Neighborhoods, Community Services, Public Health and Safety Committee - May 18, 2026

Well, good morning, and welcome to the Monday, May 18th Neighborhoods Meeting. I will go ahead and start with introductions to my left, starting with Mr. Delaney. Good morning. Bill Delaney with the Mayor's Office. Brandon Russell, Council Research. Mary Stifopoulos, Office of General Counsel. Philip Peterson, Councilor's Office. Michael Boylan, District 6. Ken Amar, 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. Tyrona Clark-Murray, District 9. Will Lane, District 3, Visiting. Terrence Freeman, At-Large Group 1, Just Visiting. All right. Thank you, visiting Councilmembers, for being here. We'll go ahead and go to public comment. You'll be given three minutes to speak to an item on the agenda. So when I call your name, please come on up. And if you've filled out a card, come on forward and grab a seat up front here so we can get through these this morning pretty quickly. Give your name and address or say it's on file for the record. And we'll start with Mr. Wells Todd. I don't see Mr. Todd. Oh, I'm sorry. There he is. Come on down, sir. My name is Wells Todd with Take-Em-Down-Jackson Interrupting Redlining. And my address is on file. One of the things that some of your ancestors did back in the day was to turn the African-American community into a third-world country. And that process was called redlining. It denied African-Americans the right to buy homes, decent jobs, and basically the right to survive without harassment and terror. Today you are faced with the remnants, or I should say the continuation of that process. The question here is, how cheap is land? And we found out from the medical examiner's office in the morgue just how cheap the land is in the African-American community, caused by redlining. Now the question before you is, a jail. What does that actually mean? Not only for the African-American community, not only for the community that was redlined, but the city in general. A new jail, campus-style jail, and the idea of having to find cheap property for it. There has been legislation that you guys voted on unanimously that redlining was an issue. The question now is, what are you going to do about it? The biggest question before the community as a whole, as this city as a whole, is will you be able to justify building it in a black neighborhood? In a neighborhood that has suffered for decades upon decades economically. So we're here today to speak out against that building of a jail in an already depressed neighborhood area. And you have to figure out how to move forward on this. But once again, you have to figure it out in the parameters of not destroying the community any more than it is. All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Bobbi O'Connor. Good morning. My name is Bobbi O'Connor. My address is on file. I'm here to speak to 2026-0356, which is that the jail or the detention center will not be built in a redlined neighborhood. Redlining is something I'm sure most of y'all know about redlining. In the 1930s, it was made really difficult, if not impossible, for African-American people to get loans. And this has affected accumulation of wealth in a big way. You know, for me personally, when it came time for me to go to college, my family was able to mortgage our home so I could go to college. But for one of my friends who lived in what was called Baptist Bottom, she was African-American, they didn't have a home because they weren't allowed, you know, because of mortgages. And we can still see these scars today in our community. They're here. And I hope that you will not allow the jail to be built in a redlined community because it will just make the scars even worse. You know in terms of scarring how scar tissue builds up. And I really appreciate what y'all are doing in the east side and also what you're doing in Durkeeville. In many ways, your hearts are in the right places. You cannot let a jail be built in a redlined community. I really am very glad that you said redlining was important. Last year, I don't remember the bill, and that you were interested in it. I have lots of information. If there are any of you who don't understand redlining, I would be very glad to send you the information. It's very important in our city that we treat all our citizens the same in terms of equity, not equality, but equity. There is a difference. Equity is when if there's a fence, okay, imagine a fence, and everybody is the same height, and everyone's standing. Everyone's not the same height. So the tall person can see over the fence and see the resources. The shorter person cannot. So equity is to have a box underneath the shorter person so they can see over the fence and have access. And I know that DEI is a four-letter word. This is not about DEI. This is about equity. Please do not allow the jail to be built in a redlined community. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Nancy Murray-Settle. Good morning. Nancy Murray-Settle. Address is on file. I'm with Interrupt Red Lining this morning. And I also am speaking on Ordinance 0356, which addresses the placement of a new jail in the city of Jacksonville at a cost of over a billion dollars. Please read the summary that was sent with that ordinance. There's a lot of good information about historically what the city has done around redlining and our attempts as a city to avoid those that as well. What we're talking about is justice and neighborhoods and the quality of life in Jacksonville, Florida. We all live here and we all want good for our city. And systemic discrimination in our city is not good for anyone. If you are placing a jail in a neighborhood where you're saying, hey, it doesn't bother me. It's not in my neighborhood. Let's put it where poor people live. Let's put it in the northwest side. Let's put it where historically we've redlined and I don't have to worry about it. That actually does affect the quality of your life. And it costs taxpayers money when we have this systemic discrimination. I have a question about the jail. We've all just gone along and like, hey, let's build this big, giant jail and put it somewhere. Has that really worked? Is it working for us? I think it costs the taxpayers a lot of money. There's recidivism. There's research that shows smaller kind of places that focus on rehabilitation cut back on recidivism. And recidivism costs the city money. We can look at our nation as our city. We know that discrimination, that racism, it takes a huge toll on our resources. So maybe we can step back and say, why do we need a big, giant jail concentrated in one place when we know that doesn't work? I think we do it because we've always done it. And that's all we know. Maybe it's time to shift. Look at something different so that the taxpayers are not continually being sucked dry for a process that doesn't work. Smaller places throughout the city. Let's share this equal distribution of resources and rights. And sometimes we have to have an equal distribution of things that we don't want. Like, I mean, so we do have to have some kind of jail, I guess. Maybe let's look at it and do something different. Let's not do the same thing and expect different results. You guys all know that saying. So no jails in historically black neighborhoods is the top. I support 0356. All right. Thank you. Next speaker will be Marshall Atkinson. Good morning. I'm here for the towing one, which is 20, 26, 358. Just to let you all know what we've done. Name and address for the record. On file. And Donald Marshall Atkinson. Thank you. So what we did is we took the Part 12, which is law enforcement towing, and then we put Part 13, which is PPI, which is private property towing, non-consensual tows. And when we looked at it, the classes, we called them Class A, B, and C, they didn't match what the federal side or the state or DOT looked at as far as classes. So we renamed them categories. So we did it based on the weights and everything like that, not to confuse everyone. Cleaned that up. We cleaned up the definition. A lot of times you go to a tow yard, if you're not the actual owner, you were told you can't pick it up. Well, what happens if you rented a vehicle and you had the rental document? You know, we cleaned it up so that it was fair to everybody and that tow yards can't hold vehicles trying to get extra storage and stuff like that. We looked at, in July of 2025, the state legislation, they changed some laws in the towing with reference to liens and stuff like that. So we had to add those in and clean those up in the city side. Part 12 did not really have any penalties in it. It was an oversight. Part 13 did. So when we realigned 12 and 13, if you laid them down side by side now, they'll read the same way in the same order. So it's not confusing to the court system. And a lot of this has been rewritten because of the loopholes that people find when they go to court or when JSO makes the arrest, they get to use these loopholes. I'll be standing by for any questions or anything like that when it comes up. All right. Thank you, sir. We had one other speaker, Cornell Oliver, but I do not see him in the auditorium. And he did not list what he was going to speak on. So just stating that for the record. All right. So moving on to our agenda. First, I'd like to recognize Councilmember Peluso has joined us. And we do have past president Sam Newby in the audience. Good to see you, sir. And our supervisor of elections, Jerry Holland. So we've got a lot of superstars in here today. All right. We're going to go ahead and take a couple of items out of order. First, we'll do item 28, and then we'll go to item 26. So go to item 28 first. Let me get there. Let me get there. All right. Item 28, 2026-0362. I've got a motion and a segment on the bill. And Councilmember Friedman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'll be brief. If the auditors, through the chair to Mr. Peterson, if you want to explain just a little bit of the change when we added 200,000 to it or OGC, whoever, that might be the only thing that really, I think, has changed over the course of time. Through the chair of the committee. Okay. So you, as a council, approved $5 million as part of the 25-26 budget to be set aside into a contingency to be discussed by the Youth Empowerment Committee. Councilmember Freeman later added $200,000 from an initiative that just wasn't moving forward to this, so that $5.2 million is sitting in that contingency. This bill brings it above the line and moves it to KHA, where they're going to issue an RFP for services to be provided. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. And without getting into the weeds, I just want you all to know the process. This is Council President Keriko's initiative as president. And so we're very thoughtful in the time that we put into it. I want to thank Councilmember Amaro, Councilmember White, Councilmember Arias, and many of you others that joined, but they were actually on the committee. We completed our last meeting. The first one, I believe, started around October. Completed the last one in March. And then since March, Mr. Everett and the team have been compiling a lot of the thoughts that were brought up and given from the committee members, as well as listening to the community, and have been working diligently to put forth an RFP that should now, once or if, this body approves this piece of legislation on the 26th, then it goes to KHA's board on the 27th for their approval. So if approved both on the 26th and the 27th, then the RFP goes out on the street. I can just tell you in that last meeting, I want to thank my colleague, Councilmember Gaffney, as well again. We had well over 100-plus different entities attending. So I would imagine that there's going to be a huge influx of people applying for this. So the goal is hopefully by June to have that announced of which groups will be awarded, and then those dollars will be put out as the schedule will permit. With that being said, I'll open up for any questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let's go to Pastor President Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. And this is either to Mr. Peterson or Councilmember Freeman. These are one-time expenses, and correct, so all those that are applying understand this is a one-time infusion for these programs. Is that correct? Mr. Peterson? Through the chair to Councilmember Salem. So the draft RFP that is in existence right now indicates that this funding is for a single year. I believe KHA would like it to be a multi-year program funding, but as of right now, these dollars are only for a single year of services. I guess that will be discussed throughout the budget process. Number two, I wasn't a part of any of this. We set up broad categories that people will now apply for these funds, and these funds are distributed into those categories. Is that correct? Either Mr. Peterson or? Through the chair. The committee discussed a kind of a wide range of services that are to be provided, and just in case anyone's not aware, these dollars are being allocated to the age group of 16 to 24-year-old individuals. So it's not tacking on to services that KHA already provides within their $50, $60 million budget. These are additional services above and beyond. I don't believe that there is nailed down the specific categories that these dollars are going towards. If Mr. Everett is in the audience, he may be able to add more context, as he's been working hand-in-hand with Councilmember Freeman on this. But I, myself, am not aware if there are individual categories. Okay. And I'm very supportive of this, and we'll vote for this. Y'all may recall, during the budget process, we moved the journey dollars into KHA for more accountability, and that was, I recall, a couple of million dollars. So, as we get into the budget process, I'm just concerned about reoccurring. One time, I'm all for this was an initiative of the presidents. But beyond that, I think it's going to be a tough debate. Thank you. Mr. Chair, may I respond as well? All right. Thank you. And through the chair to Councilmember Salem. Thank you so much for that and completely agree. I do not see Mr. Everett in the audience, and I can tell you all, having worked with him many years, it's not like it's uncommon for him not to be here. So, I would encourage you all to ask for him to be at the next meeting. I believe it's today at Rules or Finance. He is a wealth of information. He has a true heart and a passion, and he understands your concern as well. So, in the beginning, in the impetus of this, one thing that, one of the, two of the guardrails we put up, no overlap with Journey Forward, no overlap with any current KHA services, because we knew both of those boards had volunteers working hard to make sure that they stayed on mission and there was no mission creep. And that is how we got into the ages of 16 to 24. He has all of the data. There's a $300 million economic impact of getting those individuals recaptured, introduced back into the market, skilled, trained, and put into the job force. We put some particular guidelines or responsibilities of you had to partner with someone. So, if you're a smaller group and you want to apply for these, and we know that the smallest grant is $25,000 that someone can, but I think we raised that bar even higher. It would be like you, your group, would have to partner with big brothers and big sisters. We gave another example of utilizing city facilities, where you have I'm a star in the same building as the 100 black men, and how now they can actually cross, I'm going to say pollinate, but you have some of the same members of both of those nonprofits benefiting from those skills that are offered. So, your point is made clear. We heard it, and I was strongly encouraged, because if I don't see Mr. Everett here, he's either got a flat tire or he's sick. All right? He does not miss meetings, and so I would encourage you all to bring him up and ask those questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let me go to past president, Chief White. Yes, sir. Thank you, through the chair. Add me as a co-sponsor, please. All right. Thank you. Now, let's go to Colonel Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair, I just wanted to add on to something that past president Salem had mentioned, along the same lines. I just, we're going to have to make some tough calls in this next budget year. I think everyone knows that, and so I think that's a good point, making sure all know this is a one-time use of funds for these purposes. To not build them into your budget for next year, maybe to request if there's some part of it that's that important. But we're going to need to make sure there's a prioritization within this program, but also overall, and that we set clear criteria that are associated with that prioritization. And what I like in this bill, in which I'm personally most in favor of, if they stay mostly along these lines, it says, which may include, but is not limited to, workforce development and apprenticeship programs and services. That is a huge need for our city, our state, and our country right now, if we can make sure these young men and women not just get a high school diploma graduate or a high school diploma and graduate, but that they, those who aren't going to college, have a pipeline to get into to make a good career for themselves and their families. I like that, and so because of that, and because it is a president's initiative and absolutely going to support this because of those two reasons, but I wanted to make those comments for going forward to help set expectations as we go into this next budget year. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, thank you. Let's go to Council Member Amaro. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very quickly, if you would please add me as a co-sponsor as well. While sitting on the committee with Council Member Freeman, it was clear, if you look at the demographics as pointed out by the Council Auditor 16 to 24, that there was a very identified need for a workforce development as youth, as well as youth development, and those are two of the stated objectives that the committee was working diligently toward, too. Some of the testimonies that were present clearly identified that there was a need in the community, and so these dollars will be well spent. At the same time, they were very well informed that it was just this annual. It doesn't mean they're not going to ask again, but I think they know from the outset that this was a one-time funding event, and clearly the need is there, and so I would urge the committee's support of this, and let's move it forward and get things done. All right. Ms. Clark-Murray. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair to Council Member Freeman, I am going to be in support of your bill. I like it when those who want to apply and those who do apply, and the case that I see here for one of the bullets is that a match is required, and I think it's always important for any entity to have what we call some skin in the game. So for that reason and many of the others that have been mentioned and what I've read here, I will be in support of your bill. Thank you, Chair. And add me as a co-sponsor of Legislative Services. All right. Thank you. Let me go back to Council Member Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to Ms. Clark-Murray, Council Member Clark-Murray. Thank you so much because that was one of the goals, again, connectivity and sustainability. We wanted to ensure that government wasn't just infusing dollars in year one, and the next year they could not open their doors, giving hope and then removing it. So that was a deal of you had to be able to find matching dollars. You have to be able to collaborate and partner with others to ensure that we have that sustainability. All right. Thank you. No other speakers in the queue. I just want to add I appreciate all the work that past President, Council Member Freeman, has put into this. And with the items like workforce development, that always draws me in to supporting the bill, and that's why I'll be fully supportive of this and would like to be added as a co-sponsor as well. With that, I've got a motion and a second. Let's open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0362. Next item we'll go to is item number 26, 2026-0356. Can I get a motion on the bill? I've got a motion and a second on the bill. Council Member Lannan, you're recognized. Chair, I believe it's usually we go with the bill sponsor first, so if you want to... Okay, yeah, I'll see him on the agenda. Out of courtesy, I will let him go first. I see him on the list now. Council Member Peluso, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Council Member Lannan, for allowing me to speak first. We're all here for a couple of reasons, but one of the first things we did in our first year was we passed an anti-redlining bill. That was a resolution that declared that the city of Jacksonville recognized its part, that it played, as well as the state of Florida and the federal government, in terms of redlining, right? The loans that were given to certain individuals and certain institutions and how, basically, based on the FHA, the federal guidelines, loans were rarely, if ever, given to black and brown communities. The redlining were the neighborhoods that the federal government encouraged people not to invest in. Today, thanks to all the work we did in this council, we said that we recognize what we did and that we are going to try to fix it. Fast forward to the modern era, and in Brentwood, we did build a medical examiner's office, a large government building in a neighborhood that was historically redlined, and we've seen a number of people come up over the past several years with legitimate complaints as to why it should not have been built there. We've had conversation upon conversation about what it means to reinvest in these communities and what we, as a body, need to do to help make sure we don't make the same mistake again. As we look at building a new jail, which could have multiple different pieces towards it, right? It could be that there's an annex that's maybe a little bit smaller, that's kind of closer to the downtown area, and then a larger structure somewhere else further away, because we know that some of these attorneys and judges are saying we should probably build something closer to the courthouse. There could be a number of different things that occur, but this is meant to ensure that we do two things. One, save ourselves some hassle, because we don't want a bunch of people coming up saying, don't make the same mistake again, so we're trying to give ourselves one less headache. But aside from that, we're trying to reassure the communities who live in these formerly red-lined areas that there will not be a giant government structure, the jail, built in their communities. And if you look at LISC, they've got a great map. It's the same one that we passed a couple years ago, and it shows. I mean, you've got everything from Moncrief to Long Branch to Brentwood to Grand Park to Panama Park. You've got Eastside. You've got La Villa, Newtown, Sugar Hill, Durkeeville, Robinson's Edition, Mixon Town. You've even got parts of District 5, including Phillips Highway area. And the point is, I just ask that this body recognize this is a resolution. This is us as a city council asking the administration and those that are working on the jail, hey, let's make sure that we avoid these areas. That's really about it. It's our intention. It is not an ordinance. And that's the bill as it is. All right. Thank you. Now let's go to Council Member Lannan. Thank you, Chair. I'm here as the liaison to the new jailer, the Jacksonville Justice Center, to ask the introducer to withdraw this. And let me be perfectly clear. I would be here for any resolution that was proposing to rule out any certain area. If this was, Chair, if you had a resolution saying, let's not build it in Black Hammock Island, I would be here speaking against that just because of where we are in the process. And again, just to remind everyone where we are in the process, in 2024, I was appointed by past President White as the liaison to the new jail or Jacksonville Justice Center. Since then, there's been a lot of work done, a lot of meetings between the administration, JSO, and myself. And this included an open and transparent RFP process that led to us choosing CGL to serve as a third-party consultant. A few months ago, myself, Mike Weinstein, Director of Golf at JSO, gave an update at a full council meeting. Our theme has been to be transparent and methodical. We outlined the work that CGL was embarking on and is already working on. Site selection is one part of this engagement. There are five main deliverables with 13 other services and deliverables as part of this contract. The process as it stands now has been apolitical with the three parties, JSO, the administration, and the council through me as the liaison, in lockstep, and on the same page. So I will oppose, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose, any resolution that seeks to declare any parts of Duval County off limits. My concern is that there are 14 district council members, and we all have areas to where we probably don't want to see the jail being eventually built, but let's let the process play out. It's probably going to be early next year when we get our preliminary report out, and once we get those potential site selections, that's when we should debate the merits, the pros and cons of those different locations. We will have the opportunity as a full council to weigh in once we have recommendations before us. And again, this is not a jab at District 7. As I mentioned, if there was any council member that was bringing forth a resolution, once we already approved the funding source, once we already got briefed on where we stand with the process of the new jail, I would be opposing that because we have the process going on right now, and anything we do to rule out potential areas is really just causing noise for what's going on, and like I mentioned, a very methodical process that has already been undertaken. And I'll stand by for any questions as to where we are in that process. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Now let's go to, as president, Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. I would just add a couple of points to Council Member Lane, and that committee is going to bring back three sites, which was not mentioned by Council Member Lane, and I think at that point, that's where the debate needs to occur, once they've identified the three sites. Number two, Council Member Boylan led this effort when I was president, and this site's going to be several hundred acres. I've heard anywhere from 400 to 600 acres, and I just don't see 400 to 600 acres being available in any of the areas that are here. Understand the concern, but this is going to have to be built in somewhat of a rural area of Duval County, clearly. I tend to agree with Council Member Lane. I just think if this resolution passes, we could see several more from other districts, and I think we're down the wrong path. We've got a process. I think we should let it play out. Once we get those three sites, that's when the debate should occur. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let's go to Council Member Boylan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I grow increasingly frustrated when people talk about the jail, thinking we're going to be taking what we have now and putting it someplace else. And thanks to Council President Salem at the time, he gave me the opportunity to search committee, Council Member White, Mr. Miller, as well as Mr. Peluso, all served on that. And for the folks who have not taken the time, I strongly encourage you to go back and take a look at the final report that spoke about recidivism and other ways of getting people through the system and not warehousing them in a tower someplace. And I guess we did. We took a look at best practices around the country to see what's being built other places and how people are getting through the system and not being buried in it. I share the concern Mr. Lane offered, Council Member Lane and Salem. I don't think I'm going to support this today for the practical reasons, but for the principle of everyone saying, well, not in my backyard. That just isn't viable. And I certainly understand and appreciate the red line issue. I know it well. Experienced it firsthand in hearing stories from many people over the course of my time involved with the study circles back in the 90s and 2000s, actually 2000 and 2010s. So I understand the frustration and the relevance of it. But to say a resolution like this, which really doesn't have a lot of bearing in terms of impact on the decision, I like the way Council Member Salem clarified the point that it's just going to be, you know, let's take a look at what's the best opportunity for all concerned in making sure it's in the right place. So I will not be supporting the resolution today. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Council Member Amaro. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair to Council Member Peluso, do you feel this is really necessary? Would you consider a deferment, if not a withdrawal? Through the chair to Council Member Amaro. I would have no problem with a deferment, but I kind of don't really know what the intention of that would be, unless it is to kind of give the bill a little more. To the point of, I think, what some of the commentary is getting at, I do not expect to add more pieces to this map. This is meant to be the red line map that we discussed last time. Does that answer your question? Thank you, sir. I'm not going to support any building of a criminal justice system in the black community, period, but given the scenario and the need that has been identified, the borders, the acreage through the chair, I think it's inconceivable, and I know the morgue has been mentioned several times, but the morgue and the jail, apples and oranges, and I'm that pragmatic, and that's why I ask if you would consider a deferment, because the truth of the matter is I don't even know if your resolution is necessary at this moment, at this junction where we are. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We'll go back to Councilmember Peluso for the second time. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for all the comments. It's something I understand. I understood that many people would argue, hey, we've got to add more neighborhoods. We've got to go into other districts. I get that. That is not what the intention of this bill is or resolution. That's not what I expect will happen, and it's not what I would support, so to the point of Councilmember Landon saying, listen, if this was Black Hammock Island, I would show up. If this was any other part of the city, I would show up. I fully agree with that. I understand what you're getting at. I understand what your position is and what this process looks like. I believe that it is a transparent process and that you're doing an incredible job. This is meant to make sure we are allaying the fears of our constituents who have come time and time again discussing what has happened in their communities. And I just do not like, I mean, listen, we all see it often in this body, right? We know a certain thing. We know how a process is going to look. We all know that there's going to be more to the story. But constituents don't necessarily do that. The public doesn't necessarily understand everything that we know. And so this is meant to share with them basically what we said today. We don't really expect that the jail is going to be built in any of these areas. So what's the concern of passing this resolution? Part of my push was because I am a little concerned there might be an annex. There might be a 12-acre annex, perhaps, that is a holding site, you know, because maybe it'll have 50 beds or something along those lines for inmates while, you know, in waiting for the next day when they go to the courthouse. That's a possibility. That might be the size of a medical examiner's office. And so it's just a matter of if we already know or expect that the jail or any sort of facilities are not going to be built in these areas, let's just put it in this resolution, right? If anything else, if you're CGL, it gives you information early and often so that you're not taking the time and energy and effort into looking at these other sites. I just, I also get frustrated because I hear what people say to us and I hear what the community says often in these community meetings and it's oftentimes for those of us that are elected officials or work for the administration, we're quick to say, whoa, whoa, whoa, maybe you didn't get all the answers. Here's what's actually happening. And so this is a way to kind of get in front of that, right? We are letting our constituents and the public know, hey, we do not expect this to be built in these areas. This resolution was passed. It's a carryover from the original redlining bill. I understand everyone's concerns. I understand if you're going to vote it down, but I, but I, unless there's a deferment for the purpose of, you know, oh, let's, let's add language to make it, you know, one way or another, I would ask that we just vote this up or down. And, and I, I know, I know where a lot of people's heads are. I don't think that, I don't think this vote will mean like, oh, we, we still live in, oh, no, I don't want to go down that road. Um, I, I know, I know that, that, that this body is not, is not filled with people who have the same mindset of those who believed in redlining back in the thirties. I know that, but I do ask that you recognize, um, these communities and these neighborhoods and these neighbors have heard a lot over the past 50, 60, 70 years that no, no, no, those were old policies. We live in a new age now. We're not going to do, do things to hurt your neighborhoods. Well, let's, let's put our money where our mouth is. Thank you. Uh, thank you. Let's go to Colonel Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair, um, won't say a lot here because most of what I would have said has already been addressed, but I, I will say I appreciate the intent. I really do, um, of, of this resolution. Um, but I agree there is a process here, um, and let's allow CGL, um, to do what they've been charged to do and then everyone will be heard, all the input and, and we'll go from there. Um, I, I certainly wouldn't like to see 14 more resolutions coming highlighting areas of each district that don't want to be included, uh, for consideration. And, and I don't know that that's a productive, uh, way forward either. So, um, even though again, like I said, I appreciate the intent and, and we're hearing everyone what they're saying and we'll have another opportunity once there's more clarity on the recommended sites in this process to be able to give more input, uh, from each one of the district's, uh, perspective. So, um, I will not be supporting this resolution today. Um, but again, I appreciate the intent. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. Let's go to council, council member Clark Murray. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to council member Laina, where are the, um, the corporation or business that's working on the, um, the consultant, where are they in their process in terms of locating and, um, determining sites? Sure. So as, uh, through the chair to, uh, council and Clark Murray, uh, going back and again, this is still fresh in most everyone's memory when we gave the full council brief, I believe it was two months ago. Uh, shortly after that, I believe was when we did finalize the contract and what we've been saying this first phase, uh, to get to those deliverables I've outlined, uh, which again, there are substantially more than the site selection recommendations. It's five main deliverables and 13 other services and deliverables were part of the statement of work and the contract that we signed. Uh, but most likely, uh, I have not gotten an update this month, but we're still probably looking at the beginning of the year, uh, next year is when they're going to come back with their first report to us. Thank you for that. Um, through the chair to council member Peluso, you don't have to think very hard as to where I stand in this particular debate. But my thought is that if you would be willing to defer, which would allow you to, um, bring the bill back as opposed to it being voted down and then you have having to wait an entire year where based upon council member Layton's, um, information we're looking at next year. So if you would reconsider just the idea of a deferral, then I would put forth the motion. And I understand the, um, criteria that you told us in regards to what would be the conditions under which you would consider a deferral, but I just hope that you would do the chair. Uh, let, let me go to Ms. Mary. Through the chair to council member Clark Murray, do you mean withdraw? You've mentioned deferral, but I'm wondering if you meant to say withdraw. So thank you for that. Um, Mr. Popola. So withdraw means that he would have a year to bring it back. And so you could come back at any time. If a bill is withdrawn, it can come back at any time. It doesn't have to wait an entire year. It does not have to wait. That's if a bill is denied and somebody wants to file something that's substantially the same, then they have to wait a year. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. So with that being said, um, and the correction in regards to the motion to withdraw. So then you would have an opportunity to bring it back at any time. Seeing that we're looking at a timeframe for the results from the consultants being at the beginning of next year, which, you know, right now we're, we're, this is almost June. So we're looking at about six years at a, sorry, six months at a minimum. So if you would consider that, because as opposed to, if we just, if we vote the bill down through the chair to Mr. Popola, that's a, he has to wait an entire year. Correct. Through the chair to council member Clark Murray. Correct. If he were to want to file the same or a substantially similar bill, it would be barred for one year. And it sounds as if just listening to the remainder of the members of this, of this committee, that they might be amenable to that, depending upon the results of the, um, consultant study. Go ahead. Ms. Bluso, you're recognized. Thank you, chair. Um, through the council member, uh, to council member Clark Murray. I, I, I think we would just, I think I'd rather just get voted down now and then we do it in a year. Like if that's, if that's the, the intent or we try to file an ordinance, if we find out, like if we find out that one of these sites really isn't a red line area, we got to pass a resolution. We got to pass an actual ordinance on that. Um, I think the, the community would, would be livid. Um, and, and I get, I get the, the, the nature of, of where people's heads and mindsets are at. I just feel like we've been sitting on stuff like this for a very long time. And oftentimes we say to folks, oh, in five months, a thing will happen. In seven months, a thing will happen. And then it takes years. The Durkeeville study, for instance, that we, uh, approved in our first year, uh, in this term. One of the pushbacks on that was, hey, you know, Groundwork Jacks is going to be doing studies in each neighborhood. So, you know, why, why do this study? Councilmember Peluso and myself and Councilmember Salem recognized, okay, that work's not going to get done for a long time. I'm sorry to interrupt, Councilmember Peluso. I understand what you're saying. You're talking about the study. We're talking about this study. We've already approved the, um, the funding. They've done the, the RFP. We have the, the business that is going to conduct the study. So, it's on its way. It's not in any of those phases. So, just something for you to consider. Understood. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Lennon. Uh, thank you, Chair. Through the chair to, uh, Councilman Clark Murray and Councilmember Peluso. I will, uh, do my best in the next few days to get an update. Because we've been saying early next year, and I'll go back and confirm if that's still what we're looking at as far as the, uh, the timeline, when to expect, uh, like I said, our, uh, preliminary report to us. All right. No other speakers in the queue. Uh, so I, I as well concur with, uh, Councilmember Lennon and, um, Salem about, uh, the due diligence that's going forward. And I, I think, I think we've got enough, uh, protection there to where, at that point in time, um, that we all understand the red line. And then that's, that's going to be taboo to even consider this going in there. So, with that, I'm going to open the ballot and record your vote. One yay, six nays. By your action, you've denied 2026-0356. All right. We'll go. The next item will be number 47. 2026-0397. Can I get a motion on emergency? Can I get a second? I've got a motion and a second on the emergency. Mr. Peterson, on the emergency. Through the chair to the committee, um, the nature of the emergency is the current BCID charter has processes that involve the supervisor of elections. Um, and as the qualification period, um, occurs in June, this is an attempt to remove the supervisor from those processes and allow the board to move forward with their operations. All right. I don't see any speakers on the emergency. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise, none. The emergency carries. 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 clarifies the initial board of supervisors is being reflect, uh, revised to reflect the current membership, uh, places a revised charter on file, uh, to correct the listing of the initial supervisors. And then there's various scriveners. All right. No speakers on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise, none. The amendment carries. Can I get a motion and a second on the bill as amended? All right. No speakers in the, in the queue. Open a ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0397. All right. That takes us to item number, back to item number 27. Got a motion on 2026-0358 and on the auditor's recommended amendment. Mr. Peterson. Yeah. I've got a motion and a second on the auditor's recommended amendment. Through the chair to the committee, there is some language in, um, the bill that's, it was just repeated from current language regarding insurance requirements as it relates to, uh, towing and those insurance amounts are 30 plus years old. So our recommendation is just to update that to amounts as determined by the risk management division so that as those, they see amounts needing to be changed, they can be handled administratively rather than having set amounts identified in our ordinance code. Right. I believe, um, Mr. Marshall, you, you want to speak to the amendment? First off, uh, I need to repeat my name again. Absolutely. Marshall Atkinson. I just saw him file. Um, I just heard about the insurance requirements and, and we all know what's going on with the insurance with commercial carriers and everything like that. Risk management doesn't live in the same world that we do when they do this because the risk we're, the four statutes already set what, what our limits have to be in our trucks. So I don't know where, I don't want to get caught into this. Oh, you got to have a million dollar limit liability because then you've just given every attorney to, uh, you put a target on our back. We like to keep what our insurance has always been, and that's what everyone else is running around town. We can't be competitive if we're doing that. And, uh, I don't think there's any reason for it. We haven't had any problems in my 30 years having this going on. So I, I think leaving it to somebody that sits in a different world is not, doesn't even need to be part of this. It's not what we came here to do. We came here to fix so that the public's protected and the insurance is already protecting the public and we have them. We got enough people driving around with no insurance and nothing's being done about them. Only the people that are going to be having insurance are the ones that want to want it legally. Right. Thank, thank you, Mr. Atkinson. Let me go to, uh, Council Member Clark Murray. Thank you. On the amendment. Yes, absolutely. Um, come back, Mr. Atkinson. The, um, to the chair to count, to Mr. Peterson. I was listening to what you said and you're saying that basically the language in the, um, city ordinance is 30 years old, but it, but you don't want language in regards to insurance that specifies how much or like the amount of insurance. Just, just give me some clarification on that aspect. Sure. Through the chair to Council Member Clark Murray. So, yes, this language has been in the city's ordinance code since at least the 80s, if not prior to then. And it lays out specific dollar amounts that, um, wreckers who are on the city's call list are required to maintain an insurance. Uh, this is not a section of code that gets touched often. And so, when we became aware of it, I sent it to risk management to say, hey, do these amounts still apply in today's world? And their response was, we would recommend updating these amounts. So, given that the amounts more than likely would have changed since the 80s, rather than putting the exact amounts that risk would suggest having today, my recommendation is just to have a language that says, you know, suggestions by the risk management division so that as risk amounts change, or insurance amounts change, that those, they could automatically update rather than having outdated language in our code 20 years from now. Okay. So, you're saying that we need to have language in this bill that states that the, um, the risk aspect or the insurance aspect needs to, um, be adjusted with current rates or current, um, times. Okay. Thank you for that. Through the chair to Mr. Atkinson. Yes, sir. So, tell me what the statute says in regards to the 2025 or the 2026 statute says in regards to the, um, risk management, the insurance aspect. I may defer to Shannon. Sharon, are you in here? So, just take me a second here. It's just... So, to, through the chair, while they're looking for those things, through the chair, thank you, chair, so much. I'm trying to, but if we want to at a later time, we can, I can work with you all and get the language if that's what you all would prefer. Um, that's, that's fine with me, too, because this is the part that I really, really like about what we do. Um... So, it's page, uh, four, ma'am, and it, and it talks about, uh, that we have to have a hundred thousand or three hundred, and that's been the norm forever, and what we have actually been doing for the last 25 years is watching our insurance rates. Mine went from, in five years, from seven hundred thousand to two point five because of all these million dollar policies and these umbrella policies, and I'm, I'm sure most of y'all know what's been going on with companies. So, so, so, so, Mr. Atkinson, because I have the floor through the chair, so you're saying that what you require for, for personally for your towing businesses is more than what the statute says that you should have? Is that what you're saying? Yes, ma'am. We have in the past, but we can't afford it anymore. We're having to go back to, to the, to the minimums to stay in business. And, and so the minimums are the minimums that you just read from the statute, correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. So, through the, okay, go ahead. Thank you. Through the chair to Councilman Clark, he read our ordinance code. He did not read the statutes. Oh, I was, I asked, I asked specifically, I thought I said the Florida statute when I asked the question. Okay. So, at this point, thank you, Mr. Atkinson, because I don't want to belabor this because I know we have a lot to do today. So, to the chair, would you like to just defer this? Because I know you're part of this bill. You're a sponsor or introducer of this bill as well. If you would like to, us to just off, you know, defer it or look at this aspect and we can add the language for, on, for rules. Because I think you all, this will be seen in rules, correct? Mr. Fopoulos. Through the chair to Councilmember Clark Murray, it's going to both rules and TEU. And Mr. Chair, if you wanted to defer it, what we can do is clarify what the state statutes actually state with respect to minimum levels of insurance for this type of vehicle, for the service. And then maybe it's a matter of referencing the minimum amounts required by state statute rather than risk management would be the, the option that could be discussed as far as an amendment. It's up to you. Thank you. Actually, I'll just, we, we can, I'd like to keep it moving forward and then we can get into rules by the end of, of the, this auditor's recommended amendments to where we can dial it in with the, the state requirements, minimum thresholds to make sure that that's, that's, we're, we're in agreement in a line with that. So that, that, that would be my preference on that. So let me get back to the queue, queue here, if you're, if you're finished for now. And I'll. Let me, let me ask one question, Chair, through the chair to Mr. Fopoulos. So this is an amendment. If we don't, I mean, if we vote right now, we don't, there isn't really, it's a recommendation. Is it something that we're going to vote on in regards to the recommendation? Do we need to make a, do we need to make a motion? So to vote on just adding an amendment from the auditor in this aspect. Through the chair to Council Member Clark-Murray. So there is a motion on the floor to move the auditor's recommended amendment, which would be to add the language that references the risk as determined by risk management versus the specific amounts in the bill. Now, if something, if additional information is available for rules or for TEU and those committees want to make an alternate motion to amend, to address different language than going into council next Tuesday, traditionally the president would identify which motion, which amendment would get moved first and that they would both be included on the blue sheet to the extent that there are differences between the two, any of the committee reports. So you would have that information going into council next week. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair. All right. Let me go to Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. I'm confused. Let me go through some very direct questions. The present bill from the 1980s has 100,000 or 300,000. What was the, I heard two different numbers. Through the chair to Council Member Salem. The current code requires the sheriff to require public liability insurance coverage by participating firms in amounts of not less than 100,000 for damages arising from bodily injury or death to more than one person in any one accident, and 50,000 for all property damage in any one accident issued by an insurance company. Okay. So these companies have been carrying that type of liability since the 1980s. Is that a fair statement? Okay. Now that we're rewriting it, risk management has suggested $1 million, but you mentioned three different types. Is the total $1 million, or is each one of those one person, two persons, and then the third item you mentioned? Through the chair to Council Member Salem, it'd be $1 million compared to the $100,000. It looks like $2 million compared to the $300,000, and then I believe $1 million compared to the $50,000. So we're basically increasing it by about 1,000 percent, 10 times. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Why are we as a city putting these suggested liabilities on there? I mean, we're simply diverting these trucks to pick up these vehicles, correct? The sheriff is. Off of public property, so they're providing a service for the city. They're providing a service. Are we liable? I would assume so, but I'm not in this world, so I cannot definitively answer that question. Through the chair to OGC, are we liable for these things? I mean, I'm trying to understand why we are putting such high numbers on these things unless we are liable. Through the chair to Council Member Salem. So I think liability in any incident is subject to whatever the circumstances are of that incident. I can tell you that traditionally, if it occurs on public property and their city is involved contractually with an entity, they're always going to want to sue the city as well because people believe that we're the deeper pocket in a lot of instances. And then we have to wash out liability through that litigation. So I think from risk management's perspective, if there is a higher insurance policy required of the provider, then it's more likely that that insurance is going to cover a greater extent of liability and costs related to an incident that would occur, and maybe then it's less likely, you know, to an extent, that doesn't mean they're not going to sue the city. That still could always happen and does. So if Marshall's, one of his wreckers, pulls a vehicle out of a parking garage that the city owns, that would be an example where they might sue us. Or even if it's on just the public right of way. I mean, people like to include the government agency and pretty much any litigation that's on sidewalks, drives, you know, roads, that kind of thing. I don't think it's going to prevent that. But when you have more insurance money at play, as you know, then more of the damages and injury can be covered by that policy. And then they don't necessarily have as much to subrogate out later. Last question. Have we had issues, to our knowledge, with the $100,000, $150,000 that we've had in place for the last 30 years? Through the chair to Council Member Salem, unfortunately, I cannot answer that. Who can answer that question for you? I can follow up with our litigation department to see if they have any data that would be relevant to that. I'm very uncomfortable requiring a business to increase their insurance by 1,000% without some understanding that we've got a problem. And I don't hear that today. So I'd like to see... Chair, I know this is important to you, but I'm just not comfortable. Unless you can enlighten me with some of this stuff. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let's go to Council Member Morrow. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think pretty much a lot of what has been said kind of answered my questions. I've known Marshall's business for a number of years, a man of integrity, and has done a wonderful job. I see from the city's perspective because whether direct or indirect, his work will be acting as an agent of the city and therefore the city is exposed. If I'm a good lawyer and there's a claim, as Mr. Popolis just pointed out, I'm going to go after all the parties. And everyone thinks that the city has the deepest pockets. So I see where the risk management is trying to have safeguards to minimize or protect that exposure. I don't know what the right dollar amount is, but you and I know, sir, that the coverage in 1980 compared to 2026 is like day and night. So I don't know where I'm going to land on this. I think a whole lot about Marshall and his business. I've dealt with him over the years, so that's not an issue for me. It's an issue, are we safeguarding the taxpayers' purse strings here? Are we doing the right thing? And so that's something I'm going to have to deliberate here. All right. Thank you. Mr. Atkinson, if you'd come back up. Thank you, Councilman. Let me clarify a couple things. Y'all are all forgetting when y'all are talking about lawsuits. One, the city has never been sued in over 30 years for any action that we have taken as a tow company on the roads. And the reason being is the city has this thing called sovereign immunity. So does the state of Florida. So in my Road Ranger program that I do, I got with the state and I said, hey, we need to have sovereign immunity because we're one entity doing one job for the state of Florida. You have to pass five criterias. We passed all five of them plus two more. So we've got sovereign immunity in it. Sovereign immunity is $250,000. All right. So when you get into the other numbers, you play into the insurance company's pockets, which is the attorneys at large. And that's what we're seeing. We haven't had, we're picking up disabled vehicles. Now, if the city wants to give us a sovereign immunity for doing the tows for Sheriff's Department, which I already tried to do, but you can't do it because we also tow for GEICO. We do private property tows and all that. So it doesn't fall in the same room. To get sovereign immunity, you have to pass all five criteria. The state has to control you. The state has to do this. The state has to mandate your hours. They've got to mandate your route, basically, which they do on the Road Rangers. But sovereign immunity is a trick to protecting the city. And that's where you all have sovereign immunity from lawsuits. That's why no one sued the city on anything we've ever done. I've been involved in multiple million-dollar lawsuits that have dwindled down to nothing after three or four years. But the problem is your loss ratio. When I mentioned to you a minute ago, I like Councilman Sandlin's response of $1,000. In four years, my insurance went from $700,000 to $2.5,000. And we had no accidents related to our fault. It was because of other people running into our vehicles and the passengers suing us, which comes back to we need insurance reform, but that's not why we're here today. We're here to try to get this to protect the public on the towing and the rates that people are charging. I know this insurance thing just all hit us all at one time here. Mr. Atkinson, would you be inclined to we take and defer this, and that would give you more time to sit down and let's get something more dialed in to? I'd like to get it all done, but I'd like to actually deal with people in risk management probably that could actually give us the numbers, and then we can come back and debate with them what we think we should be at. Yeah, I think it's, with all the questions and the concerns, I think it's only wise that we pull this back and defer it and give you time and OGC and the Sheriff's Department time to get this unified. Because I see a couple of problems here with the, your firms or these record firms that would be working for the Sheriff also tow independently. And so when we require their, these companies that work for the Sheriff's towing to be increased to a level they're not able to be competitive out in the regular market, we kind of do a disservice to these businesses. So I think it's at, at this time I'm going to go ahead and defer it and for one cycle and if, if we can't get, get it done by then we'll, we'll keep deferring it until we can get a, a good land in place for this to where it's, it's, it's, it's agreeable to everybody. Yeah, and, and that's exactly what the Florida State did with the highway patrol and everything when they went to the rates and that's what their rates requirements. Our two is for the state of Florida is the same rates we are, we've got in here now. All right. Well, thank you, sir, for coming down and, uh, Ms. Mary. Uh, through the chair or to the chair. So we'll work on, um, confirming what the minimum statute requirements are. I do want to mention to the, to the committee, a sovereign immunity came up. Um, the state has passed a bill. I'm not sure that the governor has yet signed it. That is increasing those rates this year. Um, so those are going up to the extent there might be consideration or discussion of maybe establishing minimums that meet the, the sovereign immunity limits. I will, I will just mention to the committee as well that with respect to, for instance, the property damage being $50,000, which is currently what's in the code. Um, one of the things that I believe risk management is mindful of in that respect is that most vehicles nowadays cost a lot more than $50,000. So when you look at what the property damage claim alone could be on a single incident with one vehicle, it could, it could greatly exceed the $50,000 minimum property damage. And so, um, I just kind of put that out there as part of the consideration that when they look at these numbers and risk management and making their recommendations. Um, but Mr. Chair, I'm happy to, um, work through this and also Mr. Salem, Dr. Salem, identify if there have been any suits. Um, even if the city was sued, they just may not have been successful in pursuit of that. Um, but I can follow up to get some data on that as well. All right. With that, that bill is deferred. That takes us back to the beginning of our agenda. We'll start with item number one, 2024-0966 is deferred at the request of Council President Carrico. Item two, 2025-0361 is deferred at the request of Council Member White. Item three, 2026-0227 is deferred at the request of Council Member Diamond. And item four, 2026-0312, can I get a motion on the bill? I've got a motion and a second on the bill. Dr. Salem, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. I have a number of questions on this. Um, Mr. Peterson, I asked you, I think on Friday, what is the average salary of these grant coordinators, uh, within that department? Through the chair, uh, to Council Member Salem, yes, sir, you did ask that. Um, and we looked at the entire division and took out the division chief just because it's, she's probably not into the weeds. Uh, the average salary is $76,200. And then with benefits, the average salary and benefits is $98,190. And they're asking $139,000 to $252,000 for each one of these positions. Is that, am I understanding that correctly? The $139,000 to $252,000 would be the two positions combined. Two positions combined. So, still a little bit on the high side. Could be. Okay. Number two, within the opioid program that, that we, uh, that I think this is patterned after, there's one more senior person and one person that reports to her. Is, is that the model here? Through the chair to Council Member Salem, yes, sir. So, there is, okay, number three, Mr. Peter, through the chair, I'm sorry, to Mr. Peterson. Um, are these two people dedicated to, to, to the east side community? Through the chair to Council Member Salem, they should be. I can't say that they won't be overlapped, but that is the intent behind these positions. Well, one of the reasons we have two positions within opioids is someone's on vacation. I mean, there's, I think there's work for two people, but it also gives you the ability if someone's out and that kind of thing, pregnancy or whatever it may be. Can someone, are, is, is, Barabel, are these people dedicated to this effort? Because we're taking the money out of the, of the east side grant money. Through the chair. Barabel Figueroa, grants and contract compliance chief. Uh, through the chair to Council Member Salem, yes, these two positions, because they're funded through those dollars, will be fully dedicated to just this particular program, east side community grants program. How much do you anticipate hiring the more senior person for? The grant administrator, I don't have the range in front of me, but the grant administrator range is somewhere in the $90,000 to $110,000 range. It's, it's, it's an existing position, uh, so it would be comparable to the grant administrator position that currently resides for PSG and the direct appropriations grants. So that's the more senior person? Yes. Okay. With, with that information, I'm comfortable with this. Thank you. All right. No other speakers in the queue. Let's open a ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you're approved 2026-0312. Next item, number five, the 2026-0313. I've got a motion and a second on the bill, and then we will be taking up the companion bill, which is item number 14, right after this. And so I'm kind of moving them together. And our first speaker in the queue is Dr. Salem. Is Mr. Jeffrey here? I am a, through the chair, I'm a big proponent of down payment assistance and have tried to push that through budgets as we look at ways to enhance affordable housing. I read over the weekend where there are some cities where the rent and the mortgage is the same amount. And if, if those people had the ability to put down a down payment, they'd be in a house versus renting for years and years and years. Are, are we taking a money away from down payment assistance through this? Good morning. Travis Jeffrey, housing, community available in division. Through the chair to Councilman Salem. We're doing some, um, reconciliation from some of our older home dollars. So we're just kind of doing to swap, lowering the down payment assistance, increasing some admin. And then you'll see in the companion bill where we're actually filling that gap with some 25 funding, just so we can clean it all up and we'll be able to close out that 22 year. So the answer is we're not taking money away from down payment assistance? No, sir. We're actually just moving it from year to year. Thank you. All right. Ms. Councilmember Clark-Murray. Thank you, chair. I am always a proponent of helping anyone move from renting to owning. And so with that being said, Ms., I don't have any questions, Mr. Jeffrey. I just want to be added as a co-sponsor. And I think all of my colleagues here will support this bill. Thank you. All right. No other speakers in the queue. Open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action you're approved, 2026-0313. Then that takes us back to item number 14, 2026-0323. 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, 2026-0323. All right. That takes us back to item number 6, 2026-0314. And a motion on the bill. I've got a motion and a second on the bill. Any, no speakers in the queue. Open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action you're approved, 2026-0314. Item number 7, 2026-0315. I've got a motion and a second on the amendment. Mr. Peterson. Through the chair to the committee, the amendment attaches a revised exhibit 1, which includes the budget of the Harbor Waterway Dependent Special District to include supplemental budget descriptions. One of the items that they are funding this year was not described, and so trying to get all the documentation to reflect what they originally submitted. All right. No speakers on the amendment. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise. None. Amendment carries. Get a motion and a second on the bill as amended. I've got a motion and a second. No speakers in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action you're approved, 2026-0315. Next item number 8, 2026-0316. Can you 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. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action you're approved, 2026-0316. Next item number 9, 2026-0317. Can you 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 would remove the waiver of the section requiring the honoree to live within five miles of the designated roadway. He, in fact, did. It also places revised notice documents on file to include all the notices the city sent out to the affected property owners. Correct the designated roadway description to reflect the signs will only go in the area that's in front of the church parcel. And then also correct various scribbers. All right. Mr. Councilman Amaro, you're recognized on the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very quickly to our legislative services, would you please add me as a co-sponsor? I knew Mr. Murray. He was a bow tie-wearing preacher. All right. Councilmember Bolin on the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair and Mr. Peterson, what's the rationale for having someone who lives within five miles of the designated roadway, you know, a waiver is required for that. It doesn't seem to make sense to me. The person lives in the neighborhood, there's no reason why. I don't know. I mean, just, I'm sure it's a historical fact, but I'm not sure you could speak to that through the chair. Through the chair and Councilmember Bolin, a prior council determined that that was one of the requirements for an honorary road designation, so we're just following our ordinance code. All right. You good, Mr. Bolin? All right. So, I've got a motion and a second on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise. None. The amendment carries. Can a motion and a second on the bill as amended? Second. I've got a motion and a second on the bill as amended. No speakers in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By your action, you approve 2026-0317. Next, item number 10, 2026-0318 is deferred. It takes us to item number 11, 2026-0319 is deferred. Item number 12, 2026-0320, that one is being deferred as well. Next item, number 13, 2026-0321, get a motion on the amendment. I've got a motion and a second on the amendment, Mr. Peterson. To the chair of the committee, the amendment reflects which landfill facilities the Solid Waste Class III mitigation funds are coming from, as noted on your agenda, and then also attaches a revised BT to correct an account code. Thank you, sir. Council Member Bolin, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. First of all, I applaud you for your diligence in securing these funds for your much-needed improvements of the park. Through the chair to Mr. Peterson, were these funds available to all councilmembers? He just was diligent enough to find it? Through the chair to Council Member Bolin. So there's a number of funding sources that are in this bill. If you look on your agenda, there's four different funding sources. The Solid Waste Class III mitigation funds, those are as tonnage is deposited at a landfill, 50 cents for each tonnage goes into a fund for that landfill, and those funds must be spent within a seven-mile radius of each individual landfill. So depending on where you are in the city, you may have access to some funds. You may not. The card room tax, that is a tax we receive from the state as it relates to the Best Bet card room on Monument Road. The ordinance code says that those funds must be spent on park improvements within a five-mile radius of that facility. So there are very few councilmembers that could benefit from that. The Autumn Bonds Investment Pool Earnings, that's funding that could be used on any capital improvement project. Council Member Gay came to us needing that additional dollars. We were able to find that. And then the last one, the Williams-Sheffield Regional Park, he's just moving it from a larger Sheffield Park project to a specific Sheffield Park project. So that is, I say, available to him. I'm certain Councilman Salem shudders when he sees these kind of bills come through, trying to save these dollars for other purposes. But I think it's a worthwhile investment on an improvement to the park scenario. I don't want to ask this question, but I think I need to. Are there still other dollars available? Through the chair to Council Member Boylan, there are dollars in the, Class III Mitigation Funds landfill accounts. This does take a majority of the dollars from the RealCo facility and then also the coastal recycling facility. The Carterin tax, I believe this takes every last dollar available in there. But we do receive $200,000 to $300,000 a year as it relates to that facility. In all seriousness, I think it's probably why, just as you now provide us with information with respect what funds we have available to us through the parks improvements, that we also have access to, equal access, if you will, to information regarding the availability of dollars that can be used in our various districts. I'm certainly going to support this today, but I think it makes sense for us to have a better understanding of the availability of these kind of dollars. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. Dr. Salem on the amendment. Yeah, we're on the amendment. Mr. Peterson. Through the chair to Council Member Salem, it was clarifying which of the Solid Waste Class III Mitigation Funds, which dollar amount is being appropriated from which facility, and attaches a revised Exhibit 1BT to correct account codes. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Morrow. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to support the amendment, as well as the bill, because even though Ed Austin is in District 2, it touches District 1, but I'm going to raise the flag now that next year, the card room tax, there won't be no access, because if it's coming from Best Bet, that's in D1. I'm going to make sure that money is spent in D1. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So, no other speakers on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise, none. The amendment carries. I'm going to motion to second on the bill. I've got a motion to second on the bill as amended. Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. I sure admire your ingenuity here. I mean, what you did to pull this through, I mean, I tip my hat to you, frankly. And I want to be a co-sponsor of this. Thank you. All right. Thank you. But I also need to give a lot of credit to Ms. Kim Taylor. She, and Mr. Peterson, they worked diligent with me on this. So, let me go to Council Member Clark Murray. Thank you. I also tip my hat to you. And I want to be a co-sponsor as well. Work well done. Thank you. Colonel Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To and through the chair, yeah, I also echo well done. And I got to say, there are some of our projects that don't always get on the queue, in the queue, and completed in your district. So, there's a good reason why you're doing what you're doing here and putting this together. And because of that radius requirement on the two biggest ones, the only one that really was wide open was the autumn bonds investment pool earnings. And so, you know, you did what you needed to do and worked with everybody to make these happen. And so, I also applaud you for this, and I would like to be as a co-sponsor. All right. Chief White. Yes, sir, please add me as a co-sponsor, too. And I'm already familiar with what you have, because I've got the largest dump in Duval County, and it gives me some funds to keep my – so don't even talk to them about that fund. Thank you. All right. Yeah. All right. No other speakers on the queue. I appreciate all the co-sponsors. So, I've got a second. Motion to second on the bill as amended. Open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0321, and my district thanks you. Item number 14, we've already taken action. That takes us to item number 15, 2026-0324. Can I motion on amendment? I've got a motion to second on amendment. Mr. Peterson. Through the chair of the committee, this bill authorizes a reduction in the required private funding capital investment, so we need to reflect that in the amendment to the redevelopment agreement with this entity down to the $7 million number. Any speakers on the amendment? I see none. Let's listen. All in favor of the amendment, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise. None. The amendment carries. I've got 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. Open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you approve 2026-0324. Next item, 16-2026-0327. Can I get a motion on the substitute? I've got a motion and a second on the substitute. Mr. Peterson. Through the chair of the committee, and the reason this is a substitute rather than an amendment is a rather lengthy portion for Ms. Stafalpas and I to take care of later this week, should you approve. So otherwise, it would just be a normal amendment, but because of the length of it, we are recommending a substitute. The first is to attach a revised Exhibit 1, which is the BT, to correct an account code. The second, which is the reason for the substitute, is to include details on the steps taken by the city in making the determination of necessity as it relates to having to go forward with this project in its form and then go on to eminent domain proceedings if the real estate officer is unable to negotiate agreements with the 17 property owners identified. It also would include placing applicable survey studies and reports on file as it relates to that determination. And then lastly, attaching a listing of those 17 affected properties. There was a map that's attached, but it's very difficult to identify the property, so we're laying out the RE numbers of those 17 properties. All right. Dr. Salem, you recognize. Through the chair to Mr. Peterson, are these homes, are these vacant pieces of property? Can you enlighten me at all? Through the chair to Councilman Salem, I'm going to defer to Public Works. I did not inspect the properties, just the location of them along Hogan's Creek. Just curious. Go ahead, Ms. Hunter. Good morning. Renee Hunter, Public Works Real Estate. So we have a list of all the owners, and they all appear to be commercial, but I would like the opportunity to go ahead and go through each one, double-check the zoning of all of them, and see if any of them are actually zoned residential. So if that's okay with this committee, I'd like to follow up on that. But at first glance, it looks like everything is commercial or business-owned. Through the chair to Ms. Hunter, are they active businesses, do you know, or are they just zoned commercial? Through the chair to Councilmember Salem, I don't know offhand, but I can find out for you. Please. I'd like to. I mean, if it's an active business, I mean, and you're taking their property, I'm sure that would be a little expensive. But you can follow up with me. Thank you. Yes, sir. And if I may elaborate, obviously, if it is an active business and they're not willing to negotiate with the city, then business damages, as OGC can tell you, is definitely a large part of negotiations moving forward. So all of those things are considerations that are taken into account if we cannot reach a negotiated settlement on these. All right. Thank you. Let's go to Colonel Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair to the committee, I just wanted to get thoughts from the colleagues here on this portion of this ordinance that takes away city council oversight approval for anything exceeding $50,000 in settlements. I'm a little uncomfortable with that part, but maybe there's something I'm missing here. And I've had businesses come to me previously about eminent domain on the part of some independent organizations that I, after the fact, found out and was very concerned with that whole process. So I just wanted to get some thoughts, if I may, from other colleagues on removing that oversight by removing that requirement above $50,000 for city council approval. All right. Let me real quickly go to Mr. Peterson. Through the chair to the committee, just in context to Council Member Miller's statements, and this just to provide information, you make the decision. But as it relates to the negotiation of the purchase price, first off, funds have to be appropriated, and that's what this bill would do. The city will receive the necessary interest in the real property from the transaction without any encumbrances negatively affecting the property. The purchase price can be no more than 125% of the appraisal that real estate will get for each of these parcels. The chief of engineering and construction management, along with the director of public works and the general counsel, have to find that the purchase of this property is in the best interest of the city. So there are processes laid out for going down this route. Then secondly, just to add additional context, we have done this two times come to mind, one for Old Middleburg, that BJP project where they're widening that from two to four lanes. That was recently done, and there's another instance that I'm drawing a blank that y'all have approved in the past. Knowing that the amounts are, there's going to be instances where that $50,000 amount will be surpassed, and rather than having to come back to council for each individual instance as its own separate piece of legislation, this was a process recommended by OGC probably in the last two years. But just laying that out before you. Right. You're good. Colonel Miller. All right. Let me go to Council Member Bolin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, Ms. Hunter. Bob, I guess my question, and I appreciate the fact, and I think I do appreciate Council Member Miller's concern, but I think, you know, my question is whether or not, have you done enough work to appreciate that the amount of money requested or appropriated here is going to be sufficient to cover any situation? Have you had any conversations with any of these property owners yet and get a sense of where they are in this process? And I realize we don't want to make the number too big because it's going to be a scramble for those dollars, I'm sure. Correct. Through the Chair to Council Member Boylan, we haven't reached out to any of the owners yet. We're waiting to see whether or not City Council approves of this legislation, and then we would reach out. And when it comes to the settlement amount, that would be something I think OGC could better address. We have done, just like Phillip had said, we've done Old Middleburg Road 1, and we're moving forward on Old Middleburg Road 2. Those are, I believe, two separate pieces of legislation that went before this Council. We also did Chafee Road. So, all of those had the same language in them to allow us to do essentially 25% above an appraisal and proceed to eminent domain. So, I guess my question then is, how did you arrive at the number, the $12.6 million number, to say that that's going to be sufficient to do what you need to do here? Can you speak to that through the Chair? Yes, sir. Through the Chair to Council Member Boylan. So, historically, under the Better Jacksonville plan that was done, it precedes me and my current staff. But what was done back then in the Engineering Division was to take three times the just market value that's on the property appraiser's office website as just kind of a best estimation without wasting money on appraisals that we will then need to purchase appraisals later on because they have become outdated since. So, that's been the methodology that we've been using moving forward. And actually, that number comes up to $8.8 million. So, the above and beyond that engineering is looking to do a BT on would have to be answered by them. But it's too early to tell whether or not that's going to be sufficient to cover everything. OJC can certainly tell you there's a lot of back and forth when they hire their own attorneys. They get their own appraisals. They're significantly higher. So, that's just kind of our best starting point so that we can at least figure out a number to submit to this council to ask for the BT so we can get started. And I do appreciate that through the Chair. I think it's, you know, understanding the formula, the process by which you came to this number, I think was very helpful for me to understand. And the work that's already gone into this, making a determination and, as you said, some experience from prior experience, helps us to get a better understanding of what this number is. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Ms. Mary, you were on the queue. You're good. Mr. Peterson? Okay, good. All right. So, I've got a motion and a second on the substitute. No other speakers on the substitute. All in favor of the substitute, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise, none. Substitute carries. So, I can get a motion and a second on the bill as substituted. I've got a motion and a second on the bill as substituted. No speakers in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you approve 2026-0327. That takes us to item number 17, 2026-0331. I've got a motion and a second on the amendment. Mr. Peterson? Through the chair of the committee, the amendments just to correct the effective date of the agreement. All right. No speakers on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise, none. The amendment carries. I've got 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. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you approve 2026-0331. Item number 18, 2026-0332. Good. I've got 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 approve 2026-0332. Item number 19, 2026-0333. I've got a motion and a second on the amendment. Mr. Peterson? Through the chair, to the committee, once again, just correcting the effective date of the agreement. All right. No speakers on the amendment. Mr. Boyle, no on the amendment on the bill. All right. No speakers on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise. None. The amendment carries. I've got a motion and a second on the bill as amended. I've got a motion and a second on the bill as amended. Mr. Councilmember Boyle, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chief, if you might want to come on down real quick. I know I asked this question probably five years ago, but who just exactly is the landlord here? The volunteer fire department, I think, has long since expired. Yeah. Percy Golden, JFRD. Through the chair, it's a volunteer fire department station. The issue with kind of delayed on that March deadline, it was trying to find out who that point of contact was. Sure. Found out who that was. It's an agreement that we've been doing for years. I know. Before this. The initial agreement was in 2021. There was one prior to that, but that one lasted five years in this one. As you might well have expected, you've visited that station a number of times. Does it still meet the needs? Are we looking at an expansion in that area? I know it's kind of difficult because it's a pretty congested area. Yeah. Through the chair, we've looked at different locations to possibly put a fire station in that area. But as you know, the Mandarin area, there's not much land to find around there. And that's why we've been still doing this. It's in a great location, great access, and a great crew over there. So I do appreciate the support. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. No other speakers in the queue. I've got a motion and a second on the bill. As amended, open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you approve 2026-0333. Next item, number 20, 2026-0334. Can I 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 have approved 2026-0334. Next item, number 2026-0335 will be deferred. Next item, number 22, 2026-0336. I've got 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 revises Section 118-107 waiver justification, originally approved as part of Ordinance 2025-781 to reflect this new project. Also includes Public Works as the oversight department for the funding agreement. The Parks Department is the oversight for the use agreement. And then attaches a revised Exhibit 2, which is the use agreement, to reflect this legislation rather than the 2025 legislation that originally set the $2 million aside. All right. Thank you. Mr. Gabriel, are you on the amendment? I'm here on the bill itself, but we can talk about the amendment, too, if that helps. Okay. All right. I have no speakers in the queue on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise, none. The amendment carries. I've got a motion and a second on the bill as amended. Councilman Amaro, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very quickly, looking at the concerns and the auditor recommendations, I presume we're going to move? Yes. I jumped ahead of the amendment, so let's go to the auditors. I need to get a motion and a second on the auditor's recommended amendments. I've got a motion and a second, so let me go to Mr. Peterson on the auditor's recommended amendments. Through the chair to the committee. So, our recommended amendments correlate to our concerns that are listed on the agenda. The first amendment would be to revise the term sheet to require a retainage of 10% of the city funds until the project is completed, and then also require repayment of the city funds if the project is not completed by what is in your filed version as a September 30th, 2028 deadline. I believe that's being requested to be extended to December 31st of 28th. And then, secondly, revising the use agreement to do a number of things. First, extend the term to greater than five years. The entity is proposing a 10-year agreement. The majority of cities' joint use agreements are 20-year agreements or perpetual agreements. B, providing designated hours for general public use. Everwaters is suggesting a 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. window on Mondays through Fridays, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. window Mondays through Fridays, and then a 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. window on Sundays. So, that is much more expansive than what was originally included in the filed version of the use agreement. Allowing the city to require additional insurance coverage as approved by the risk management division. When this term sheet was going through the administration, risk had originally signed off. The version that got filed, risk management, would like to have additional insurance requirements. So, our recommendation is just to update those based on what risk requires. Allowing the city to sue for specific performance if EWU defaults on the use agreement. So, currently, if EWU is in default in the use agreement, there's a statement that says the city's sole remedy is to terminate the agreement. We have no other option. So, allowing for a suit of specific performance would fall in line with other agreements that the city enters into. And then, lastly, this was a recommendation from the Office of General Counsel was recording the agreement, be recording the agreement with a clerk of court so that it runs with the title to the land, allowing, ensuring that the city and the public had access to those facilities while this agreement is in place. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Council Member Clark Murray. Thank you, Chair. I don't have an issue with any of the things that Mr. Peterson has said. I just, at this point, we just need to make a motion regarding them, but I imagine that most of you need to. Do we need to make another? Okay. So. Through the Chair to Council Member Clark Murray. So, the auditor-recommended amendments have been moved. The one thing that I would identify is that, and Mr. Gabriel is here to speak to this, they've provided some revisions to the term sheet for the funding agreement as well as the use agreement that can be taken up as well. The one difference that Mr. Peterson highlighted is their initial recommendation on item number one is to reference the repayment of city funds if the project is not completed by September 30th of 28th. And he indicated EWU is proposing a project completion of December 31st of that year. So, you may want to amend the amendment to reflect that date as proposed by EWU to at least address that item. And then there may be other items that could be taken up for consideration as well. Mr. Chair, you can take them up as part of this discussion on the auditor's recommended amendment. So, to the extent there might be differences, you could take them up as amendments to this. You can dispose of the auditor's recommended amendments, potentially with or without that one additional change that I recommended, but then just recognize that what EWU is proposing may be in conflict with certain aspects of this, and then we would just have to determine kind of the final determination of the committee for the committee amendment at the end. All right. Thank you, because I do have the floor. So, I will do the chair to Mr. Popolis. The first amendment that's being proposed by the applicants, I think that's something that we can go ahead and take up, which is moving the date to 12-30-28. So, I move to amend the amendment. All right. I've got a motion and a second on the amendment. Yes. Okay. And so, that's – do we need to – I'm sorry. Do we need to vote on that now or just – Well, we've got a motion and a second on that amendment, so I need to open the floor up for discussion on that amendment. So, I'm going to go ahead and get off the queue for now and get back on. This is on the Clark-Murray amendment, Dr. Salem? Yes. Okay. Okay. All right. No discussion on the Clark-Murray amendment. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise, none. The Clark-Murray amendment carries. So, you're back to the council auditor's amendment, the recommended amendment, as amended by the Clark-Murray amendment. Correct. And now we're back on the auditor's recommended amendments. So, do you – okay. Thank you. Let me go to Councilman Amaro. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the auditor's recommended amendment, through the chair to Philip or either Mary, is the condition number six – a D, rather. Is that in lieu of a clawback condition? Through the chair to Councilmember Amaro, it is in addition to a clawback. So, there's language that if they fail to use the facility as a track within a 10-year time period, one-tenth will be amortized each year. And so, at any point, they could owe the city back a portion of the funding if they stopped using it as a track. This 2-D allows us to sue them for not holding up their end of the bargain, if you will, as it relates to the use of the track. So, allowing the public to have access to it, allowing the community wellness events that are supposed to occur, and then partnering with two local organizations. Right now, the city has no recourse if they're in default of the use agreement. Thank you. Just for clarification through the chair. So, is there a provision of a clawback, which will be standard in so many of the agreements we've done? Through the chair to Councilmember Amaro, the clawback is already included in the documents. All right. Thank you. Let me – all right. Mr. Clark-Murray, you're on the queue. Boy, I keep popping back up on the queue really, really fast. Okay. So, through the chair to – because I think you just went through all of those items that – the changes in regards to this amendment. I'm just trying to make sure – because this is a tough one, y'all, and I think you all realize that. So, we have – through the chair to Mr. Peterson, do you feel that we have all of the protections that we need in regards to this particular project under your auditor's recommended amendments? Through the chair to Councilmember Clark-Murray. I believe we do. The one thing that council does – or the committee needs to decide on is the term of the use agreement. So, the as-filed version was for five years. Outside council said that was not long enough to meet a public use requirement. EWU and Mr. Gabriel are proposing a 10-year time frame, but I'll point out to you that the majority of the city's joint use agreements are either at a 20-year or a perpetual use agreement. So – but that is something you will need to weigh in on as it relates to our agreement. I didn't want to put a specific time year, but it just – it needs to be longer than five years. Okay. Thank you so much for that. So, through the chair to Mr. Gabriel. Good morning. Go ahead and give your information. I'm sure you know the routine. Good morning. Jason Gabriel with Burr Foreman here on behalf of Edward Waters University. I'm here with Louis Narcisse, who's the chief of staff for Dr. Faison, the president. And we have Mr. Sam Newby that I think everyone here knows, former council president. I appreciate your time. So, specifically, my question is in regards to the use agreement. So, the – typically, as Mr. Peterson said, that we have – either it's perpetual or at least 20. What is the reason for the limited number of years as compared to typical agreements with the city? Through the chair, I would submit that actually this is not – this is not common. This is unique. So, let me give you some examples. And so, remember, what was actually filed was five years. We're proposing 10. And you have to look at it as a relationship or a nexus between the term and actually the amount, the $2 million. So, let me give you some examples. The DIA retail enhancement grants have a time period commitment of three years. The JU College of Law grant that was given, which, by the way, was a $6 million loan, which was obviously more than the $2 million that's being offered to EWU, that's 30 months. Now, there's a 15-year lease requirement on that, but it's a 30-month time period commitment. The Titan Florida NWJ EDF grant, that one is 36 months. The DPRP forgivable loan program, MAG CAFE is a good example, five years. The MNPSG standard appropriations agreement, five years. The DIA small-scale multifamily grant, on average, 10 years, which this would be in alignment with. And then TIF notes, typically 10 years. So, we would submit that a $2 million grant over the lifespan of 20 years is way out of proportion, that 10 years would be appropriate. And if I may, we're in complete agreement with the council auditor's first amendment that you've already passed. We appreciate that. We're also in complete agreement with the second amendment that you're talking about with the council auditors, save for two things. One, a 10-year term. And then the last is the auditor recommended to them an E, which is the recordation with the clerk of the courts. Again, not a standard thing. We don't want to create a property interest here. That would actually be contrary to the Greenberg-Trarig memo that was produced. It shouldn't be recorded. It's a contractual obligation, not a property one. So, with that, we would be in complete agreement with the council auditors. Amendments except for don't record it and make it a 10-year term. And with that, I appreciate any questions you may have. Thank you so much for that, Mr. Gabriel. So, with that being said, and for everyone's consideration, I hope that everyone was listening. I'm looking at your faces. Y'all not looking like y'all are listening. But, so, I agree with the, in terms of discussion. So, the 10 years instead of five. And I understand what he's comparing is the number of years as compared to the amount, because that's where he's looking at the differences. He did mention some of the agreement terms with other entities, but we just don't know their dollar amounts, though. So, we can't really, we can listen to what he said, but we don't know what the dollar amounts were. So, it seems reasonable, but through the chair to Mr. Peterson. Through the chair to Councilmember Clark Murray. The instances that Mr. Gabriel referenced are all economic development incentives, not where the public has access to a place that is being created. I will add context. In 2017, the City Council approved $4 million for improvements to the Edward Waters field. Very nice facility. That has a perpetual use agreement. In 2004, the City approved dollars for another Edward Waters improvement, and I'm drawing a blank on exactly what it was for, but it was for a 15-year agreement that extended on a year-by-year basis that could only be terminated by the city. So, in effect, it acted like a perpetual agreement. So, for, and then the city has plenty of joint use agreements with the Duval County School Board that are perpetual until either party, for whatever reason, needs to come to the negotiating table. But those instances are not apples, it's apples and oranges, if you will. Thank you so much for that. Chair, at this time, I'm going to allow this to be discussed with the other committee members. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Now, let me go to Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to Mr. Gabriel. I'm comfortable with the 10-year. I think that's reasonable based on the dollar amount. Can you, again, explain the clerk of the court issue? Sure. Again, not a common thing to record what is really a grant or economic incentive here. But I'll tell you the reason why, substantively. And, again, putting aside the fact that I do not believe that was imposed on JU. It was not imposed on UNF. It was not imposed on FSCJ. It was not imposed on NEFPA. It was not imposed on WIT. But putting that aside for a minute, based on just the merits of it, access to commercial financing markets is a particularly acute concern for a historically black college. And so we do not want anything, any encumbrance that's unnecessary on the title that will have to be explained any time EWU is going for a refinancing. And it will come up because it's a unique type of encumbrance. I deal with title stuff all the time. And this is the sort of thing that will require, oh, what is this encumbrance of this use grant agreement? What does it mean? And, honestly, all for, it's a lot of money, $2 million, but all for $2 million. So with that, we would ask that this not be recorded, that there's no benefit and burden. This is a purely contractual interest here, not a property one. And we'd be creating a property interest if we were to record it. Okay. Just for the sake of moving this forward, and we'll see where the votes are, I'll make a motion that we make it at 10 years and remove 2E from the agreement or potential agreement. I've got a motion. Second. So I've got a motion and a second on the Salem Amendment. Let me go to Colonel Miller on the Salem Amendment. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the Salem Amendment, I wanted to go back to Mr. Peterson. You've heard a couple of comments about that Mr. Gabriel has talked about not wanting to impose this on Edward Waters as far as filing or recording it with the clerk of courts. What are your comments? I wanted to give you an opportunity before we vote on the Salem motion. Absolutely. Through the chair to Councilman Miller. Can I ask John Sawyer to come up with us all and make his way forward? He's the one. I had many discussions with him regarding this use agreement, and he brought it up, and it's probably more appropriate to talk about that concept than myself. All right. Mr. Sawyer. John Sawyer, Office of General Counsel, through the chair. I would like to clarify that the other grants being referenced are complete apples and oranges. It doesn't relate at all to this agreement where capital dollars are being spent, and the analysis that we're trying to satisfy is Article 7, Section 10, where you cannot pledge or lend the credit of the city without a valid public purpose. That's why the use agreement becomes necessary, because simply supporting the project when it's not an economic development agreement doesn't satisfy that prong. That's why our recommendation has been, for the 20-year term, to have a sufficient use right so that we're not in jeopardy to the extent we are sued what a court may determine. 20 years is better than a 10-year term, and it's our recommendation. With regard to the restrictive covenant, that's in line with how the two prior agreements this recipient has entered into. The primary protection of that is in year three, or whatever it may be, they sell to a special purpose entity who is now a different property owner. The obligation doesn't flow to that property owner, and we've lost the benefit of the bargain, and the general public use rights are exterminated. If a lender has a problem, they can come. We can do it. They can subordinate to our restrictive covenant right. We can discuss things. But again, even if a lender forecloses, you want that right to remain and flow with the track improvements. And it's the only thing that restrictive covenant will attach to are the track improvements. So that's why that element is important, because otherwise, it simply allows our use rights to go away when we do not receive the benefit of the bargain. All right. Colonel Miller, you had the floor. Okay. So let me go to Councilman Amaro. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Sawyer, would you come back up, please? I am, one of the things that I take seriously is my fiduciary responsibility as an elected official to safeguard our tax dollars, my tax dollars. I pay taxes like everyone else. So I am comfortable with the recommended amendments from the auditor's office. My question to you, sir, and you just said it, I just wanted some clarity. As OGC, you've reviewed the agreement. Are you now satisfied with the public purpose threshold being met? Not without a 20-year term. And we ran everything by Greenberg, and they agreed. The 10-year term, we do not feel as long enough. Thank you. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Clark Murray. Thank you, Chair. Only minute. I don't have a question, Mr. Sawyer, because I read through this, and I know you do excellent work. So I'm so glad that you brought up why, because that is the main reason why the extension of the, in a sense, the perpetual, instead of 10 years, the perpetual agreement, and why does it need to be recorded with the clerk of court? Because if that's not done, then the community, so remember, this is so that the community has access to the track. If they don't have access, then once again, we don't have the portion of our agreement that we benefit from, we don't have it. So this is for access to the track for the community. And so, and it protects us, once again, if the property changes hands, then that agreement continues with the community. So with that being said, thank you so much, Mr. Sawyer, for clarifying, because I needed you to say that again. And I'm hoping that you're listening to that part. It's not about the, necessarily, the amount of time. It's not necessarily about the recording itself. But it's, once again, this is like a contract between EWU and the community. This continues to give the community access to the track, because that is what we are bargaining for with EWU. All right. Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Bolin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I direct this to Councilmember Salem, it might suggest that we split the amendment, because I'm comfortable with the 10 years, but I'm not necessarily comfortable with losing the opportunity if the property gets transferred. So, Ms. Stapopoulos, if you would help me out here to amend the amendment to speak initially to the 10-year term. Through the Chair to Councilmember Bolin. So you can only have one amendment to an amendment on the floor at any given time. So my recommendation is if there's a desire to split them, either Dr. Salem can withdraw his amendment to the amendment, and you can take them up individually, or you can deny the amendment to the amendment, and then somebody could move just the one portion of the proposal. That's why I defer. All right. I'd like to go ahead and make, since that amendment has been withdrawn, is to amend the auditor's recommended amendments to a 10-year term. And look for a second. I've got a motion and a second on the Bolin amendment. And through the Chair, Mr. Gabriel, or maybe perhaps the Chief of Staff of EWU to speak to this. So we're looking at a 10-year habit that's going to be put into place. And the likelihood of EWU wanting to continue that relationship, because I assume at that point in time there will be some established relationships with respect to the use of the facilities. Can you speak to the viability of you continuing that relationship, the public access or public use, beyond the 10-year point? Sure. I'll let Ms. Narcisse answer that. But just to respond real quick, I don't want it to be lost on anyone. I'm sure it's not. But regardless of the property encumbrance recordation issue, this is a contractual, enforceable obligation in the contract. So regardless of whether this contract is recorded or not, that enforceable obligation. That's a separate matter. We'll talk about that in a minute. So I'm interested in making certain that there's an active interest on the part of EWU to continue their relationships and public use beyond the 10 years. Good morning. Luz Narcisse, Chief of Staff for President Faison. Thank you. Edward Waters College, Edward Waters University, has been in the same place for over 100 years. It is not our intent to remove ourselves from the community. In fact, it is our intent to continue the relationship, as Mr. Graber already shared. That is a contractual agreement, but we have been in this community, and our goal is to remain in the community. And you will continue to provide access beyond the 10 years, I expect, of this facility. The expectation is that we are in our community, and we will continue to provide the services necessary for our community. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. So I've got an amendment on the floor, the Bowen Amendment. And Dr. Salem, you're all. Okay. Yes, sir. If you would, get back in the queue right after that. All right. Councilman Amaro, you're in the queue. Gabriel. Just, I heard Mrs. Sawyer said through the chair a second ago that Greenberg was okay with 20. You're advocating 10. Why is there a difference of agreement? I know Greenberg was representing the university, so. Without getting into the roots of why Greenberg even opined in this situation, which I didn't see any opinion on any other agreement here, 20 years is a, you know, I say this respectfully, a manufactured embellishment. There's nothing in Supreme Court law that says public use, you need 20 years on a $2 million grant or others. So to me, 20 years is a completely manufactured, arbitrary sliding scale of obligation. 10 years is wholly appropriate. It's completely in line with other things you've done and certainly in alignment with a $2 million grant. So the 20 years, I have to say, is a manufactured embellishment. Through the chair, I'm not trying to be facetious here, you've made reference several times to the dollar amount. If this was a $20 million or $200 million, would 20-year be as offensive then? It very well may be. It very well may not. It depends. You know, I don't, I can't answer that right now hypothetically, but I would say that there's absolutely a relationship, a nexus between the amount of the loan and the years that would be a qualification for it. Through the chair, I hear you, but really, I don't think there is. I would submit that 10 years is plenty sufficient, and it's actually four times more than the JU law school grant that was given with a 30-year, I'm sorry, a 30-month time period. All right, thank you. Councilmember Clark Murray. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to the committee. So I hear you're saying 10 years, but I want you to think about the community. 10 years. I've been where I live for almost 30 years. If I had a track such as the one that I would have access to, I would like it to be there, in a sense, all the time, all the time that I'm living in the community. Remember, think about the people who live in the community. Not about us, not about an agreement, but the people who live in the community. 10 years. 10 years. Most people live in their homes for at least 30. So you're cutting, giving them like one-third of the time that they would spend in their home access to this track. Remember, it's about the community and the access that the community should have, not us. The access the community should have. And so, of course, with that being said, I am going to be in opposition to the 10-year. I am for it being perpetual. Or at least 20 years. Because, once again, the community needs to have access. That's what we're bargaining for. Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you. Dr. Salem, you're back. Thank you. Mr. Gabriel, can you come forward, please, through the chair? I'm going to try to mix these two to some extent. Where is the track located on the campus? Where will it be located on the campus? Is it part of the core campus? It'll be on Pierce. It'll be on Pierce Street. So Kings, turn on Pierce. Have any of you all visit our campus? Is that near the, I'm sorry, is that near the football stadium? It actually will be like two blocks away from the football stadium. It'll be right next to our student union building. So it'll be centrally located. It will actually be down. If you're going down Kings Road, you turn right on Pierce. Okay. I'm familiar with Pierce. So it is in the center of campus, so to speak, this track will be? Yes. Okay. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that, particularly for this clerk of the court part, it's not like they're going to, there seems to be a concern about this thing being sold or being picked up by another entity. And a track that's in the middle of campus, I fail to understand what's going to happen to it. It's going to be there, I would think, in protuity. But I understand the desire to limit that time frame. So I'll support the 10-year as my colleague, and then hopefully we can address the second issue. Thank you. Let me go to Colonel Miller. Through the chair, I just want to ask Mr. Peterson, what was that one option you talked about before that was already in agreement on another issue with Edward Waters University that allows for one-year extensions? I just, I listened to Councilwoman Clark Murray, and she kept going back to this is about the people of Northwest Jacksonville and Newtown residents and their access. And if at the point of 10 years, as it is right now, after 10 years, and the decision is made, no more access, that's where we are. And if that's a decision, we can say what we intend to do or how much we support the residents of the community and place their health as very important to us. But that's just a statement right now, unless we have that in writing. So I was looking for, what was that option you mentioned that's already in place with another agreement with Edward Waters University? Through the chair to Councilmember Miller. So this was a 2004 agreement for, they were constructing a gymnasium and arena called a multi-purpose facility. And the term of the agreement, I apologize, I said 15 years. It was through 2015, but it was a 10-year agreement that automatically renewed year to year unless terminated by the city. Thank you. Through the chair, I know there's another, something else being considered right now, but I, to me, that seems to be a good place to be. And that would be my preference because it ensures that this happens. But otherwise, this all potentially could stop and those residents that Councilwoman Clark Murray talked about could get used to for 10 years using that track and then the decision could be made by people, new people at that point to not allow that access anymore. Is that, is that correct, Mr. Peterson, through the chair? Through the chair. As long as the city kept the agreement in place, the community would continue to have access under that scenario. Through the chair, but not if it's just 10 years. Through the chair to Councilmember Miller, you're correct. After that 10-year period, there's no requirement for Edward Waters to provide community access. Right. So we have no other speakers in the queue. We've got a motion and a second on the Boland Amendment. But, Ms. Murray, can you explain the Boland Amendment? Yes. Through the chair to the committee. So the Boland Amendment to the Council Auditor Recommended Amendments would require that the use agreement would have a 10-year term. So that speaks to item 2A under the Auditor Recommended Amendments, where it provides for extending the term to greater than five years. There's been discussion of various numbers. 10 years is what Boland's Amendment to the Amendment is proposing for that item. All right. Ms. Murray on the Boland Amendment. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to Mr. Fopolis. Thinking about considering the language that Councilmember Miller just mentioned, can we amend the Boland Amendment to include that language? Through the chair to Councilmember Clark Murray. So you have an amendment to the amendment already pending. So my recommendation would be is the same as I recommended before on the Salem Amendment to the amendment, which is you could, Mr. Boylan could withdraw his amendment motion and you could reconfigure it or you could vote it down and then propose an additional amendment to the amendment, which provides for the 10-year term with that additional language included that was being discussed with Councilmember Miller. All right. Thank you so much for that. So with that being said, through the chair to Councilmember Boylan, if you would consider what Ms. Fopolis just said. With all due respect, I'm not going to withdraw my amendment. I think it's a reasonable number. 10 years is more than sufficient to get us to where we need to be. So I'm not withdrawing my amendment. We need to vote on it. Thank you for that. But once again, Councilmembers, if you consider, through the chair to the committee members, what Councilmember Miller mentioned would give us what we, what I think the community would like, since we're focusing on the 10 years, the additional language would continue to give them access unless terminated by the city. Thank you, Chair. All right. Ms. Mary. Through the chair to Councilmember Clark-Mary, the other option is that you all can take up the Boylan Amendment. And if you wanted to move that as a separate item, you could still do that. It's not in conflict with the Boylan Amendment, it's in addition to, so you could offer that as a subsequent amendment to the amendment if you so choose. Through the chair to Ms. Fopolis, so what you're saying is that we can vote on the Boylan Amendment and then I can propose that, the additional language as a separate amendment. As a separate. Absolutely. Thank you. All right. Dr. Salem. Question called. Point of order. Can we call the question in a committee? Through the chair to Councilmember Clark-Mary, it's not traditional. However, the rules don't indicate that it's only specific to council meetings. That you can call the previous question. All right. Well, I've got the questions called. Actually, there is no other speakers in the queue, but all in favor of the question that's called, raise your hand. It passes. So there is, on the Boylan Amendment, there's no other speakers in the queue. I've got a motion and a second on it. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? None. Motion. Nay. I got one nay. So the motion carries. So I've got a, Ms. Mary. Mr. Chair, would you like me to put you all in the posture that you're currently in? So what you are currently, the posture that you're currently in is now you're taking up the auditor's recommended amendments that are identified on your agenda with two changes or two alterations. The first being to item one, that the completion date has been changed to December 31st, 2028. And then with respect to item 2A, you have established that the term of the use agreement would be 10 years. So you're taking up the amendment with those two modifications. All right. So, Ms. Clark Murray, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Don't get weary, guys. Don't get weary. So I would like to propose an amendment, and in that amendment to add language in regards to the 10 years access for the community that we include that the language that was mentioned earlier by Mr. Peterson in regards to the agreement continuing automatically unless terminated by the city. All right. I've got a motion and a second on the Clark Murray amendment. Any discussions? Dr. Salem. I don't understand the Clark Murray amendment. So it's essentially in perpetuity, even though we just voted on 10 years. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that I understood what the amendment was. Thank you. All right. No other. Council Member Clark Murray. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to Mr. Popolis. Go ahead, because I think you were about to explain a little more. Thank you. Through the chair to Council Member Clark Murray. I was just prepared to address Council Member Salem's question. He is correct. It could go on into perpetuity. The other option that the committee can discuss is if this is approved or if this is continued to be discussed, you can also address whether or not you want to establish a cap on years of the automatic renewal. So you could get to the 20 years, having a 10-year set term with automatic renewals for one-year increments up to a total of 20 years. And then, you know, you kind of, you reach that 20-year point that was identified by the Office of General Counsel in consultation with the Greenberg Traurig with respect to really solidifying the public purpose and looking at the totality of factors with respect to that analysis. That's where that 20 years came from. So it's another opportunity to get to that 20 years. Thank you, Mr. Popolis. Do the chair. I think I still have the floor. So thank you so much for that, Mr. Popolis. But I will say, once again, remember, it's about the community, those in the community having access to the track. Thank you. All right. Noah. Okay. Yep. Council Member Morrow. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair to Council Member Clark Murray, would you be amenable to two automatic renewals to your amendment? Through the chair to Council Member Morrow, that would be put us at about 30 years. And I would be, because typically, to me, that's, once again, thinking about home ownership, mortgages, living in the community, wanting to have access, and just being able to do basic things, such as exercise and enjoy one's life in the community. I would be. But if we needed to add that to the language. But once again, it's up to the city. They can renew or not renew. So I think the language, as stated earlier, is sufficient. Thank you. Through the chair. I think, given the fact that the city has a draw, that at the end of 10 years, they can say we no longer need this. It seems fair and reasonable, satisfied, and satisfied some of the concerns that have been raised from the general counsel's office. And therefore, I would like to move an amendment to the amendment for two automatic, if that's the proper posture. Through the chair to Council Member Morrow. So we have an amendment to the amendment already pending. So you would need to wait, and you can offer that separately. But since the, if Council Member Clark Murray wanted to revise her amendment to the amendment, she could with leave of the committee. But from my understanding, I just want to make sure I'm clear on what you're suggesting, which is two automatic renewals of the full 10-year term. So it would thus be 30 years total without any further renewals after that point is what you're proposing. Okay. So that is in conflict with, I think, what Council Member Clark Murray is proposing, which is 10 years, one-year automatic renewals at the city's determination, which could be perpetual rather than 30 years total. I think that the committee would just have to determine whether or not it supports one or the other and vote accordingly. Clark Murray. Through the chair to Council Member Morrow. I will not amend my amendment. Thank you. All right. Council Member Bolin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Gabriel, if you wouldn't mind coming up. If we keep hearing about the importance of this for the community, what's the likelihood of EWU moving forward with these plans without the $2 million? I'd have to pose that to EWU. I just want everyone to remember EWU has been there since 1866. But I'll pass that along to the staff. I think it's important to appreciate that, you know, obviously, maybe Chief of Staff can speak to how important these $2 million is to the project and the viability of the project continuing without it. Thank you so much for your question. Again, our institution is in the middle of a community who is asking and in need of access to more equitable access to health. We will continue to move forward to ensure that our community has that access. I will bring your question back to President Faison. What I will say is that it is a dire need for our community to have access to something that other institutions across the city have. And while I have you through the chair, what is the overall investment for the development of this track? It's $4 million. $4 million total. $40 million. $40 million. So, yeah, that's kind of my point. What we're asking us to do to support the community is to contribute $2 million with a $40 million investment. So, I think the terms that we are at right now with respect to the 10-year term I think is reasonable. Secondly, as you said, it's going to have been here in perpetuity, so I don't even know why item number E should be even concerned for all of you, recognizing you have no interest or intention of selling this property in time soon. So, the clerk or court piece, I think I'm supportive of the amendment offered by the auditors. But with respect to this, let's keep it to 10 years. Let them get it built. Let people have access to it. I am fully convinced that over the course of those 10 years, the relationships that were built, the use, will not be limiting the neighbor's access to it thereafter. I think putting it in a situation where we make it in perpetuity is just really far too much for what we are investing in this project. All right. Thank you. Let me go back to Council Member Clark Murray. Thank you, Chair. Once again, focus on the community and think about if you live there and having access. And I'm going to give you, through the chair, a specific example. And my goal is not to besmudge EWU, but Success Park. Success Park is a park that the city had an agreement with EWU in regards to taking care of it, to maintaining it. And EWU failed on its part to do that. How do I know? Because it used to be in my district until we had redistricting. And I've been out there on multiple occasions to clean it up, to fix it up. In fact, had worked with the Parks Department to move some funds that was at a park that was bought by an entity. And we had funds in the account for District 9. And I've allocated those funds to fix that park because it had been burned down. And it didn't work out because of some issues with EWU. So I'm trying to give you an instance in which they don't always, in the past, they have not lived up to those agreements that we've made with them. So once again, it is not a community that I'm unfamiliar with. It's Midwest Side. That's what it's called, Midwest Side. Grandparents lived there for 40 plus years. Their home is still there. I'm very familiar with Flagstreet Apartments, that community. I've walked it. I've helped clean it up. And I'm telling you, they would appreciate having this agreement for the lifetime of their, for a lifetime, not just themselves, but their children and their children's children, meaning their grandbabies. So don't limit it. Let's just keep that original, that language that I mentioned earlier. Thank you. If I may add. Go ahead. I'm sorry. No problem. Thank you so much. Councilmember Clark Murray. It is my understanding, while I am new to Edward Waters University, it is my understanding that Success Park University, or at that time, the college, provided the land to the city. That is my understanding. However, what I do want to make clear is that our institution, again, has been in that community for over 100 years. It has continued to provide services to that community over 100 years, whether we have a contractual agreement with the city, because that is our purpose in our institution. So I just wanted to make sure that's cleared. Thank you. All right. Thank you. I'd like to recognize Councilmember Joe Carlucci has joined us here. And just remind of everybody, we're still on the auditor's amendment, so we've still got to get to the bill. So the next one in the queue is Councilman Miller, Chief Colonel Miller, and then it would be Dr. Salem. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair, and I'm going to ask this because it was part of what went into us getting here, just so I understand, and then I'm through. I'm ready to vote. But I hear the commitments for the community, and I've heard it, and I know the existence of Edward Waters University and the history there is amazing. What I wanted to ask about is there were negotiations that went on for some time between the city and Edward Waters University, and one of the key parts of the negotiations were trying to get community access to this track. But it was my understanding that was not accepted a number of times. And so if anybody could speak to that, I'd like to hear about that because that does speak to the core of what we're hearing. We don't need to make these adjustments. Let's go with 10 years. We will continue to support the access. When it was my understanding, the access was never supported until this latest legal opinion was filed. Whoever would like to speak to that, that would be great. And then, like I said, then I'm through. Thank you very much. Through the chair to Colonel Miller. I'll let Luz speak to the actual negotiations itself if you want to be edified on that. But I will say, and we're happy to, this language has actually been provided to OGC and the council auditors, but we have created, and I suspect this was part of that conversation and negotiation, a whole provision on community access windows with times for access to the facilities that are being funded. So that's definitely embedded in this agreement, but I'll let Luz piggyback on that. Thank you so much for your question, Council Member Miller. Through the negotiations, one of our major concerns were we were being asked as an institution to provide things that other institutions were not being provided upon, including that. So we stood ground on it, and we actually waited, I believe, quite a few months to receive factual evidence as to why we were being asked for something that other institutions were not being asked, particularly since we were only asking for a very minute amount of dollars. So I just wanted to provide that clarity. And then, as Mr. Gabriel already shared with you, we went ahead and provided a total of 36 hours, as it was documented, Monday through Friday, 6 to 9 a.m., 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., and then on Sundays from 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. And again, in that same language, it states, of course, that if we have athletic events or if we have events that are a priority to our university, that would take precedence. However, we are more than welcome and open to work with our community. In fact, for many of the locations that you all mentioned, like the Adams-Jenkins Complex, we are right now working with the community to host various events this summer. The same thing for our Nathaniel Glover Stadium. So through the chair, you all were asked to provide access to the track, to the Northwest Jacksonville and Newtown residents in those negotiations, but you said you would not do that. That's correct? Thank you, Council Member Milley. That is not what I stated. What I stated was that during the conversations, we were being asked to provide an insormant amount of items outside of the timing for access, and we wanted to understand the reasoning behind it. We never said we would not. What we wanted to understand is why were we being asked not only about the access to the community, but other items as well. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. In the spirit of compromise, through the chair to Ms. Stephopoulos, we have a 10-year agreement presently. We voted on that amendment, correct? Through the chair, yes. You voted to establish a 10-year term for the use agreement. Okay. I'm going to move E. Well, you currently have the Clark-Murray amendment to the amendment on the floor with the additional one-year renewals. I'm sorry. I didn't. I apologize. Whenever that's done, if you'll come back to me. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Council Member Amaro. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to make commentary on the dollar amount because what I've heard as far as the reference has been to the size of the money and as if it's a relatively insignificant amount. It's $2 million, and I don't want anyone to trivialize or minimize the fact that it may not be $200 million. It is still $2 million. And so it is a significant dollar amount that we have to consider if we're going to make the right decision. And I don't think the decision should be based on whether it's $2 or $200. It should be based on is it the right thing to do. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So now let me go, Ms. Mary, did you want to? All right. Thank you. Let me reach over to Mr. Delaney. Thank you, Chair. And through the chair to the body, I wanted to clarify the administration's position here in reference to Council Member Miller's questions. I will say that the administration worked incredibly hard to come to an agreement. You know, this joint use agreement is something that was also required of the two other colleges that got similar money. We were able to come to agreements with them. Edward Waters is needing the money a bit earlier, which is, you know, why we're, you know, this is coming up. Unfortunately, we're not able to come to that agreement. We've always been supportive of the project in principle. In fact, we had it in the budget last year. But without that agreement, you know, we now leave it as a policy decision for the council to make. All right. So we've got the Clark-Murray amendment on the floor right now. I guess, Ms. Mary, will you explain this amendment so we make sure everybody's clear? Yes, sir. So the amendment to the amendment would provide that the 10-year term would be, for the use agreement, would be subject to automatic one-year renewals unless terminated by the city. All right. Thank you. So I have no other speakers in the queue. I would just like to finally add that, yes, I understand it's just $2 million that's into an overall project. But, you know, if you add up all the hours of the week that there is, and we're only asking for 36 hours, that we're not asking for full access. It's just a 36-hours portion in a seven-day period. So I don't see any, I guess, big problem with just supporting Clark-Murray's amendment to get this moving forward. So with that, I'll go ahead and we've got the Clark-Murray amendment. I've got a motion and a second on it. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Yes. Let's do a hand vote. All in favor of the Clark-Murray amendment. Raise your hand. All right. All opposed? Amendment passes. Okay. Would you like me to just address where the committee is now, Mr. Chair? Right. We're on the auditor's amendment twice amended. As three times amended, Mr. Chair. You had the new end date for the completion of construction of 12-31-28. You have the 10-year term for the use agreement, and you have now added that one-year automatic renewal to the term of the use agreement. So you're back to the auditor's recommended amendment as amended by those three items. All right. So we're back to the auditor's recommended amendment, and Dr. Salem, I got you in the queue. I was going to offer a compromise based on the first one going the other way. I'm no longer going to do that because that's not a compromise. That's a capitulation. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I have no other speakers, only queue on the auditor's recommended amendments. Oh, Dr. Bull. Mr. Bullen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I still have some angst. I'm not crazy about how we just landed on the term, if you will, but to require the agreement to be required with the clerk of court, and I appreciate Mr. Sawyer's comments, but as we heard, the university has been there for 100 years. This particular parcel they're looking to build on is deeply embedded within it. I don't know that it's even necessary with the prospect of them turning this property over any time in the foreseeable future. Now, this being perpetual, this really burdens them greatly for a long period of time. They are now forced, until we tell them otherwise, to provide that kind of access to the property, and then we're going to turn around and make sure that it's encumbered thereafter with this on here. So I would like to offer an amendment to exclude item E as part of the auditor's amendment. I'll look for a second. All right. I've got a motion and a second on the Bullens amendment, and let me go to Ms. Mary. Thank you. Through the chair to the committee. So I just want to address the interplay between this and the action that you just took with respect to the use agreement. So, yes, the committee currently has an amendment on the floor that provides that the use agreement will have a term of 10 years, subject to automatic one-year renewals unless terminated by the city. This provision ensures that by recording it with the clerk of court, that any subsequent owner would also be subject to that use agreement, such that if they were to even create a subsidy organization, subsidiary organization, might still be under the Edward Waters University umbrella, but there's a transfer of ownership. It could be through sale or donation. That use agreement ceases, regardless of where it is in the term, unless it's recorded against the land, and to ensure that any organization, subsidiary, brand new, et cetera, is obligated to abide by the use agreement. So in two years, regardless of the term that you've set for the use agreement, if they transfer the ownership of that property, they are no longer subject to the use agreement. The new owner would not be obligated to honor it unless it's recorded with the clerk of court. All right. Councilman Amaro. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Sawyer, if you will, I don't believe this institution is going anywhere. That's not, I'm not concerned about that at all. My question through the chair to Mr. Sawyer, why is this condition necessary, and has this condition been applied to other use agreements with any other entity, whether it's public or private? John Sawyer, Office of General Counsel, through the chair to the council member, yes, it has. Most recently, the Jacksonville Classical Academy has a recordable joint use agreement. And again, Mr. Gabriel said it's a contractual issue. It is, in part. Currently, there are broad assignment rights. And so all we're trying to do is close a loophole where Edward Waters can assign in the future they just want to terminate the use agreement by, for example, assigning the agreement to an entity that doesn't own the property. That eliminates the use right. If for some reason they chose to convey it to a single-purpose entity that they controlled, that destroys the use agreement. So the goal of the restrictive covenant is that it always traveled with title to the land, meaning that the use rights are always tied to ownership, which is maximum protection to the city. That's the purpose of that. Through to chair. And how recent was the application with Jacksonville Classic Academy? Which one of their campus, or both? I can't speak to the location. It was originally authorized, I believe, in 23. And that document was recently signed after completion of the project. With the ASH site? Thank you. I'm sorry, Chair. I didn't mean to crosstalk. I apologize. That's all right. Last question, Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick question. Because we're in the sports lane and we know so many things are happening in this world with NIL, with foundations. Many years ago, there were five institutions in our country that had their own foundations. University of Florida, Ohio State, Texas, where those entities, and in Florida at that time, they had like a $60 million budget. So my just thought process to put out to you all is more of if there were like a sports foundation started, would that then now inherit the ownership as opposed to the institution? I see exactly where you all are going. I think, I mean, I don't have a position on it at all, but that just kind of brought up my thought when I'm looking at where we're going with the sports entities, with private equity companies coming in and purchasing a lot of these sports programs at these universities. So just wanted to put that out there just to make sure that that is something that is considered as you're tracking through the conversation. Thank you. Okay. No one else is on the queue, but I'm going to wait until Mr. Gay gets back. We'll pause for 30 seconds. So he won't miss this and see where he wants to go from there. So just, Mr. Miller, you're now on the queue. Go ahead. Do you mind? Yeah, through the chair, I just, would you answer that? Then I guess since the past president Freeman brought that up, Ms. Stepopoulos or Mr. Peterson, please. So through the chair to Council Member Miller, I think this goes back to what Mr. Sawyer had indicated, which is if they were to have such a foundation be created for the sports programming and there's an assignment of the use agreement or a transfer of the land in the use agreement, that's the subject of the use agreement, the facilities that are the subject of the use agreement, then there would no longer be a requirement absent to E where it's required to be recorded, that that sports foundation or organization honor the use agreement with the city. All right. Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to Ms. Mary, the Clark-Murray amendment mentioned that the city would have to terminate, correct? That is correct. And is that, define city for me, is that the city council? No, no, not necessarily. So once it's a contractual right, I don't think that that is something that would be required to come back to the city council. It would just, if the executive branch were to terminate it, unless you made it subject to council approval, it would not come back to council. I'd like to do that. I'd like an amendment that... Well, once we've addressed the Boylan amendment, then you can offer that, Mr. Salem. Okay. The Boylan amendment, I'm sorry, is to remove E. Okay. Sorry about that. All right. So the Boylan amendment would be removing the filing? Correct. It would remove the 2E requirement as listed under the auditor-recommended amendment that the use agreement be recorded with the clerk of court. All right. No other speakers in the queue. We'll go ahead and take a hand vote on this. All in favor of the Boylan amendment, raise your hand. Any opposed to the Boylan amendment, raise your hand. The Boylan amendment moves forward. And now, Dr. Salem. I'd like the approval from the Clark-Murray amendment, where it's one, be concurrence by the city council or approved by the city council. I've got a motion and a second on the Salem approval of the city council. No speakers in the queue. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair to Mr. Salem, why do you feel it's necessary to come back to the legislative body? Mr. Marr, we're a co-equal branch of this government. We have worked on all these university agreements, and I'd like to see it come back to the city council. And through the chair to Mr. Salem, UF, JU, those have the same stipulation? I have no idea. I don't know that we have put the constraints on those as we are with this one, frankly. Through the chair to Council Member Romero, the JU agreement does not have a city termination because the public doesn't have access to the site. As it relates to the UF agreement, there were so many details in that agreement. I'm happy to look into that and report back, but I don't recall off the top of my head. Thank you, Philip. Through the chair, just a matter of curiosity because the reality is we ain't going to be should something occur in 5, 10, 15, 20 years. And the legislative body then, different composition, no knowledge. So I don't know if it's necessary. That's the reason, my question. Can I respond to that? 10 years from now, we're going to have a different mayor as well. And I'd rather have a debate amongst 19 if there's an issue than one person, frankly. No. All right. So I have no other speakers in the queue on the Salem Amendment to come back to City Council. Let's do this by hand. All in favor, raise your hand with that. The amendment moves forward. So now we've got the auditor amendment. Mr. Chair, would you like me to go back over it? Or are you comfortable? It's the auditor's recommended amendment subject to the five changes that were discussed and debated by the committee. Correct. We don't need to go back through it. So we've got five amendments to the auditor's recommended amendment. No other speakers in the queue. All in favor of the auditor's recommended amendment. Raise your hand. You're now back to the auditor's recommended amendment as modified or amended by the committee five times. Correct. So you would have the auditor's recommended amendment with a change to the construction end date of 12-31-28. You have a 10-year term on the use agreement subject to one-year automatic renewals unless terminated by the city, which termination would be required to come to the council for approval, as well as removal of item 2E under the auditor's recommend. With respect to the recording of the use agreement. So it's all of the remainder subject to those changes. All right. Very good. No speakers in the queue. All in favor, raise your hand. All right. We have the amendment. Mr. Chair, there is an additional amendment that would need to be taken up by the committee, potentially, that Edward Waters University has provided a red line of the term sheet for the funding agreement that was attached to the original bill, as well as the use agreement that was attached to the original bill. And for the most part, those changes are relative to aspects of what's already been discussed and voted on by the council or the committee. I apologize. But if I could, I'd like to go through some other changes that were being proposed for your consideration for an amendment. And of course, Mr. Gabriel can come up to speak to them as well. I'm happy to keep it concise and just to the other kind of more substantive changes that are being made to both documents, if that's okay. Yes. Yes. Mr. Gabriel, come on up and then we can establish the amendment. Yes. If you want, I'll describe it all before anybody moves it so you know what you would be addressing. So with respect to the term sheet for the funding agreement, so what we did is we attached to this legislation a revised term sheet relative to the $2 million in city funding because what was originally proposed in the legislation that was adopted last year, earlier this year, was for the Living Learning Community Center. And the substantive alteration is that the city funds would now be applied to the track improvements at the campus. So the primary changes there are that the city funds would be applied to any aspect of the construction of the track improvements, not just the planning, design, and permitting. So it would be applicable to planning, design, permitting, site preparation, construction, and related costs. Additionally, there's a provision in here that specifically indicates that none of the city funds would be applied to the residence hall component or any other component of the campus improvements. It also acknowledges that the track improvements would serve a dual institutional and public purpose, including the advancement of community health and wellness and access to a recreational infrastructure. It references that December 31st, 2028 date. It also has the 10-year term. Those are the primary changes with respect to the funding agreement term sheet. With respect to changes to the grant-related programmatic use agreement, again, it also has that acknowledgement of the dual institutional and public purpose. There is, and Mr. Peterson described this when he was going over the amendments earlier this morning, with respect to the community access windows. There's additional community access that's been added with respect to the access to the track improvements, as he indicated, Monday through Friday from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m., 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., Sundays from 12 p.m. to 6 p.m., and then that access is obviously subject to their institutional priorities and other events that they may schedule. It also provides that they'll conduct a minimum of six university-led community-wide wellness or public engagement events. This is up from four, as was originally proposed. It also provides that they will partner with other organizations to potentially offer additional engagement for the residents of Newtown and Northwest Jacksonville, and they also reserve at their discretion to coordinate with the city to support additional community-based programming. It also provides a little bit more information with respect to the type of reporting that they would be required to provide with respect to use of the track facility, and those are the substantive changes that I've identified here. And, of course, if Mr. Gabriel has anything to add, I would defer to you, Mr. Chair. All right. Mr. Gabriel. Through the Chair, I think that's a very succinct summary. I won't belabor your time. I just want to confirm to Ms. Tafopoulos, I think you're going off that May 12th draft, I believe. That is correct. I was referring to the red line that you had provided from May 12th, correct? Perfect. Yeah. We're in complete agreement. Thank you. So, if somebody wants to move that and second it. I've got a motion and a second on that amendment. Any discussion? None. That I see. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise. None. So, that amendment. Mr. Chair, can I roll those all up into one committee? Please roll them up. Okay. Thank you. So, I've got a motion and second on the bill as all those amendments. Do I get a second? Second. Second. I've got a second. Any speakers in the queue? No. All right. Open the ballots. Record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By your action, you approve 2026-0336. All right. It takes us to item number seven, 2026-0337. Can I get a motion on amendment? Mr. Peterson. To the chair, or to the chair, you've taken up item seven. You're on 23. Did I hear? So, I apologize. I heard seven. The amendment to item 23 is to clarify within the reverter section that the restricted use period is the greater of five years or the time in which the vehicle retains any JSO insignia. That's just replicating what's in the agreement in the bill. It changes the oversight of the vehicle monitoring from fleet to JSO and then attaches a revised exhibit three to clarify that the sheriff can approve an assignment of the agreement and then correct scripters in the agreement. All right. I've got a motion and a second on the amendment. No speakers in the queue. All in favor of the amendment, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise. None. The amendment carries. I've got 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. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By your action, you have approved 2026-0337. Item number 24, 2026-033-0353. I've got 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 2026-0353. Item number 25, 2026-0354. I've got a motion and a second. On the bill, open the ballot and record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0354. Item 26, we've taken action on. Item number 27, we've taken action on. 28, we've taken action on. That takes us to item number 29, 2026-0364 is deferred due to planning commission. The following items are on second, 2026-0377, 0378, 0380, 0381, 0382, 0383. That takes us to item number 36, 2026-0384. I've got a motion and a second on the emergency. Mr. Peterson. Through the chair of the committee, the nature of the emergency is the Iron Man event was scheduled for May 16th, and the Jazz Fest begins on May 21st. No discussion on the emergency. All in favor of the emergency, say yay. Yay. Any opposed? Likewise. None. Emergency carries. We've got a motion and a second on the bill as an emergency. I've got a motion and a second on the bill as an emergency. Council Member Boylan, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, Mr. Peterson, if you'd provide some background as to the impetus for this bill. Through the chair to Council Member Boylan, Council Member Arias had funding that he had ran through council to give a grant to an organization. That grant didn't materialize due to, I believe, contract negotiations, so he still has available funding that's good through the end of this year. The Iron Man, it's my understanding, the Iron Man entity itself came to the city, but maybe at too late of a time to get funding this year, so Council Member Arias wanted to be able to assist the Office of Sports Entertainment in putting that event on, as well as I believe they have additional cost for the Jazz Festival. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I will support it today, but I have to say, with respect to the Iron Man event, I can tell you many of us have seen a number of emails of the impact it had on the day-to-day citizens in our community, so I think we need to do some greater diligence on the part of the administration and visit Jacksonville in making certain they communicate what's going on, and if we do this event in the future, that we minimize the impact it has on the community as a whole. Thank you. Thank you. So I've got a motion and a second on the bill as an emergency. Open your ballot and record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0384. The next items are on second as well. 2026-0385, 2026-0386, 0387, 0388, 0390, 0391, 0393, 0394, 0395, 0396. And we've already taken action on numbers 47 and number 48, 0 is on second, 0418. That takes us to item number 49, 20260419 is being deferred at the request of Council President Carrico. And with that, that takes us to the miraculous end of our agenda. So any other comments without that? Nope, but we're adjourned.