should be asking yourself before any vote is what is best for Jacksonville. That's what you should be doing. Now, I urge you to think that through, but do not vote to defer this. It does nothing but delay and cause trouble and problems. And that's what it's meant to do. All right. We have Council Member Arias and Council Member Johnson. And guys, I'd really like to wrap this conversation up. We're speaking on a deferral. I'm ready to vote on it. I think, yeah, there was a second, but yeah, we'll just continue going through the queue and we'll see where this plan lands. Council Member Arias, then Council Member Johnson. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My biggest, I know we had a school board meeting in April, I've heard, obviously. And my biggest thing is I truly, before it goes on a referendum to the public to vote, I personally want to make it my point to meet with the parties involved in this. Like I said, nobody's reached out to me. That nobody's reached out to me personally. I could attest to that on this, right? What I want to do is I want to reach out to people, not just school board members, not just educators, not just constituents, not just 75,000 other members and families of DCPS. I want to do this. I really, truly want to do this. This has nothing to do with politics. I want to know that before I make a vote to either continue the same tax rate or lower or raise it, that people are on board with this. My question to you, Mr. Poppins, is this. If we defer it, what does that do for us? And do we have to take a vote on this now or will defer all be okay for another two weeks? I want to know, like, the timeline of things. That's all I want to know. Through the chair to Council Member Arias, I just want to clarify one thing you said. You're not voting on the millage. You're voting whether to send it to the ballot. Right. The ministerial action to send it to the ballot. With respect to timing, I tried to reach out and get clarification. I haven't heard back. If you defer it here for one cycle and the council was left to act on it on June 23rd, I think that's the last possible opportunity you would act on it, be able to act on it before their deadline to get the ballot language to the supervisor of elections hits. So I think you have the grace of one additional cycle, but I've reached out to try to get clarification. That was my biggest thing. All right. I would be in favor of the deferral to give us time to truly meet with the community. I know we're not voting on any tax rate or whatever, but it's putting it on the ballot. And that's really what I want to know. So if we do have time, then I would be okay with the deferral. But once again, I'll let the body decide. All right. We'll go to Council Member Johnson and then Council President Carrico. Council Member Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just had a question. Councilman Diamond is gone or stepped away. Where is he here? Oh, sorry. He's on a phone. You're good. You're good. I wanted to know the reason, his rationale for the deferral. I didn't quite hear it. Is there a rationale? And maybe you, I don't want to interrupt him, but is there someone to give a rationale? Okay. Council President Carrico. Okay. Yeah. Mr. President. I was also in queue. A deferral today represents the actual vote of this committee. It was 3-3. While some people will praise Mr. Lehman for changing his vote, I don't believe in people changing their vote just to get things out of committee. We appreciate what he did for the budget, but I would have rather have sat there for 12 more hours and let you vote the way you wanted to vote. This body voted for a tie, which is a deferral. There's two ways it could still be voted on on Tuesday. I could discharge it. We can vote it on Tuesday. Or any member of the body can move for that item to be discharged, and we can still take it up on Tuesday. So I think a deferral best suits what the committee desired, and that's the accurate vote, and that's how we should move it. That's why I moved the deferral, and I'd like to get that voted on so we can all get out of here. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chair, if I may, to the General Counsel's office. Again, I heard you say earlier, just putting it on record just to make sure I'm understanding, this is ministerial. So there's no changes that we would materially be able to make to this if they came back, let's say, that Councilman Arias went and had a community meeting, and they said we want it to be an eighth of a mil, just making this up. We couldn't just change that arbitrarily, correct? Through the chair to Councilmember Johnson, no. The statute indicates or states that the school board passes a resolution that directs the city council to have it placed on the ballot by the supervisor of elections. It does require, under the statute, that it go on the general election ballot, so you couldn't change the dates that suggest that it go on to the next ballot. But no, you would not be in a position to alter the use of the funds, the amount of the millage, et cetera. Just remember, this is just for continuation of an existing millage. It's not for a new tax ad valorem millage. Which, it just makes sense in order, and the only reason I bring that up is because we are simply doing the business of the city, and this, in essence, would kind of stop that if this is deferred. And so it just makes sense if we send it to the ballot, kind of like the budget initiative from the governor's office and from the legislature. If it goes to the ballot, truly the people get to decide. So a deferral really doesn't allow us to do much. Just wanted to put that out there. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chair. All right. We're going to go to Council Member Salem, and then I'm going to call for the vote on the deferral. Council Member Salem. Thank you, Chair. Just a couple things. One, I take every vote very seriously. This ministerial stuff bothers me. I have a green button and a red button. I didn't like it four years ago, and I understand the state legislature is looking at this process and maybe taking away this ministerial vote because I don't think it's right. If I'm voting, I'm voting. Just a point of clarification from the chair. If the item is discharged Tuesday night, that requires then a two-thirds vote, correct? Through the chair to Council Member Salem. So it can either be discharged by the president or by a vote of two-thirds of the council member's president at that meeting. Two-thirds to get a discharge and then a majority to pass the bill? Correct. Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. I'm a big proponent of education. I started my career in education on the college level, and when I was president, I held four meetings of the joint school board and city council. Never been done before. Hasn't been done since. So I really believe it. I'm not sure what the mumbling's about, but I have the microphone. All right. Hold on. Guys. Stop the crosswalking. So, and I think the school board should have been much more aggressive in meeting with us. This point of the superintendent or the assistant superintendent being busy, I'm busy too. We're all busy. But if something, it's been my experience in my career. If something's important to you, you'll get it done. That's your number one priority. And I think the number one priority of the school board should have been to meet with 19 different people if they requested it and get clarification on what this is, what it does, who it helps, all those things. I don't like this salary stuff that I'm hearing. You can always change budgets around. I've done it myself in my career to get done what you want to get done. So, I'm going to support the deferral. I look forward to hopefully over the next week or so getting a meeting set up as I've requested and not Friday afternoon before committees on Monday. That's not appropriate to me. So, I'm done. Thank you. All right. Everyone in favor of the deferral, signify by raising your hand. All those opposed, the deferral passes. All right. Item, is this the right one? 2026, 387 is deferred by a vote of 43. Wow, look at that. All right. So, Mr. Peterson, in the essence of time, I'm going to ask if you can just send, can you, would you just send an email on your update? Okay. And we can talk about that whenever it needs to come up unless it's crazy time sensitive. But, great. Okay. Let's go ahead and send that out via email. And then if we need to take it up next time or any other time, we certainly can. But as of now, 246, this meeting is adjourned.