All right. Testing. Good afternoon. It is 1 o'clock on June 16th. We're going to go ahead and call the Finance Committee to order, and we will start with introductions to the left. Brady Norris for the administration. Colleen Hampsey, Council Research. Barry Stafopoulos, Office of General Counsel. Phillip Peterson, Council Auditor. Good afternoon. Rory Diamond and George, District 13, The Beaches. Ron Salem, Group 2 at large. Nick Howland at large, Group 3. Joe Carlucci, District 5. Will Lane in District 3. All right. And what kind of Finance Committee would it be without a presentation from our auditors? Yeah, I know. Through the chair to the committee, the request of Council Member Salem, we looked into the Emergency Incidents Fund to see its financial state. And just so you're aware, the Emergency Incidents Fund is where all emergency events, so tropical storms, hurricanes, COVID-19, they're all booked there. They're allowed to go out and spend as necessary, and then we seek reimbursement from the applicable governmental agency. And then occasionally, the city will have to come in and backfill any gap with general fund dollars to make up this difference in what was received and what was spent. But when examining the revenues and expenditures that have been recorded in that fund, and this mainly dates back to Hurricane Matthew was the last time that we, prior to that, it had already been filled, if you will. There was a zero balance going into that fund. But looking at the revenues and expenditures that have been recorded, along with the anticipated revenues to be received from FEMA and the state, the fund as a whole is actually projected to be positive. So this is largely due to actions that were taken by city councils and the mayor back in fiscal year 17-18. $7 million was budgeted to go into this fund. And that was, so that had been the summer of 17. Matthew had hit October of 16. And so we knew that we were going to have to fill some type of hole. So $7 million was put in then. And then the following year, fiscal year 18-19 budget, $8 million was contributed again because IRMA had hit the prior year. And so those two contributions are why that fund will be positive once it all shakes out. But for those two contributions, it would have a hole that would need to be filled. But those will carry us into a positive manner going forward for any future storms. All right. Council Member Salem, you're in the queue. You're recognized. Thank you, Chair. I asked for this review because we haven't had a storm in a while, and I thought it would be a good opportunity to see where we stand on this. Through the Chair to Mr. Peterson, and theoretically the amount that we would put out as a city is that 5% or 10% that we owe the feds or the state on a storm. But we should get back everything other than that, correct? Through the Chair to Council Member Salem. So most storms for the, I'll say the lower event storms, the city is responsible for a 12.5% contribution. It's 12.5% from the city, 12.5% from the state, and then from FEMA is 75%. For Matthew and Irma, that was decreased due to the severity that Jacksonville experienced, and we were only responsible for a 5% contribution. The state picked up 5%, and then FEMA contributed 90%. But normally it's that 12.5%. So through the Chair, how much is in that fund today? The fund is currently sitting at a negative $8 million cash balance, but we have outstanding claims that have been approved by FEMA. FEMA has transmitted to the state, and the state is in the process of reviewing. Once we receive those payments, and then there are other expected expenses that are anticipated expenses that Fire Rescue still has related to a couple of the more recent smaller tropical storms. Once those are received, that will put the fund into the black and set us up for success in the future. Do we need to put any money into that fund as we're now in hurricane season? I mean, that's just a question. Through the Chair. Through the Chair to Council Member Salem. My recommendation would not be to put money in the fund because you would just be setting it aside for a future event. I would recommend waiting to see if we have a storm and then addressing it at that time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Chair. All right. Council Member Laney, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair, Mr. Peterson, I remember talking to you about this, I think about a year ago, the Irma and Matthew funds, that money's still there, I think, to the dollar, right? It's $8 and $7 million available? Through the Chair to Council Member Laney. That's correct. So the storms are tracked individually, but the dollars all go into the same fund. So that $15 million is what is really setting the city up for success going forward. Had that not been done, we would be at a negative $23 million problem and would project in the fund, once we receive all reimbursements, I'd still be in a cash hole. So through the Chair, Mr. Peterson, even though it's in a contingency account that's named after a storm, that money there we can use on future storms despite the name of what that contingency account is, correct? Through the Chair to Council Member Laney. And so there will probably need to be some accounting cleanup to move journal entries around from storm to storm, but looking at the fund as a whole, it's in a good shape. Through the Chair, thank you. All right, now we can, oh, and we want to welcome Councilwoman Pittman. Thank you for joining us. All right, so we'll go to item number one, 2024-627 is deferred. Item number two, 2024-966 is deferred. Item number three, 2025-361 is deferred. Item number four, 2025-775 is deferred. Item number five, 2026-227 is deferred. Item number six, 2026-318 is deferred. Item number seven, 2026-320 is deferred. Item number eight, 2026-377 is deferred. Which brings us to our first action item, number nine, 2026-418. We have a motion and a second on the bill. Is there any discussion? Okay. Do you have an amendment? Do you have an amendment on this? No, I'm offering an amendment. Through the chair to Council President-Designate Howland, I was copied on an email that was forwarded to me by Jason Teal where you had interacted with John Sawyer with respect to whether there needed to be any amendments to the development agreement. Councilmember Howland. Please explain the amendment. Mary, please explain Mr. Sawyer's amendment and then I'll move it. Yes, thank you. Okay, so through the chair to the committee, when looking at this project and whether or not there were any implications in the development agreement between the city and Blue Cross Blue Shield, Mr. Sawyer recommended that there be an amendment to authorize an amendment to the development agreement to include some language in Section 6.3 of that development agreement, which is with respect to the restrictive covenants that Blue Cross Blue Shield would have been required to sign off on relative to the parking garage, which required that they would provide for public parking. And so it would include language that just states, except as maybe otherwise authorized by city council, that the restrictive covenants would bind the developer and future owners of the parking garage and the project parcel. And that's to address the fact that we're adjusting their obligations with respect to the provision of public parking through this legislation. That's basically an abundance of caution amendment that Mr. Sawyer had. Yeah. Yes. And what we would do as part of the amendment, if it's approved, is we would attach just a simple amendment to the development agreement, including authorization for the mayors to execute or DIA to execute that amendment as part of the bill. Thank you for clarifying. Move the amendment. All right. We have a motion to second on the amendment. No one in the queue. All in favor of the amendment. Signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Second. Motion to second on the bill as amended. Council President-elect Howland. You're recognized. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill basically just changes the public purpose for an already agreed redevelopment agreement from public parking to JSO parking. And JSO is here if anyone needs further explanation. But as JSO moves its headquarters into the Florida Blue Building, they're going to need access to that specified parking garage that's named in the bill. And they're going to need it all for a substation, for security reasons, and everything. And it's going to become a public safety issue if there's general parking allowed in the site. Now, we had JSO do a study of how much that parking lot is used right now by the public. And it's something like 40 cars max per month. And I think that was a heavy month. So it's not used much. That said, it probably will be used in the future as Brooklyn gets billed out. So there is a concern here. Nonetheless, I think we all agree public safety first. JSO needs it. They've been very clear on why. They've been very happy to work with us and DIA to figure out better ways to do it. But this is where we stand. And we are doing this for JSO. Thanks. All right. We have no one else in the queue. And we did have a motion in a second. So open the ballot. Accord your vote. Six yeas, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-418. Item number 10, 2026-444. Motion to second on the withdrawal. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Accord your vote. Six yeas, zero nays. By your action, you've withdrawn 2026-444. Item number 11, 2026-445 is deferred. Item number 12, 2026-447. Motion to second on the rules amendment. Can someone please explain the rules amendment? Through the chair of the committee, the rules amendment would revise the funding source to, rather than be a budgetary line item within the self-insurance fund, to use retained earnings within the self-insurance fund. Include a waiver of section 128-312 to allow self-insurance operating reserves, which is the same as the retained earnings, to be used to fund this new risk management system. And then attach a revise to exhibit one to reflect the change in funding source. All right. No speakers in the queue. All in favor of the rules amendment. Signified by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Amendment carries. Motion to second on the bill as amended. Council Member Lainey, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to Ms. Flynn, if she's out there or anyone from the administration. Just a question. It's a nice round half a million dollars, so I assume this is just a rough estimate right now as to how much this new system's going to cost us. Tracy Flynn Risk. We have our projections out. It is due to the conversion costs and the first year of operating of it. Conversion costs can vary a little bit depending on the amount of service hours that go into it, any kind of big glitches that happen. It's a big undertaking to replace your claims program. This basically holds all of our claims, our auto, our general liability, our work comp. So it's a long process. The switch won't go on for it until February. And during that time, we're doing this conversion process. Through the chair. Thank you, Ms. Flynn. All right, we have no other speakers in the queue. Let's open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-447. Item number 13, 2026-448 is deferred. Item number 14, 2026-449 is deferred. Item number 15, 2026-450. All right, we have a motion and a second on the bill. No speakers in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-450. Item number 16, 2026-453 is deferred. Item number 17, 2026-454. Second. Motion and a second on the amendment. Can someone please explain the amendment? Through the chair to the committee, this bill authorizes the borrowing for projects that have had dollars spent and need to be funded now that they are moving forward. And there were a couple projects that were left off the project list that's attached to the bill. So we'll attach a revised Exhibit 1 to include those additional projects and then correct various scrimmers. All right, Council Member Diamond, you're recognized. All right. All in favor of the amendment, signified by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. All right, we have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. Council Member Diamond, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just think that we ought to get on the record from Ms. Brochet or somebody else from finance as to why we're waiving Section 104.201. It's just a lot of money to be waiving the competitive sale. I know the reason, but I'd just like to get on the record. All right, we have Ms. Brochet coming on down. Anna Brochet, finance. Through the chair to Councilman Diamond, Treasury has its own procurement process and procedures from a financial administration and financial services perspective and has for as long as I can remember forever. And so that's what the waiver is. All right. Council Member Landon, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. I was just going to say for item 17 and 18, I'll support him because, again, it's required because we had the capital improvement plan that we approved last summer. But again, and I'll reiterate this when we get into the budget season, we have exactly one day a year we can impact what our debt expense is. And that's when we look at the CIP projects, which whether it's operating budget or capital, a dollar is a dollar. So I do intend to give the CIP an even harder look this year as we go through that. Because, again, just to reiterate, there's one day a year that we can impact what our future debt expense is. All right. We have no other speakers in the queue. So let's open the ballot. Record your vote. They'll be sick that day. Five yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-454. Item number 18, 2026-455. All right. We have a motion and second on the amendment. Can someone please explain the amendment? Through the chair of the committee, this very technical, it's clarifying that only a portion of the commercial paper ordinance, which is 2004-884, is being amended, and then striking a superfluous words that are not needed in this section. All right. All in favor of the superfluous amendment, signify by saying aye. All right. That was a weak aye. Aye. Okay. There we go. Amendment passes. Move the bill to amendment. All right. We have a motion and second on the bill as amended. Council Member Salem, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment. Okay. I've discussed this with Mr. Peterson and understand the need to go to up to $250 million due to the stadium and other reasons that are stated in our, but my amendment would be that it come back to $200,000 on 9-30-29. I'm sorry, 200, what did I say? I'm sorry, $200 million, pardon me, on 9-30-29 once all this is completed. Okay. Understood. Do we have a second? Second. All right. We have a motion and a second on the Salem Amendment. Anyone in the queue? Council Member Landon, you're recognized. Through the chair to Dr. Sam, can you just explain to me one more time what comes back to us on 9-30? This is going up to $250 million from $200,000 due to the reasons stated about the stadium, et cetera, there. I'm saying once all that is completed, let's bring it back down to $200 million where it was before all the stadium stuff was occurring. Through the chair, thank you. All right. Council President, is it good? All right. Stay on for the bill. Okay, cool. All in favor of the Salem Amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. We'll roll those up into one amendment. And did, so now we need to move the bill again? Okay. Okay. Got a motion and second on the bill as amended. Are you on the, okay. Council Vice President Howland, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question for Philip. The second to last bullet there. Can you clarify, cumulative inflation of 75% over this time would equate to a new max of $260 million? Through the chair to Council Member Howland. So the $150 million cap was put in in 2004. And so the administration in assessing whether or not to raise the rate applied inflation each year up till 2026 and in doing so equates to about 75%. And so that would be a $260 million number now if we just applied inflation every year since 2004. And you're just showing that for context, so to speak? Correct. Just, these were their kind of talking points as to why to raise the rate and just wanted to make sure that you were aware of them. Understood. Thank you. All right. No other speakers in the queue. Let's open the ballot and record your votes. Five yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-455. Item number 19, 2026-457. We have a motion and second on the Neighborhoods Amendment. Can someone please explain the amendment? Through the chair of the committee, the Neighborhoods Amendment would revise the funding source to rather than issuing debt to be funded from the General Fund Operating Reserves. Attach as a revised Exhibit 1, which is the BT, to correct some account information and reflect that revised funding source. Attach as a revised Exhibit 3, which is the term sheet with the Jacksonville Housing Authority to clarify the term of the loan, clarify if there are any closing expenses that they'll be paid by JHA, will allow the funds to be dispersed on a work-performed and invoice basis rather than advancing the funds, and then also clearly define the project. And then lastly, correct Scribner's. All right. Are you on the amendment? Okay. All right. Council Vice President Howland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Phillip, have we used the commercial paper facility to fund loans in the past like this? I know the amendment changes that funding source. Through the chair to Council Member Howland, none come to mind. I'm not going to say that we haven't, but I can't specifically think of any. And that was Neighborhoods Reasoning to change it to General Fund? I believe Neighborhoods Reasoning was it was only a three-year loan, so rather than issue debt and take on a higher debt cost, as well as the administrative burden that comes along with managing debt versus just making a one-time payment out of the general fund. But that is another factor that should be considered. Do you know if, last question, the introducer or Neighborhoods Committee or the auditor have looked at other potential funding sources for this million dollars instead of general operating reserves? Through the chair, I can say that the auditors have not. I do not know about the introducer, and no other funding sources were discussed at Neighborhoods. Okay. Just because this Finance Committee has kind of been nervous about pulling anything out of the general fund this year, even if it's just a million. But nowadays, given the financial uncertainty we have in the fall, just a million is no longer just a million. It's a million. And it should be a concern of ours. Thanks. All right. We have... Did we take a vote on the amendment? No. Speak now, forever hold your peace. All right. Do we have somebody? All right. Councilman Salem, you're recognized. No, I was in neighborhoods. I supported this. I was just trying to save the city overall money by... It was a short term, and you guys know how I feel about going into the general fund, but it was short term, it was only for three years, trying to save money instead of going out and borrowing it. That was the only reason. I understand the concern, and I said it myself, but that was the reason for it. Thank you. All right. Councilman Landon, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. And just to the committee, I did talk to Mr. Peterson about this much, or this one, at length, because we've seen a lot of loans lately. But ultimately, I support the amendment, because there's not only the administrative workload that's going to be saved, but basically, we are, Justin, correct me if I'm wrong here, Mr. Peterson, we're essentially giving JHA a better rate than they otherwise would have gotten. It's short term. There's no forgiveness part. It's more of a market rate than some of the 1% loans that have come through lately, and we'll get it back in three years, I believe. Through the Chair to Council Member Landon, I agree with every statement you said, except for maybe the market rate portion, it's only at 2%, but it is higher than the 1% we've been giving. Through the Chair to Mr. Peterson, it's 100% more than the recent rates we have approved for loans that have lasted 20 years on interest only, so I will support it. All right. All in favor of the Neighborhoods Amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Amendment carries. Motion and second on the bill as amended. Well, well, well. All right. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six J's, one nay. By reaction, you've approved 2026-457. And we want to go ahead and welcome Council Member Arias for joining us. Thank you. Yeah, no problem. All right. Number 20, 2026-458. All right. We have a motion and a second. Councilwoman Pittman, you're recognized. Chair, I would like to amend this bill to authorize, to take parcel real estate number 131-783-0000 for an affordable housing experience project in District 10 for a nonprofit. All right. Do we have a second? All right. We have a second on the Pittman Amendment. No one in the queue. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Motion and second on the bill as amended. Council President Howland, you're recognized. It's awkward today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me ask, I don't know who the right, maybe if Renee is here, through the chair. Renee, do you mind coming up? There she is. Thank you. It was just about a year and a half ago that we had something of a news story about how a lot of the donated properties hadn't, to nonprofits for affordable housing, they hadn't completed affordable housing projects. Is that the same program here that made the news a couple years ago? Renee Public Works Real Estate. I'd have to defer to the housing division. It's on. She's just talking softly. Yeah. If anyone from housing wants to come up and address it, I have some other questions for you, too. I think housing can address that. I do recall the bill that you're referring to, I think. Yeah. And I think the properties went to grace and truth. Does that sound familiar? Renee, we need to get a little. There you go. I think the properties you're referring to, I think they went to grace and truth. Does that sound familiar? Yeah. All right. Okay. How about Ms. Pittman through the chair? And then Mr. Diamond has an answer for that, too. All right. Ms. Pittman, you recognize. Yes, ma'am. So, yes. To advise, you know this is not the nonprofit. Her name is Jackie Moore. I heard the name of the nonprofit escapes me, but she has the experience on East Jacksonville of developing programs. She bought the family dollar over to the community, and she has several pieces of property that she's trying to assemble for some of the people who are actually renting in the area, and she's interested in developing affordable housing for them. I've worked with her the past five years, and now she's ready to kind of go to the finish line to complete this affordable housing, and she does have the resources to do it. Okay. Thank you. And, Mr. Diamond, you wanted to? Yeah, just to add to the discussion, because you're right on the point, so, and separate from that, a couple of years ago, there was a report which was accurate that the city had given, like, 80 different lots to private individuals in order to build affordable housing, like, on those lots, and then they never did, right? And one family in Orlando had, like, two-thirds of them, like, miraculously. They all had the same last name. And so then what we asked the city to do was to utilize the reverter language in the conveyance, which said, hey, if you haven't built this house, you have to give this back, right? And so I think the relevant question for us today is, is there a reverter in this conveyance, and how fast can we execute our reverter if they don't do what they're supposed to do? So how much leeway are we giving people to say, you've got to build this? All right. Well, since I have the microphone here, Ms. Hunter, do you know if there's a reverter in that? I know you just deal mostly with the parcels. Sure. Through the chair to Council Member Howland, I think that's all a part of the affordable housing program that these properties are going to be going through. If I recall correctly, I think it's in the code. I think it was changed a year or two ago. And forgive me, I do think this is more of a housing thing, but I believe there will be a deed restriction in these properties that after they go through the housing division's affordable housing donation program, I think there's a restriction in there that says after two or three years, if the properties do not have a certificate of occupancy in them, then the properties can revert to the city. That process is something that's initiated by the housing division, I believe. Are Travis or Josh here? And if they're not, I wondered, Mike, do you know if they're in the building? Because what we could do is move on to the other two. My only question is, I'm not against the bill. Well, my only question is for Travis and Josh would be, do we have the reverter for this particular program? Two, why would we have a period of 60 days of properties may be donated to any entity with any affordable housing? Let's see what it says. The first 30 days entity with prior affordable housing, therefore a period of 60 days, the properties may be donated to any entity with prior affordable housing experience. I guess they have to have some kind of affordable housing experience, so I just want to know what they have to make sure that we're giving these away. Those are the two questions I have for them. And then the one for you is, have we valued these 15 parcels writ large? So through the chair to Council Member Howland, we didn't want to spend money on appraisals since these are going to be donated. So what you'll find in the legislative package is just the assessed value from the property appraiser's website. So if you look in there, it's got a chart, and it lists their assessed values there, and then globally, or all 15 of them together, is just over $200,000 a sentence. Just over $200,000? Yes. Okay. Yep. Thank you. I don't know if we can... Mr. Popolis, did you want to chime in? Or was that Mr. Peterson? Go ahead. Through the chair to... I think I can answer Council Member Howland's questions. The ordinance code requires a reverter to be included in these donations, so there's not specific language in this bill itself. You're just authorizing these to move forward, but when they do enter into agreements, they're required to put that in. But they have to act on that reverter. That's what I think Council Member Diamond was referring to in that report, is that we had the reverter language in those prior ones, but the city wasn't acting on them. As it relates to the 30 days and the 60-day requirements, those were changes that were adopted by the council in early 2023, wanting to give preference to those who had affordable housing experience and not just any developer, but those who are specifically in the affordable housing realm. The first 30 days is to nonprofits. The next 60 days is to anybody who has affordable housing experience, and if any of the properties remain after that 90-day period, it can go to anyone who wants to purchase the property. And that's in... Sorry, through the chair. Through the chair. That's in 122.423C? Through the chair, that's correct. The 30, 60, and the 90? Yes, sir. Okay, then that does answer the questions. But I got one more, and that is, why are we waiving subsection 122.423F for this? Any idea? Through the chair. Housing explained to us there are... So the ordinance code requires them to have four workshops to notify the public that these properties are available. Given that there were only 15 properties, they felt four was a little excessive. They're still going to have two workshops, one electronic, one in person. In years past, the property numbers were in the, I want to say hundreds that were being donated or declared surplus for affordable housing. And so that's where the council made the change to have these four. But housing's determination was, given the reduced number of parcels that are available for or suitable for affordable housing in this year's inventory list, they only saw the need to have two. I can't explain anything more than that. I don't know why we would reduce the public's ability to come to meetings to talk about this, unless there's a significant cost associated with doing four workshops instead of two. I doubt it. I mean, we're giving away $200,000 of free city property. One would think we should open that up to anybody, and restricting it from four to two doesn't seem right. But I don't know how anyone else feels on that. Well, we have Ms. Pittman. I mean, I don't know the ins and outs of four to two. Well, after the chair, so let me say, of course, I have vetted the organization and the person, the work that they've done. I'm quite aware of some of the bad actors in the community. But I can say this particular nonprofit has done good work on North Jacks, I mean, on the Phoenix area and wanting to clear that area up. And there are a lot of families that want to do affordable housing. I did talk to Travis before I considered taking this out and making sure that she's going to be working with him regarding this project. So they'll do more vetting than I did, but she did come to me to ask me, once the surplus property became available, if I would consider donating. This is the first time that I've ever donated to a nonprofit. And as you know, you know, I'm in the community and with the corridor funding that I had, this is going to be a part of that as well to open up additional opportunities for these individuals. Well, through the chair, thank you, Ms. Pittman. And I'm fine with everything. How does the administration feel if we just waived, if we struck the waiver of section .423F and just made it four workshops? They don't care. Yeah. I'm not of mind to reducing the amount of opportunities the public can, you know, address a community service that we're offering them. So I move an amendment to eliminate the waiver of subsection 122.423F. All right. We have a motion and a second. If I could, Mr. Chair, I just, there was a second part to that waiver as well. I just want to make sure you wanted to include that and that they would not have to advertise the workshops in a newspaper of general circulation. I think that came at a cost of 1,000 plus dollars and they were trying to save that cost. So I just want to make sure if you eliminate the waiver, you want to eliminate both parts, the reduction in the number of workshops and the requirement. Now let's waive the whole thing. The whole thing. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you. All right. Yep. All right. No one in the queue. So all in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Yes. Yes. We can roll both those up into one amendment. So I think we had a motion and a second on the bill as amended. We have no one else in the queue. Let's open the ballot. Court of vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By reaction approved, 2026-458. Item number 21, 2026-459. All right. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. No one in the queue. Let's open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By reaction you've approved, 2026-459. Item number 22, 2026-460. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By reaction you've approved, 2026-460. All right. Council Member Diamond, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know for our JFRD chief, you weren't at Doge, but we discussed the fact that it's very likely the telehealth contract will not survive finance this year, which would leave the only thing really available for that process is the free rights site or something similar. So just want, you know, since chief, you're here, I want to throw that out. I don't think telehealth is going to survive, and so we'll need to pivot on another way to do that. Thanks. All right. We have item number 23, 2026-463. All right. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. Can someone please explain the amendment? Through the chair of the committee, the amendment just corrects that there's been four, the contract with the Jumbo Shrimp has been funded over a four-year time period, and then it attaches a revised exhibit one to correct some account information. All right. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Motion and a second on the bill as amended. Councilmember Landon, you're recognized. Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair of the committee, I talked to Mr. Peterson about this yesterday. If you note, there's the auditors no pursuant to the cost disbursement agreement. The city is not responsible for cost overruns and is therefore not obligated to fund this appropriation. So I guess I was surprised it went five to one. What am I, I guess through the chair to Mr. Peterson or the administration, whoever, like what am I missing? Why are we trying to give more money that we are not contractually obligated to here? Mike Weinstein, city mayor's office. Basically, the obligation was to prepare the stadium for AAA, and the bullpen came out at the very end as an issue that wasn't so directed at the beginning. The new owners came in. It was basically at the time when Babby was selling. New owners came in. We talked about the bullpen being moved from basically inside to a safer place outside. AAA required it. Major League Baseball required it. So we agreed to go ahead and do it, getting it ready for AAA. That's why we agreed to do it. Councilmember Landon, you still have the floor. Through the chair to Mr. Weinstein. But I mean, going back to the original contract, I think it was a pretty good size. I think it was 30-something million-ish of city money. Was that part of the contract, or are we basically doing this just to be nice to a new owner? I guess that's my concern, because I get concerned about the president, right? Like the stadium pops in my mind. It's very clear that deal, all 100% overruns are covered by that owner. I just want to make sure we're not breaking that precedent by giving out any more money for this project that was not required by the contract. You can define it as an overrun, or you can define it as an expansion, basically, of making sure it's AAA ready. It wasn't so defined in the original that it's a gray area, wherever the negotiations were a long time ago, a couple years ago, I guess. But again, needed to get it to AAA, decided to go ahead and do it. The finances were basically within the family, legions, legends, basically coming out of their funds. So that's why it was done. All right. Any other speakers? Any other? All right. We have, did we already, all right. Open the ballot, record your vote. Four ayes, three nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-463. All right. Items number 24, 2026-489, 490, 491, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499 are all on second reading. So, guys and girls, that concludes the last finance committee of the year. And before you go, George and the District 13 Councilman from the Beaches, I just want to say a few quick words on how much I've enjoyed serving with all you guys as half finance chair. And luckily, Councilmember Arias has agreed to secure the gifts for all the committee members because I didn't want to have to buy it for two. He had more. Yeah, he generously did that. But no, seriously, I've loved this committee. I've loved working alongside of every one of you. There's a special bond that the finance committee has going through the budget at the beginning of the year, and it's just been a real fun honor and a real fun time. So, with that, we will adjourn, and then we'll keep going around the horn. So, this meeting is adjourned, and Councilmember Salem, you're recognized. I know, technically. Yeah, this is the third one I've done in the last two days. I just wanted to thank you for your leadership on – you stepped in, and we didn't miss a beat through that process, and appreciate what you've done. And I think we've had a good committee, good dialogue throughout the year, and I think that's important. I appreciate it. Thank you. Absolutely. We'll just go around the horn. All right, Mr. Chair and Mr. Former Chair, I want to congratulate you both. I mean, Raul, you ran us through an incredibly successful budget session, finishing fully funding JSO and with an eighth-of-a-mill tax decrease. That was tremendous. And, Joe, you took over and kept it steady, as Ron said. So, congrats to both of you. It was great – both of you. Great job this year. Thank you. All right. Councilman Reyes. All right. Thank you, Chair. I just want to thank all of you guys. I have a little gift for you guys, but it's going to come on Tuesday because some of you guys – Amazon Prime is not the same as it used to be. So, some of you guys don't have your gifts, so I'm just going to have it ready for you guys next Tuesday. I do have your cards, but I do want to thank you all. It was a tough budget year, one of the toughest I've been on in the last three years, but we all got it through. And, honestly, I just love being here with all of you guys. I know sometimes it was pretty tough, but you guys are truly the best of the best, and I appreciate having you guys in my corner during this budget year. And, Joe, like they said, thanks for stepping in and not skipping a beat. You were awesome. So, thanks for your leadership, and I look forward to both of you guys, Mr. President-elect and Mr. Vice President-elect, on this upcoming year to really see you guys shine the way I know I expect you guys to do. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Council Member Landon. Thank you. I guess we're required to say nice things? Yep. All right. That's correct. So, no, thank you, both of you guys. I listened to First Coast Connect for the first time ever last week, found out I'm going to be a finance chair, so looking forward to that as well. The first goal I have is to get out of here before 4 a.m. on budget night, so still putting together some of my other goals. You can help with that. But, no, it was a great year. It seems like it's been longer than maybe just one year, but we did a lot of good work, and I'm proud to start with you guys and gals. All right. Councilwoman Pittman, bring us home. Oh, wait. You're on the queue, yeah. You're going to let me go? Well, thank you. I appreciate it. You've been nice to me today, huh? First of all, I want to say that you brought us on, but I appreciate the work, Ro, that you did before, and I feel that it was necessary to have different voices and different sides, and even though we may have disagreed on some things, we did bring things home and get it to the finish line. And I look forward to us, as I told Mr. Lane this morning, that he earned this position, and, you know, I know that he is going to look at every line and kind of take the legacy from both of you all and make sure that we save our taxpayers money and to make sure we have innovative ways to make sure we keep the money that we need and spend it. in the areas that we need it to, and so I just want to say thank you all for that opportunity and listening to me. I know I'm the only Democrat that's up here, but what I can say with you all is that we work together, and we got the work done, and I really appreciate y'all letting me have some input and voting on the input. So I appreciate that. Thank you so much. Yes, ma'am. All right. Councilmember Diamond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Raul, man, when I got the text that I was going to be on finance, I had no idea. I didn't ask for it. I was like, oh, okay. And then I was really depressed, honestly. I didn't want to do all that. But you guys threw what I think was the coolest budget season of my entire time on Council, and it was really, I mean, you had to do tough stuff, like stuff that's hard to do. And it's hard to sit in that chair and do stuff that's hard. And so I really respect what you did, so thank you for that. Joe, you jumped right in. It was awesome. I think the big reason why your VP does it right now is because of the great leadership you showed, so nice work. And I do want to give a shout-out to my friend, Jacoby Pittman. I think it's so easy to be me, just do my thing over here. I love doing it. It aligns with my values and all the rest. I think it's really hard to be the only Democrat on this committee when you've got me over here and other people doing stuff that's tough, right? It's uncomfortable. But, you know, as a team, I think we got through it, and I said he's better for it. Thanks. Yep, and I'll just end on one thing just to shed some light, and I think this will be kind of the mentality going forward. You know, I don't look at you up here or anybody up here as, like, all Republicans, one Democrat. I look at us as a group. And whatever your goals are, whatever his goals are over there, literally on opposite ends, right, of the actual dais, you know, we always just want to try and bring it to the middle and get something done good. And last but not least, the staff, everyone down there in the pit, over there, thank you guys. Y'all get an amazing round of applause for everything you do. So with that, 1.45, we're adjourned again.