Well, good morning. It is now 9.30, and we'll go ahead and get started with our last neighborhoods meeting of the 25-26 council year. With that, I call the meeting to order, and we'll start with our introductions to my left with Mr. Delaney. Good morning, y'all. Bill Delaney with the administration. Brandon Russell, Council Research. Mary Stifopoulos, Office of General Counsel. Philip Peterson, Council Leader's Office. Good morning, Michael Boylan, District 6. Kenna Morris, City Council, District 1. Randy White, District 12. Mike Gay, District 2. Good morning, Chris Miller, At-Large, Group 5. Ron Salem, Group 2, At-Large. Good morning, Tyrone Clark-Murray, District 9. All right, thank you all. We'll go ahead and have our public comment time. We've got a couple of speaker cards. We'll start with Mr. Cornell Oliver. If you would, please come up, give your name and address, or say it's on file, and please speak directly to the bill, and you'll be given three minutes, sir. Yes, my name is Colonel Oliver. Address is on file. What I'm speaking to is 2026-0458, surplus of land that's in city possession. The language of the bill talks about giving property to non-profit. I think that the language needs to be stricken and be donated after 30 days to Jacksonville Housing Authority, because there's only one pot of money left for non-profit can still benefit from. And you also have Reggie Gavin that serves on this council, and you got Jacoby Pittman that serves on this council. I'm not surprised they filed this kind of bill. It's security for the future. Number two, dealing with this loan with Franklin Arms and changing certain standards and criterias for it, I have no problem with. But the priorities, populations, and both these bills dealing with housing, number one, 458 and 457, need to have a criteria that fits standards of 1866 Civil Rights Act. Jim Crow is still very much alive, and I'm making that very perfectly clear. There are federal laws on the books that have not been enforced. We talk about law and order, but when I come up here as a citizen saying that I want law and order for a black American, if you donate this property, donate it to Jacksonville Housing Authority and make it a criteria that American freedmen get access to housing. And if you're going to set the standards for this project development, dealing with Franklin Arms, American freedmen have got to be a priority. The language, especially where we've always been, is a priority. And I'm also going to speak on topic of this. I need a resolution sent to Congressman John Rutherford. He sits on key jurisdiction committee. And I need a reauthorization of the 1868-66 Civil Rights Act. It is law on the books. It's just not being enforced on a local level. And that is part of the conversation that we need to have. We have laws on the books that should be enforced. All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Mr. John J. Nooney. Come on up, sir. You'll get three minutes. Give your name and address, say it's on the file, or. All right. Hello. Speak to the bill. I am. John J. Nooney. Jacksonville City Council Resolution 2023-0819. I'm in City Council District 4, CPAC Planning District 3, School Board District 3. Yeah, I'll touch on a number of agenda items. You know, I want to start off with R.D., the real coach. Address, sir. Ocho Tres, Cinco Seas, Pascam Road, Jacksonville, Florida, 32216. You know, right now, okay, I'm going to just start off. You know, 2026-0004. It's a trust fund for parks. So I'm making a donation. You know, and I'll take it up. In fact, I could probably just give it to Mr. Brochet right here. And the point is, you know, we're getting ready to market to the world. Okay, agenda items. You know, I'll touch on, like, 2024-0966. He got agenda item two, number four, 2026-0318. You know, it's a $10 fee. Is it $5 or $10? Are we adding $10 to the $5? You know, again, it's not in any of the CPACs. CPACs, like I said, went to an Ethics Commission meeting and asked. We have six CPACs. The Mayor's Disability Council, Council on Elder Affairs. Why is OGC, the Office of General Counsel, not represented at these meetings? And, you know, it's crushing. You know, Dylan Reingold, you know, he's gone. So, you know, you may want to just defer this. Is it an emergency? Okay, number seven, 2026-0358, vessels. It's not in waterways. You got Marshall Atkinson. You know, he used to be on waterways. We're going to allow for additional service charges, vessels as a separate vehicle type. I mean, this is massive stuff. Okay, 2026-0492, 2026-0493. Here, this is trust fund stuff, you know, and 2026-0494. You know, let's just spread the wealth on that one. And, you know, what I want to do, you know, I don't know if anybody watched the Florida channel, but like I said, oh, and, you know, here we go. Because you got, here's St. John's County. You're going to go to them tomorrow, right here. And the strategic plan. Everyone's got a strategic plan. Well, the biggest plan should be public access on our waterways. That should be the biggest plan for the world, especially for Duval County. And so, anyway, here's the map, you know, for downtown. And the kayak launch, it ain't on here. So don't visit Jacksonville. All right, thank you. Our next speaker will be Marshall Atkinson. Come on down. You'll get three minutes. Give your name and address or say it's on the record. Marshall Atkinson, we're at 345 Phillips Highway. What else did you name, Mike? Name and address? Yeah, just name and address. Well, I'm probably going to be a little shorter or I could be longer on this one here. What started out to be a city ordinance, two of them actually, that were written real old, real long, and quite frankly, horribly based on everything. We spent over a year now writing these two ordinances to get them passed. And then we didn't have any conversation with anybody. Everyone seemed to be okay with it until last time two weeks ago, I think it was, when we came in here and we found out risk management wanted to get involved in it. By no means am I throwing anyone under the bus, but I couldn't figure out, after a Zoom meeting that happened, an individual that is very strong in the city, my understanding is the number two guy in risk management, why he would push so hard and come up with things like Ferrari and everything like this. Gentlemen, ladies, I don't know how to say it, but when you're an insurance agent and you own an insurance company and your son writes my insurance policies, we have a conflict of interest here. We have a due diligence as council members to look at administration and find out why they have people like that in their staff. I didn't choose this. It's not where I wanted to go. But the insurance requirements, we have to fix insurance reform first. Then we can start talking about it. Other than that, you're penalizing everybody else. And we have targets on our back all the time because of the requirements that we used to carry. We found out by protecting ourselves what pushed the personal injury lawyers down the road. And it's $500,000, $1 million, umbrella policies, it kicks it down the road. They don't mess with us anymore. Privilege lawsuits disappear. I can't fix the insurance. That's a state-level thing. But somewhere along it has to be young. But I just couldn't believe that we have someone like that speaking harshly about the reasons why we need to be. And I challenge anyone to check in the state of Florida where any city municipal palace, any FHP, has ever been sued over a towing company. It has not. There isn't one case. Because we don't have a contract. We have an agreement to tow. And that's all we have is an agreement to tow. And if you raise these rates to the $500,000 limit that the city wants now, you're going to lose good companies like myself because we're not going to do it anymore. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. All right. Going to our agenda, I'm going to take up a few items first, and then we'll go back to the beginning of our agenda. So if you would turn to page 9. We'll take up item number 13. Give me a second to get there. Item number 13, 2026-0446. I'm going to get a motion on amendment. I've got a motion second on amendment. Mr. Peterson. Through the chair of the committee, the amendment would clarify that these changes are effective immediately. I would reference code section 352-101 within the boundary change section, as that's the section of our code that relates to boundary changes of polling locations. Include precinct 1110 within the list of precincts that are having boundary changes and attach a revised Exhibit 1 to correct a couple addresses. All right. Thank you. Ms. Murray on the amendment. Thank you, Chair. Oh, he's already there. Hey, good morning. Good morning. So I just want to know whether or not the changes increase or decrease the number of polling places for that particular district. Because I know there was an issue maybe a couple of years ago, maybe a year ago, in regards to there being more for one particular district than there was for other districts. So does it change the number and whether it increases or decreases? Thank you. Excuse me. Jerry Holland, Supervisor of Elections 105 East Monroe Street. The changes do not eliminate any polling locations or precincts. The changes are basically eight permanent changes, one going back to where it was, two temporary changes because they're under renovations, and a couple of precinct line changes. But none of these are reducing. We're still at 160 polling locations, and it will continue to be at 160. Thank you for that. Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you. Let's go to Council Member Morrow. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very quickly, I'm supporting the legislation. I had a conversation with Mr. Holland on the stand and need. My only, and I want to make it public here, my only concern was early notification of the electorate so that folks don't just show up at their old precinct. They find it closed, and then they become upset. And he has assured me that they will make a very diligent effort to reach those who may be affected, to let them know as early as possible of the polling changes. So I'm supporting the bill. Thank you, Chair. And through the Chair, the process that we do is every voter that is impacted will get a new voter information card. They will also get the indication on their sample ballot where their new precinct is. We also will put signage at the previous location, so in case they don't look at their voter information card, don't look at their sample ballot, you know, then when they show up, it will give them the location of where their polling location is. We'll continue to do social media as well as interviews on these changes, as we have done already, and we'll make sure that the voters are aware. All right. Thank you. No other speakers in the queue. I as well want to go on the record. A couple of these changes affect my precincts and my district. We're going to – we tried to find a good area that we can move them to. Unfortunately, they're changing considerably, but we'll keep on trying to find a good place that will be convenient to the community as we move forward. So I've got a motion and a second on the amendment. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise. None. Amendment carries. Can I get a motion and a second on the bill as amended? I've got a motion and a second on the bill as amended. I have no speakers in the queue. Open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you approve 2026-0446. The next item that I'm going to take – Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Thank you, sir. The next item will be on page 14, item number 19. Hold on. Hold on. Item number 19, 2026-0460. Can I get a motion on the bill? I've got a motion and a second on the bill. No discussion. Open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you approve 2026-0460. That will take us back to the beginning of our agenda. Item number one, 2024-0966 is deferred at request of Council President Carrico. Item number two, 2025-0361 is deferred at request of Council Member White. Item number three, 2026-0227 is deferred at request of Council Member Diamond. Item number four, 2026-0318 is deferred at request of Council Member Johnson. Item number five, 2026-0319 is deferred at request of Council Member Carlucci. Item number six, 2026-0320 is deferred at request of Council Member White. All right. And then that takes us to item number seven, 2026-0358. I've got a motion and a second on the bill. So before we open the queue here for discussion, I just want to give a little bit of information that Ms. McGillis is here and she'll be able to explain a little bit more. I'm wanting to offer an amendment to this bill if I could get someone to support it, introduce it, and then Ms. McGillis can explain it. This basically, the amendment will be to bring this bill in line with FHP. And that's all we've really, with several other modifications to it. And so, if we can get, if I can get it introduced, I'll let Ms. McGillis walk through it and then we can have our discussion on the amendment. Microphone. Is that sufficient? So moved? Okay. All right. I've got a motion and a second. Ms. McGillis. So, under, in Florida's statutes, 321-051, the Florida Highway Patrol has a towing system similar to what the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office has set up in this municipality. However, the qualifications, so if you're going to be a tow truck driver or a wrecker operator that wishes to be on this list, it's the tall, top of list, you have to meet the qualifications as set forth in code and then further by JSO. So, one of the differences between how our code, Chapter 804, currently reads is in respect to insurance. What insurance does the tow truck or wrecker operator have to have in order to even be on our list? Under the model of FHP, FHP added a workers' compensation employer's liability insurance simply in the amount of Florida and federal law, not changing any numbers in that. As well, the FHP model uses the terms garage liability insurance, things like that, which is the equivalent of what's in our code right now, the public liability insurance coverage, but then they have a separate provision, what's called on-hook. So, there's off-hook, what happens with the wrecker on the side of the road, what happens in the garage facility, and then there's on-hook. And this is all liability insurance coverage for the customer. It's the, you know, the blue Subaru that's broken down on the side of the road, and then the wrecker is called because they're on the top of this list for the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, and they come very quickly in order to get the traffic moving again. So, it's what happens to my blue Subaru if it gets, you know, if the wrecker gets in a wreck and things like that. So, that's what this insurance is about. And there, the FHP does a general liability at $300,000 combined, and then a property aspect to it at $50,000, but that is both on-hook and off-hook. So, if you follow strictly the FHP model, you would be doing a public liability insurance coverage at $300,000, which is very similar to as it is now in the code, but then you would have the $50,000 for property and then an on-hook definition. So, it's all combined. That would be following strictly the FHP model. Carl Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the Chair, Mr. Atkinson, if you wouldn't mind coming forward, I just want to, you've heard the recommended changes in the amendment that's been discussed. I just wanted to get your input given, your comments before. I'm sort of confused, because what she read off was exactly what we had all agreed upon. I heard there was a change this morning to $500,000. So, is that, there's no $500,000? The amendment is basically the $300,000 and the $50,000. Yeah, we're fine with that. As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, we raised the $50,000 to $100,000 for the fact that someone may think it's about a vehicle. Secondly, I want to point out another thing that, as she was reading it, it hit me. We don't carry passengers. So, there's no, the public doesn't ride in our vehicles. Only their vehicle rides on our vehicles, if that makes any sense to you for liability side. And maybe that's why there's never been a lawsuit. Colonel Miller. Good. Good. Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair, Mr. Atkinson, you've been very vocal and appearing at all our committee meetings. Is there an organization of people that do what you do? And are you speaking for them? Are they all comfortable with the $350,000 to your knowledge? Oh, absolutely. Everyone is. A lot of them that we talk to, they're sort of scared to come and be vocal because they're worried about retaliation. I, on the other hand, look at this as an open forum. It's a democracy. And I feel it needs to be discussed. And if you have a case or you have a point, I'm willing to listen. But to make personal injury lawyers and insurance agents getting 20% of $1.5 million, that's a lot of money for someone to get just to raise the insurance around that's never needed or been used. Let me restate my question. Okay. Is there a formal organization? Yeah. There's Professional Records of Florida. There's Southeast Towing Association. Both of them I'm part of and both of them I've worked with and both of them I've been on their teams, if you want to say. And we have a meeting every year. And we have a meeting in usually July. And through the chair, you're saying that this organization has endorsed or is comfortable with the 350 that was read as part of this amendment? Oh, yes, sir. Anything to keep the $500 million off our backs and the personal injury lawyers off our rightness every day. It's the amount of time we lose in answering that. That's the cost. I understand. I'm confused where this 500. I heard of 500 a few minutes ago. Where is that coming from? Through the chair to Mr. Peterson. Through the chair, I have heard that the 500 is the amount that the risk management division would like to be included. Through the chair, have they presented that or given a justification for that? I'd have to defer to either them or Ms. McGillis. I have not been involved in any conversations related to it. Okay. I've not heard that. They've not met with me or endorsed that. To my knowledge, I've not heard that. So if this is consistent with FHP, I'll support it. Thank you. Let me go ahead to Mr. Delaney if you've got a response to Dr. Salem. Yes, through the chair to Dr. Salem and the body. The 500 number that originated from conversations this weekend, I believe we have, I don't know if Tracy's here, but I think, okay. Yeah, we're good with this. Yes. All right. Let's go to Council Member Clark Murray. You're good. Council Member Wolin. Thank you, Mr. Chad. I certainly want to support the amendment. I'd appreciate it if we can have that in writing by the rules. It would be helpful because it sounds like it's a little bit more than just the limitations on insurance. But since it's your amendment, I will support it. Thank you, sir. Let's go to Council Member Morrow. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Marshall, I'm going to support the amendment, but I had a question for Marshall. His company has served this community for the last, God, 30, 40 years, and with integrity, given the fact that there are some cowboy towing companies out there. So I can say that you've been a stand-up guy. But through the chair, I heard you said a second ago that you were comfortable with the property cap being at $100,000. Would you still be comfortable if that was raised from the $50,000? Yes. And if I may, can we ask the attorney back here who wrote it? Because I thought she had put the $100,000 in there as the change instead of the $50,000. Ms. McGillis will explain. So when I was up earlier, I was speaking strictly about FHP directly, if you follow them absolutely numbers and close to word for word. There is another alternative, and that's what Mr. Atkinson is speaking of, which is FHP modified is what we're calling it. So you would do the general liability, which is bodily injury and some property capped at $300,000 plus $50,000 for property insurance off hook, meaning the blue Subaru off hook. But then separate and apart from that is on hook, and on hook liability would be the second, the wrecker in any way, shape, or form, sometimes it's a hook, sometimes it's a dolly, whatever. We're just calling it on hook for ease. On hook liability at $100,000. So you would take $300,000 plus $50,000 plus $100,000. That is the modified FHP liability structure. Through to Chair, to Ms. McGillis. So that $100,000 number is within the amendment right now? Not at present. At present, the amendment covers FHP model strictly. It did not break that aspect out. So right now, you are sitting at an amendment that does a $300,000 general liability with a $50,000 property, which combines both on hook and off hook property. The modified, which would be an amendment to your amendment, would be $300,000 for the general liability, $50,000 for off hook property, and $100,000 for on hook property liability. Thank you. Through to Chair, to Marshall, are you okay with that? Yes, sir. And one of the reasons I wanted to go ahead and get the $100,000 added in there right away is because people like Ferrari, people like Maserati, that's what they wanted on hook moved up to $100,000. So if it's good for companies like that, that have real risk out there, and we transport those vehicles all the way to Tampa and Orlando, it's good enough for the city. Thank you, Marshall. Through to Chair, to Marshall, if you've been shopping for a vehicle lately, you know the domestics are in the $70,000, $80,000 range. Right. So I'd like to suggest an amendment to the amendment of adding the $100,000 if the Chair would entertain that. All right. I've got a motion in a second on amendment to the amendment. Ms. Mary. Through the Chair, to the committee, so the amendment to the amendment would provide that we would revise the insurance requirements in the legislation for the code to follow the modified FHP amounts as stated by Ms. McGillis. And if that passes, Mr. Chair, then you would take up the amendment as amended and vote on that. All right. So let's go to Council Member Clark Murray on the amendment to the amendment. Thank you. And I think when I threw the Chair to the body, one of the – the last time we discussed this particular bill, one of the variables that Mr. Peterson mentioned was the fact that vehicles cost more and the values more. So that's one of the reasons why they were – the risk management was thinking about or had considered raising the – increasing the amount. So I think that it's wise to do so, and I think it would help to – I think there's someone in the audience from risk management, I'm not sure, who – I think it's wise to do so. Because considering you have various types of cars and the cost, the value of cars has increased. So I will agree or approve the amendment. All right. I got no other speakers in the queue on the amendment to the amendment. So we'll take a vote on the amendment to the amendment. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise. None. The amendment carries. Do we still need to vote on? So now we will – all right. So I've got a motion and a second on the amendment. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise. None. The amendment carries. So can I get a motion and a second on the bill? As amended. I've got a motion and a second on the bill as amended. No speakers in the queue. So open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. All right. By your action, you've approved 2026-0358. Thank you, Mr. Atkinson. All your efforts. Next item will be number eight, 2026-0364. Get a motion to own the withdrawal. I've got a motion and a second on the withdrawal. No speakers in the queue. Open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved the withdrawal of 2026-0364. Item number nine, 2026-0377 is deferred at request to Councilmember Johnson. Item number 10, 2026-0418. I've got a motion and a second on the bill. Colonel Miller, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure who this question is for, but I've wanted to see, do we know what this does to the parking spaces inventory for that area in the out years? Is anybody able to speak to that? To me, that's the important part. I think this, in my opinion, this needs to be done because of what we found regarding safety-related matters associated with JSO operations in that parking garage. I get that, and I support that, but I also want us to know what the impact is going to be long-term, not just now. I saw the numbers, which it's a minimal impact on us right now for the growth and development that's projected. I think that's something we need to come to terms with. I still support this, but I want to make sure we're fully aware of the impact and we're factoring that into future growth. So maybe that's a statement, but if somebody does know that we have assessed that and knows that now, I would be interested in that through the Chair. All right, Mr. Weinstein, you want to address that? Mike Weinstein, Mayor's office. Yes, this is an example of contracts that we make with entities that then come back and want an adjustment, and this is an adjustment for a legitimate reason. JSO came and wanted it. It adds to the challenge. Not only are we challenged in the stadium area, we're also challenged in this area as well. The challenge continues to get greater. But we'll have to come up with creative ideas. But it does change the inventory going forward. No question about it. But this needs to be done. So we'll deal with it as we move forward. But parking in general is going to be, as we get better and better at doing things downtown, more and more challenging. All right. Thank you. You're good. Okay. All right. Let's go to Councilmember Bolin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the Chair, Mr. Peterson. Two questions. Number one, obviously eliminates the obligation to repay the grant. Yet, in the summary, we say there's no cost to the city. But in fact, obviously, by not collecting that grant, can you speak to the impact and where that is going to show up in the balance sheet? Through the Chair to Councilmember Bolin. So just to lay a foundation, the city incentivized Blue Cross Blue Shield to build this parking garage back in 2019. And at completion of the garage, gave them a $3.5 million grant. It was only due back to the city if they failed to provide public parking on nights, weekends, and holidays. Up to this point, they have met that requirement. But with JSO moving in and using that facility, it now becomes very difficult for them to meet that requirement. So it does remove the requirement that they pay the city back. I guess technically they would be in violation once JSO gets fully up and running. But it's also almost unfair to require them to do that when we're the ones who are occupying the facility. So I would venture to say, based on their prior performance, that they would not owe the city the money back because they've continued to provide the public parking. I don't remember the time frame. It was a rather extended time frame, probably 20-plus years. But to my knowledge, based on conversations I've had with JSO and DIA, they have operated as a public parking facility on the nights and weekends up until this point. My question again is, where does that appear in the ledger? In terms of reconciling the $3.5 million? Through the chair, I don't believe that it would have been recorded anywhere on the city's books because they were operating in accordance with the agreement. And so it will just be a forgiven grant, if you will. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Second question to the chair, to Mr. Peterson. I am, could you help explain to me the third bullet point on the amendment, removability for BCAS to terminate? I just don't quite understand that language. Through the chair, to Council Member Boylan. So there was a provision in the 2019 agreement with Blue Cross that if they wanted to get out of providing public parking, they could terminate and pay the city back that $6.67 million. Given that they're not going to do that, we're restriking that portion of the language from the agreement. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. Let's go to Council Member Amaro. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm supporting the legislation. I understand the why. JSO is going to be in that building for at least 16 years per lease agreement, and we'll need the parking 24-7. I just want to make a quick comment, and it's been touched on already, and this is when you have the lack of foresight, you end up with situations like this because that area is developing. We just opened the Whole Foods. There's an apartment community, Adler and Oak, and the growth hasn't stopped, but there's no parking. And so it's going to be a challenge for the municipality and the leadership to how to accommodate the public to encourage them to go in those destinations, to use those entities, because our natural behavior is that if I can't find a place to park, I'm not going. And, consequently, we're facing that crisis because, in my opinion, the lack of foresight. Just a comment here. Thank you. Let's go to Dr. Salem next. Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of comments. I spoke to JSO at length, and the number of cars that are parking in this garage on the allotted times is maybe a dozen over a month. I mean, the revenue generated, and I don't have the numbers in front of me. I had them upstairs. It was like $50, as I recall, something very small. So it's not like this parking garage is being used by a bunch of people presently. Now, I understand the future. The other side of this, we are moving the Police Memorial Building out of where they are to Blue Cross, and we will get that space. And I don't know what we're going to do with that space. I've heard we might tear down that building, creating a bunch of potential parking or something else there, waiting for the jail to move. And then you've got a whole big space there to be used for something, whatever that is. It's well beyond my time on the council. So I'm very supportive of this. If I thought this parking was desperately needed, I would have paused, but no one's parking there presently. And there are areas near there that they can park on evenings and, I mean, weekends and such to take care of them. So I'll be a yes. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let's go to Council Member Clark Murray. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair to Mr. Peterson, you mentioned $6.7 million, and I know that the forgiveness for this is $3.5 million. So where did the six, what has this cost us overall? So through the Chair to Council Member Clark Murray, when this was originally contemplated, Blue Cross Blue Shield had a surface parking lot on the river where the Fidelity building now resides. So to incentivize Blue Cross to get off the river for parking, the city had a piece of property, not the entire piece of property where the current parking garage exists at Park and Forest, but a portion of that was also an incentive. So the $6.67 million was the value of the land along with the completion grant that was provided to Blue Cross to build the garage. And so through the Chair to Mr. Peterson, so Blue Cross Blue Shield, they provided half of that amount? Through the Chair to Council Member Clark Murray, I don't know the amount that Blue Cross provided because they built the garage. So they had a parcel of land, not the entire parcel where the parking garage exists, but they had a parcel or multiple parcels. But they also constructed the full cost of the garage. In turn, they sold their land on the river to Fidelity for them to build their headquarters. All right. Thank you for that. Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you. Go back to Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. I didn't see Mr. Rapp, Tyler, is back there. Tyler, can you come up and just clarify the amount of parking that's going into that garage presently so that my numbers are – I think they're close, but I know you did some research on this. I'm Tyler Rapport with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, and I have Director Parker here over services with me. Yes, we pulled the parking data for that garage for the past two years. In 2025, it generated $994 total, which averages out to about $83 a month. So we're talking about maybe 15 or 20 cars. The rates there are $2 per hour with a $10 max per day. So just estimating probably 15 cars over a month. Something like that. And I actually wanted to let Director Parker, he has some information, to some other options that are available to the public in that area. Thank you. Good morning. The FIS building, which is across Riverside from Florida Blue, has a – Name and address. I'm sorry. Allen Parker, Director of Services, 501 East Bay. They have 130 spaces that are allotted for public parking free of charge. It's nights, weekends, holidays, and it's right across the street from Florida Blue. And through the Chair, I believe those spaces, and you might not know this, were identified for the park that's down there and some previous legislation. I'm looking at Mr. Peterson. Through the Chair, my recollection is that when the city incentivized Fidelity to build their headquarters, part of that negotiation was that a number of spots would be available to the public for anywhere access along Riverside Avenue. Thank you, sir. Okay. Thank you. Thank you both. Yes, sir. Thank you. Go to Colonel Miller next. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yeah. Through the Chair, I think everyone has honed in on the concern. It's, you know, looking long-term, and I heard the word foresight, and I don't think anyone disputes what the current situation is, but I think just an awareness, as Mr. Weinstein and others here have talked about, we just need to look as it's growing as that area. And it's Brooklyn, help in downtown area won't help the people for the growth in Brooklyn area. They won't be parking downtown and going over to Brooklyn, so I just want to make sure we're focused on the right area, which is Brooklyn, and that we are looking long-term. And that's good. We're all, the administration, the council, we're all looking at three, five, ten years down the road. What are we going to need? And the infrastructure is always the challenge, and waiting for the year of the need is too late. So, I just, I'm pleased to see that we're, and hear that we're all looking at that mid- and long-term period and what the needs will be. But for now, I'll reiterate, I'm supportive of this because we have to do this, safety-wise, supporting JSO. So, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Bolin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Park, if you wouldn't mind coming back down for a quick second. Notwithstanding, we just heard about the FIS building and parking over there. Will any of these 742 spaces be available to the public who are utilizing the facility, handicapped parking or others? Or is there a portion that's going to be set aside for access for people using the new police, JSO headquarters? Through the chair to the committee. So, anybody that's coming on JSO business, because that's where the public counter is going to be, along with the District 1 substation. So, we actually have HR recruiting in there as well, tele-serves in there. Anybody coming to use that facility, absolutely, or use those services, absolutely will be parking there. That's very helpful. Thank you. I assume that to be the case. I just wanted to affirm it. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Morrow. Director Barker. I was going to let you walk back in there. Just expound on that, and I think through the chair, I think what folks are missing here is you guys, that parking garage is going to be yours completely for the different services that you're mentioning, for the workforce, for the entire term of the lease. Yes, sir. Correct? Yes, sir. There's no parking that's going to take place there. And so, I understand, again, I understand the why I'm supporting this. I was just, my comments earlier through the chair was, you know, DIA and everyone, other party involved, if they were looking 10, 20 years down the road, we probably would not be having this conversation. But anyway. Yes, sir. That's it. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. No other speakers in the queue. Let's go ahead and open the ballot and record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By your action, you're approved. 2026-0418. That takes us to our next item, number 11, 2026-0444. Can I get a motion on the withdrawal? And a motion and a second on the withdrawal. No speakers in the queue. Open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By your action, you're approved. 2026-0444. Withdrawal. Next item, number 12, 2026-0445 is deferred at the request of Councilmember Peluso. Item number 14, 2026-0448 is deferred at the request of the Housing and Development Commission. Item number 15, 2026-0449 is deferred at the request of the Housing and Community Development Commission. Item number 16, 2026-0450. Can I get a motion on the bill? I've got a motion and a second on the bill. No speakers in the queue. Open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By your action, you're approved. 2026-0450. Item number 17, 2026-0457. Can I get a motion on the amendment? I've got a motion and a second on the amendment. Mr. Peterson. Through the chair of the committee, the amendment attaches a revised Exhibit 1, which is your BT to correct some account information. It also attaches a revised Exhibit 3, which is the loan term sheet, to clarify the term of the loan and then also include a definition of the project and then correct various descriptors in the bill. All right. Mr. Councilmember Bolin on the amendment. If I might, Mr. Chair, I'd like to. There's a couple of recommended amendments offered by the auditor. I'd like to roll those in or should we take them up separately? Through the chair to Councilmember Bolin. My recommendation to the chair was to take care of the technical amendments and then address the other two. And if they need to be rolled up at the end, they can be. I'm just shooting across the bow here that I'm going to go ahead and move the amendment, but go out. Yes. I'm good for the moment then. All right. So right now we just got the technical amendment on the, on the floor. Dr. Salem on the. Okay. So all we've got a motion, a second on the technical amendments. All in favor of the technical amendments, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise, none. The technical amendment moves. Now, Mr. Bolin, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move the recommended auditor amendments. All right. I've got a motion, a second on auditor's amendment. Mr. Peterson. Through the chair to the committee. So the auditor recommended amendments are to clarify in the term sheet that if there are any closing expenses, they will be paid for by JHA or the housing authority. Um, the city cannot cover closing expenses. And so just clarifying that for if they occur. And then also to disperse the loan on a work performed an invoice basis rather than advancing them the funds and them having to substantiate. Um, they will do the work. They will not have to pay the bill. They'll submit the invoices to the city. We'll review and then disperse funds to them. Mr. Chair, through the, uh, for the record, I had a conversation with Corbett on, Ms. Corbett on Friday, affirming that these amendments were acceptable to the board. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Dr. Salem. Okay. We'll go ahead and, uh, vote on this amendment. All in favor of the auditor's recommended amendment. Say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise. None. The amendment carries. Dr. Salem, we recognize it. Thank you, Chair. The other comment that the, uh, auditors made is about using the general fund. It's a short term loan of three years. Um, seems to me we can save some money by using the general fund and not going out and borrowing this money for three years. I rarely like to dip into the general fund, but I think under these circumstances and having discussed this with Mr. Peterson on Friday, it seems like a reasonable approach under these specific circumstances. So I'll make that amendment as well. All right. I've got a motion and a second on the Salem auditor amendment. No discussion. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise. None. That amendment carries. Ms. Mary, let's roll them all up. Can I get a motion and a second on the bill as amended? Bill's amended. I've got a motion and a second on the bill as amended. Councilmember Clark Murray, you're recognized. Through the chair to Mr. Popolis. Um, I know that we have several apartments, um, such as this one throughout the city. Does the city actually own the apartments? Who owns them? Through the chair to Councilmember Clark Murray, the housing authority owns these apartments. They acquired them two or three years ago. Um, but they are the sole owner of the apartments. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. All right. Thank you. All right. Let's go to, uh, Councilmember Bolin. I'm a firm believer less is more. If we're good on this, I'm going to go ahead. But I, I, I'd encourage you to having a conversation with Ms. Corbett at some point in time. As we all know, the history of flank on arms, it's empty now. And we're moving forward and the confidence that we're going to see the funding necessary to build what's planned there. So I'll leave it at that. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Colonel Miller. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to the auditors or general counsel, I just wanted to clarify, um, for the record, is this anticipated to be a standard three year, 2% loan paid back? Or is there something, some nuance to this that, that would change this situation? So I, I, whenever we go into the general fund, uh, I'm in agreement with, um, past president Salem on, on doing this, if this is all straightforward. So I just wanted clarification on that loan, the loan terms. Through the chair to Councilmember Miller. Um, so this is a three year loan at 2% interest rate that will be, have a balloon payment at the end of the three year term. Um, so if that falls outside of standard, not sure exactly, uh, your expectations. Um, the housing authority indicated that they were going to borrow from their line of credit to do this, um, had the city not extended this opportunity. So it just provides an ultimate cost savings to them in the end. All right. So I've got a motion second on the bill as amended. No other speakers in the queues. Open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action you've approved, 2026-0457. Our next item, number 18, 2026-0458. Got a motion on the bill. I've got a motion second on the bill. No speakers in the queue. Open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. Yes. By your action you've approved, 2026-0458. Item number 19, we've already taken action on. Item number 20, 2026-0463. Can I get a motion on the amendment? I've got a motion second on the amendment. Mr. Peterson. Through the chair to the committee, the amendment corrects some language as it relates to the city's funding of the ballpark improvements and then also attaches a revised Exhibit 1-BT to correct some account information. Dr. Salem on the amendment. All right. No other speakers on the amendment? All in favor of the amendment, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise, none. The amendment carries. We've got a motion second on the bill as amended. I've got a motion second on the bill as amended. Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. I'm supportive of this. I don't know if Ms. Brochet or Ms. Sickler, either one, can come forward. The $36 million was what was appropriated, and this is a question, four or five years ago for the ballpark, for the renovations of the ballpark. Is that correct? Good morning. Anna Brochet, Finance. I'm sorry. Through the chair to Councilman Salem, I missed your question. The $36 million roughly was appropriated four or five years ago by the council for the renovations of the ballpark. No. I think Mr. Peterson might have more detail, but it's been over a period of time. It was originally 31.8. Maybe it was even smaller than that at the beginning. Through the chair to Councilman Salem, the city met that $36 million roughly over four years, beginning in fiscal year 22-23 was the initial at $10 million, 23-24 was $10.5 million, 24-25, 11-3, and then this most recent budget of $3.5 million. Through the chair, that was all appropriated that those allotments were approved by the council four or five years ago? That's correct. The agreement for the improvements to the ballpark were approved, I believe, four or five years ago. Ms. Brochet is correct. It initially started at a lower dollar amount. It was amended to increase it to that 35, I think it's 35-6 number. That is the current total. And these dollars through the chair are predominantly being used to get the bullpen away from the area behind first base and third base and put it behind the wall in the outfield, correct? Through the chair to Councilman Salem, that's correct. This appropriation is the majority of the $700,000 is related to the bullpen. And I know that's a requirement for Major League Baseball, as I understand it, as well as a safety issue. If you're a baseball fan, there are baseball players that just stand there behind the catcher to make sure he doesn't take one in the head during warm-ups like this. So I think it's important that we do this, and I'll be supportive. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let's go to Colonel Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair, I just wanted to ask the auditors, from a financial perspective here, I don't see anything listed here. Any concerns here? We've gone up again. We have another project, and it appears it needs to be done to comply with Major League Baseball requirements. But are there any financial concerns here on how this is being done? Through the chair to Councilmember Miller. Ultimately, this is a policy decision. The current agreement with the Jumbo Shrimp puts cost overruns of the entirety of the project on them. So the city slash council has no obligation to fund these additional dollars. We've met the max already for the $35.5 million that's in the agreement. So you have no obligations. The funding source for this are other dollars that are set aside for capital-related items at the ballpark, specifically concourse lighting and a door lock slash key replacement will not be done this year because of this appropriation. So you are postponing a little bit items that would be done at the ballpark, items that are needed to be done. The other item that I will draw your attention to is that a funding source for capital improvements at the ballpark is the convention development tax, which when the new Jaguar stadium comes on board fully in 2028, the ballpark will no longer receive convention development dollars. All of that will be directed towards the stadium. So there is some level of financial aspect to you approving this that dollars will ultimately need to be redirected to the ballpark at some point in time to address the matters that need to be addressed. Thank you very much. That was very helpful. Otherwise, I wouldn't have heard it, and it wouldn't have been part of our public discussion here on the matter. So thank you very much to the chair. All right. Thank you. No other speakers in the queue. So I'll make my statements on this. The item that's very concerning to me about this is in the bullet point number three, cost overruns. And that's where I've got pause at this because we've got another project going on down there as opposed to not incur cost overruns. If this was identified as something else, then I could support it. But I see the cost overrun set in a precedence that things are going to come back to us, wanting us to take that responsibility that we shouldn't be taking that cost responsibility, and postponing other items that we need done there. That's definitely concerning with that. So that's where I won't be able to support this. So let's open the ballot and record your vote. Six yays, one nay. By your action, you've approved 2026-0463. That takes us to item number 21. And these next items are on second reading, 2026-0489-0490-0491-0492-0493-0494-0495-0496-0497-0498-0499. That takes us to the end of our agenda. And I would just like to address the committee that I so appreciate your work that you've done on this committee here. We may not have always agreed on everything, but we did what we were supposed to do for the people. And I commend each and every one of you for that, all the support, Phillip, Mary, Rebecca, Brandon, and even you, Bill. So, you know, I appreciate everybody's due diligence on this committee. And with that, we've got a small token of appreciation that I've given to you from me and my family. They helped me pull all this together. And so, you've got your best neighbor award coffee mug. And so, every morning you're drinking your coffee, you can remember this committee. And so, with that, let me go to Councilmember White. Yes, sir. I'd just like to thank you for your leadership. This year has been drama-free. You run a good ship, and I appreciate the gift. Thank you. Oh, thank you, sir. Dr. Salem, past president. Thank you. This is a challenging committee to get as a first-time chair. There's a lot of moving parts because it's always the first committee where any legislation is introduced. And we've watched you grow into that over the last several months. And it has been drama-free. And we've had some robust discussions, but you've always been able to kind of bring it together. And we seem to always get a vote, which I think most of us are comfortable with. So, congratulations on your tenure. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Bowling. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ditto the remarks, my colleague, Councilman Salem. I think you've grown a lot this past year. I know a lot of uncertainty going into it. As former chair of the Snare Puts Committee, it is. We plow the field. And you did a great job of doing that this year. And I look forward to your leadership going forward. Thank you. Thank you. Colonel Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the chair, thank you very much. Echoing what others have said, but I want to make sure I also say appreciate your leadership, appreciate your calm approach. I appreciate your inclusion of all perspectives and everyone having an opportunity to have their voice heard. That doesn't always happen. And especially on the front end, when we get the first shot in neighborhoods and anything that comes through, it sometimes can get a little interesting. I'll put it that way. So I thank you for leading in a calm way through those difficult situations. And we look forward to what you're going to do next as we work together going forward in the coming year. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And I'd also like to give Council President Carrico the much, much thanks for entrusting this committee to me. With that, we are adjourned. Oh, I just want to say ditto on all that's been said. And I think one of the things that gets overlooked in leadership is having a listening ear. And what you've demonstrated in past years that you listen, whether you agree or disagree. And I think that is inherent to strong leadership, having the ability to listen. So thank you for that. All right. Thank you. Thank you all for your kind words. And we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.