Neighborhoods, Community Services, Public Health and Safety Committee - Nov 02, 2026

all right welcome welcome everyone to the november 2nd neighborhoods community services public health and safety committee meeting um we will start off with introductions with mr mr dennis please good afternoon garrett dennis administration brandon russell council research mary stefopoulos office of general counsel heather reber council auditor's office good afternoon monee holder at large group one good afternoon matt carlucci at large group four good afternoon tyrona clark murray district nine good afternoon chris miller at large group five greetings everyone kevin carrico council district four i never say good afternoon but i will today good afternoon ron salem group two at large good afternoon jimmy palusa district seven joe carlucci district five randy white district will all right thank you all um up the my colleagues you should have a order of agenda we have three items we're going to take up first and then as soon as we do that we will transition to the regular order published in their agenda revised marked version but before we do that i think we'll get to the public comments we have two cards i believe each person will have three minutes each we have betty bernie and carnell oliver and i'm asking you please stay on a bill that we're taking up today um so first up would be miss bernie um if you come up and give your name and address for the record i'm sorry so do i get started thanks mr oliver no we we heard you okay however i understand and appreciate fully the need for for affordable housing it is a dire necessity that must be addressed however what baffles me is why the city of jacksonville think it's a great idea to eventually tear down a neighborhood park researchers acknowledge that the gen z generation might be the first generation to not outlive their parents because of their poor eating habits and mostly because of their lack of physical activity which could lead to childhood obesity type 2 diabetes and other chronic diseases that can shorten their lifespan the preventable diseases that can result from childhood obesity can be debilitating and deadly the two best ways to prevent childhood obesity are physical exercise and healthy food intake this park is located in health zone one where approximately 37 percent of adults are obese and over 13 percent have been diagnosed with diabetes additionally the 2026 american fitness index ranks the 100 largest cities in the u.s on 35 evidence-based indicators that include obesity chronic disease rates physical activities park and trail access and local investments and recreation jacksonville has long been at the bottom of the list and sadly it was specifically mentioned in the 2026 report as one of the cities to move down 16 spots to its fitness rank of 84 so out of 100 largest cities we are 84 this puts us in the bottom quartile so my question is why would we consider closing a park when we can help fill in the gaps and empower residents to adopt healthier lifestyles here's what i know because i live seven minutes from that park young men play basketball through the night there's a swimming pool where hundreds of children learn to swim there are tennis court sportsmanship opportunities through foot football basketball basketball basketball and baseball the i'm a star foundation will be moving into the charles clark center to provide leadership mental wellness hype indoor hydroponic towers and gardens for fresh produce that lead to preventable and um and lessen chronic diseases and the parks and recreation department just installed a wonderful a wonderful kiddie play area so i leave you with two questions how can the city council be comfortable with removing safe and healthy outdoor spaces when jacksonville has ample space throughout the north side that can be used and number two would either of you consider removing viable and usable parks in your council districts the community should not have to take away one to get the other so i hope and vote that city council denies that's the county council denies and thank you for the county council denies and thank you for all you do um for our city and especially for our students thank you very much next is mr oliver uh yes my name is carnal address is on file the bill i'm speaking to is 808 and um i'm against tear down the park but with the 3.45 acres worth of land i am for housing but the kind of housing i want is verification of those who are lineage specific foundational black black americans we're aboriginals to this country so dealing with the council member that introduced this bill i want specific conditions where we can verify if they're getting down payment some kind of loan that the people who are lineage based black americans get access to this but i also want to go further as far as with the conditions the cra the housing department i want a complete wrap around and how we stabilize this housing situation because i had a conversation with somebody in the mayor's office about homelessness and talking about the situation with housing we have money sitting in our reserve almost 500 million dollars i'm willing to ramp that up and be the voice of that issue but i have got to get set asides underneath the 1866 civil rights act i want to go deeper and i want to go a little bit more harder in the conditions that this community that this community faces so if the council member who sponsored this bill uh from district 10 to have a community meeting and let's really hash this thing out maybe we could get some more money to create a division for descendants of freed slaves we sent no money but how intentional are we going to be because i believe that it's not about the money first and it's the power i want to be because i believe that it's not about the people i want to be because i want to be specifically focused on mine because we are america first and we're aboriginal so as i walk through the process of my mind i want you clearly to understand something you cannot run away from the obligations that this country has to us it's guaranteed it's been followed in the supreme court and it's ruled in our favor countless times and the thing about it is is that with something in these conditions that i'm putting forward you have to exist within the relationship to the public school and you have to be with something in these conditions that you have to be with something that you have to verify who is who and this is something that i'm very passionate about and i yield the rest of my time thank you mr oliver that concludes our public comment time form we'll first go to page six item number ten and we have an auditor's amendment twenty twenty six zero eight zero two may have a motion i'm moving the auditors amendment and a second please Second, please. Second. We have a motion and second on the amendment. Would you please explain the amendment, Ms. Reber? Through the chair to the committee, the amendment will correct the fiscal year of appropriation, attach a revised exhibit one, which is the BT to correct account information, and then place a revised grant agreement on file to include the missing attachments. Thank you. Seeing no one in the queue, all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. Those opposed, no. The amendment passes. We have another amendment coming up. Yeah, if you just hold this for a second, I appreciate that. We have Mr. Holland, who's come forward, he's going to talk through, I was going to hand off the gavel and do this, but I figure he's going to come forward anyhow, so what better person to explain this amendment than Mr. Holland. Mr. Holland, you're recognized. If you please introduce yourself first. Thank you. Good afternoon, counsel and chairman. What this bill... I'll just explain everything in context. If you'll start with your name and address for the record. Yeah. Jerry Holland, Duval County Supervisor of Elections. Okay. Thank you. 105 East Monroe Street. Thank you, sir. This bill is about an appropriation from the state. There's two methods that we can do post-election audits. The one we're currently doing, which is a hand count audit. At the end of an election, when the election has been certified, the canvassing board, the county judge will randomly select a race and then randomly select precincts, and we hand count those in front of the public. This has been going on since the requirement for over a decade. There's a second method, which is done by a system called Clear Ballot. Clear Ballot is a system that basically takes a picture of every oval on every ballot. It is considered a 100% audit rather than a random small select percent of audit. It is done by a separate amount of separate equipment other than the tabulators we are using to tabulate the race. At this point, 32 of the 67 counties saw fit to go forward with the Clear Ballot, and their county paid for the money. What the state did, they wanted every county to go to Clear Ballot. So, to do that, they said, we'll pay for the other counties who have not appropriated that money, and we will actually pay for the system if you will go with the new system. And in doing so, you must take the appropriation and purchase this system before the end of the year. So, we have obviously come to you for the appropriation. We have done the contract so that we can purchase it before the end of the year. And again, what this will allow us is no longer do the hand count audit, which is only a random of one race and two precincts, but actually audit every ballot that is cast during an election. And what it does, when it takes those pictures, it then will show you every mark that was made within a ballot so that maybe if there's a recount or something real close, you can see if there's something that you need to, the canvass the board, decide the actual intent of the voter because it was too slight or too small for the tabulators to pick up. And so, this will give us 100% audit of every ballot, and then all 67 counties would be on the same system. So, be glad to take any questions. And that company or organization is called Clear Ballot Group? The amendment is to identify the purchasing company that we're purchasing from called Clear Ballot. It is the only system that is certified by the state to do this post-election audit. So, it is the one that we would be purchasing for the spring elections. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Holland. Would anyone on the committee like to move that amendment for Clear Ballot Group? Otherwise, I'll pass over my gavel, and I'm happy to do it. We've got a motion second on using the certified supplier Clear Ballot Group as an amendment to this legislation. Ms. Stapopoulos. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to put on the record, so what the amendment will entail to effectuate that is we would be adding to the bill a statement that the contract is a direct contract that's being authorized to clear ballot under the Section 126.108G exemption in our code, which is an exemption from competitive solicitation when you address a supplier that is specifically prescribed in the legislation. So, that's why it was important that we name the entity that would be receiving the direct contract, and that's how the amendment will read. Okay. Thank you. And, Pastor President Salem, is this on this amendment? Yes, please. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair to Mr. Holland. I'm trying to figure out how this works. Post-election, it'll take a picture of every ballot? Every ballot, every oval. We will actually, in a sense, as soon as we've tabulated the ballots that come in, we actually have to rerun them through the clear ballot system to take a picture of every oval, both the ones that were tabulated and not tabulated, to make sure there weren't any marks that could have been counted as a vote. So, it's run through a separate machine that takes a picture of every ballot? That is correct. If you have a problem with a ballot, how will it know how that ballot registered in the other system, to know that it picked up two holes or whatever? Yeah. Obviously, it will identify the ballot, so we can actually pull the ballot to actually physically look at it. In addition to that, what we're looking at is tallies to see would it affected the outcome of the election? Was it close enough to do that? What they're hoping for is eventually this system would be allowed during the recount process, but right now it is not certified to be part of the recount. Recount would be on the same tabulators that we originally tabulated the election on. Okay. Through the chair, one other question. Let's say you ran it through clear ballot and there was a five-vote difference in the group two at large city council race. How would you know which ballots that it picked up on that were different? Yeah. It would sort out the ballots again, what those were, what the marks were, so we could see those. Again, it's post-certification. It would not change the outcome. The purpose of it is to build confidence in the tabulation system. Just like the post-election audit that we do today and hand count a random race in two precincts, it's not to change the outcome of the election, but to build confidence that what you're seeing and what you're tabulating matches. Thank you, chair. Thank you. Great, great exchange. We also have Council Member Peluso, you recognize. Thank you, chair. Just, I've got a quick question about, you know, so you've taken a picture of the ballot. Does the ballot show any sort of identification of who that voter is? No, once the ballot one either puts it in the tabulator or mails it in to us and we separate it from the envelope, there is no identity ever to the voter to who casts that ballot. Never. And there's no way to determine that? No way to determine. All right, understood. All right, thank you. Thank you. No else in the queue. All those in favor of the Salem Amendment, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment passes. Would you please roll those up? And may we have a motion on the bill as amended? We have motion second on the bill as amended. Seeing no one in the queue, please open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0802 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Holland. Thank you. And please, I know there's still a lot going on and tomorrow and beyond, but please thank your team. You and your team, always consistently, year after year, do a great job. We appreciate you. Thank you. It's our pleasure. Thank you. All right. I know on your agenda items, it says we'll go to 806 first, but Vice President has asked we go to 814 first. So we're going to go to page 15, item number 19, 2026-0814, and may have a motion on the amendment. We have a motion second on the amendment. Ms. Reber, would you please explain the amendment? Through the chair to the committee, the amendment is to remove the whereas clause referencing the DIA board approval. Clarify that this agreement shall not be effective until October 1st, 2027, and shall be applicable to the 2027-2037 tax years, but payable in fiscal years 2028 to 38. Include language in the bill that the agreement shall be subject to review and approval of risk management and the Office of General Counsel. Attach or revise Exhibit 1, which is the agreement to state in Section 1.1 that the agreement shall not be effective until October 1st, 2027, and to clarify that the service area is expanding as it depicted in Exhibit A, and then correct Scribner's errors in the bill and the agreement. Okay. Thank you. We have past President Salem in the queue. You're recognized, sir. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to Mr. Carlucci, Joe Carlucci. I assume you're going through some type of process to determine the response of those people in this new area to get their support on this over some period of time? Yeah, certainly through the chair to Council Member Salem. Yeah, this bill ultimately is the step, first step that state statute requires. It doesn't effectuate anything. It just kind of lays out the, I guess, the framework and kind of shows what the map would be, and then, yes, over the course of the next few months to potentially a year, we will work with all those stakeholders to make sure that it's all completely, you know, dialed into their needs. And the, through the chair, the city contribution does not change? Correct. That was one thing that I worked out with DVI, OGC, all the other parties. We wanted to make sure the general fund and our contribution every year stayed flat. So that is currently what is in the bill. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you. We don't have anyone else in the queue for the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment passes. We have a motion on the bill as amended. We have a motion second on the bill as amended. I'm going to, I don't see anyone in the queue right now, but the Jacksonville Jaguars have asked to be represented on this, and Mr. Paul Harden will come forward to speak on this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Paul Harden, 1301 River Place Boulevard. This is, I'm here with William Michaelis. Mr. Michaelis is with the development portion of the Jaguar operation, if you will. We have spoken, I spoke this morning briefly with the representative of the DVI and told him that we were coming today, but we would not ask for a deferral or anything. We strongly oppose this legislation. I've met with Councilman Carlucci and, or I'm sorry, Joe Carlucci, not Matt Carlucci. He is aware of our opposition. While the dates that Heather raised are included in the bill, the bill clearly does not say that it doesn't go into effect until next year. That probably ought to be straightened out, or there ought to be something on the record that explains that, because it states clearly that it's this year's, or that it goes into effect immediately. Basically, what this does is adds in large portions of the downtown area into the bid, which is the area that's included in the business investment district. Areas that the football team has been developing in, such as the hotel location and the office location, we've added in dollars to take care of the parks in the area, the operation of those parks, and that sort of thing. And so all of the things that would come from another tax on top of this, we're already doing in each parcel that we move forward with. So, while we're not here to cause them any issues today, we're going to be around in the next year while this is ongoing, and clearly we'll be in opposition to it. We'll meet with you and hopefully answer any questions. If Mr. Michaelis could speak for a second, Mr. Chairman. Sure, please. William Michaelis, One Tower Court, Suite 200. On behalf of Shawna Collective, as Mr. Harden noted, we have not had the chance to meaningfully engage on this proposal as of yet, but we do have significant concerns over the inclusion of the Shipyards Project and over the Sports Entertainment District being added into the bid. And also, as Mr. Harden noted, we have concerns about how the legislation is drafted, which by the plain language of the legislation, many substantive points are effective upon approval of the legislation itself, such as the expansion of the boundaries or the new EMSA for DVI. However, as Mr. Harden noted, we have met now with Colin Tarbert at DIA, as well as with Eric and Laura at DVI. They have assured us in writing that despite what the legislation says, the intent is for the new EMSA to not be signed upon passage of this legislation. Also, that the boundary itself is not, in fact, expanded by the passage of this legislation. And because of those assurances, as Mr. Harden noted, we won't be seeking deferral today, but we'll be working through this with appropriate folks over the coming months. Thank you for your time today. Mr. Chair, may I also say we're prepared to discuss if any of you guys or ladies have any questions over the next few months, our objections to this greatly expanded boundary. And so we're prepared now to start talking about it whenever you have any questions. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. We have a couple people in the queue right now. We'll go to past president Matt Carlucci. You're recognized, sir. Mr. Chairman, is this a timing issue with the Jaguars through the chair, through Mr. Harden? Is it simply a timing issue that can be corrected with some kind of an amendment? Man, I hate to say yes to that, because I don't know if they're going to meet our request as we go forward. Quite frankly, at this point, our idea would be just to take the areas where we're located, which would be the sports entertainment complex and the riverfront area, and just take it out. So we know they have, or they have explained to us that they have a timing issue related to notice and that sort of thing. So there is a timing issue, but I don't think that would be enough to resolve our issues with the legislation. Have you all met with the sponsor of the bill on this issue? I met with other Councilman Carlucci last week, I guess, in the end of the week, and explained our position. I think at that time, our discussion was they would take our property out. I think since then, he's probably had some discussions with the DIA folks, and they may feel differently. But, yes, sir, we met with – we didn't – I don't want to combine Mr. McHale's operation and the one I'm representing, but we just had just found out about that day, which was less than a week ago. And so we really haven't had time to have significant discussions on specific issues. But we will. We're available now to start those. Well, I – y'all's organization is such a big player in downtown, and I need to do a little – We were 42 points worth yesterday. Yeah, that's right. My wife and I used to say, why can't the Jaguars play like a well-oiled machine like the other team, and now it's the other way around. We're like a well-oiled machine. They could have given the FSU team and the Gators points off and still won both of those, all three games. I better hurry up because I'm going to get cut off because I always do. I'm not giving much grace around here. So – but what I'm saying is the – such a big player in downtown, and it just seems like perhaps if y'all spent more time, maybe something could be worked out. I don't know because I have not been involved in this bill. I may vote for this today, but I would like to meet with the Jaguars. I think it's important that everybody in the downtown area on a bill like this be together and that there be a consensus built, whether we're – somebody's in, somebody's out, timing is spelled out, and I don't know if the author of the bill is willing to do that or not. It's his bill whether he wants to move forward with it or defer it until such time that y'all meet. But that's just my opinion. That's how I might move forward with it is to wait a bit until those kind of consensus can be found. But if not, if we're going to move forward, I will vote yes, but I would reserve the vote, my right to vote no. Otherwise, and I would want to meet with y'all before the council meeting coming up. So if we could meet, that would be helpful, and I'd like to meet with the DIA, and maybe we can have a notice meeting with the sponsor of the bill and so forth. But I think it's important for everybody to be on that same page as we move forward with downtown. Thank you. Yes, sir. We'll go next to Vice Chair Clark Murray. You recognize? Thank you, Chair. I just want to make sure that I'm understanding because there were a few things that were stated, so I'm trying to understand. First of all, you oppose the bill. We oppose the expansion of the bid to take in – I don't guess we care about other people's property, but areas where we're dealing, which is the Sports Entertainment District. We oppose the bid being expanded to take in that area. Yes, ma'am. All right. Thank you for that. And so then you mentioned something about double tax or something to that extent? Well, I don't know if I said double tax. If I did, it would be a correct explanation. But the expanding the bid to these locations allows for a tax for things that we've agreed to do, for instance, on the hotel on our own. And we're taking in extra money at the hotel to pay for operations at the park area, extra money to come in through the hotel to take care of – taking care of the park itself. So many of the things that they would do on every – and respectfully, we're the only ones developing right now. And I guess there's some people on the other end of downtown that are getting ready to. But on all the projects that the football team has done, you know, we're including those type fees, if you will. I don't want to guess – you can just call them double taxes because what would the DIA would – or the DVI would come in and do is start billing us a certain amount of money for picking up garbage in the area that we already do. So those are things that we would want to discuss during the time period that Mr. Carlucci – Mr. Carlucci Senior, if you don't mind. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. And through the chair, and you're representing two different entities? Well, William represents the Shawna Collective, which is Shawna's daughter, Shawna Khan. She's doing some other stuff in the area, and I represent the football guys who right now own the fairgrounds. We swap lay in with the fairgrounds where they can operate out of the other end of Mr. – I don't want to call it his district anymore. But that – so they could operate out by the – where they operate now. So we do own some land that would be affected immediately, but most of the areas that we operate now are leased areas, so they wouldn't be affected. But over the next year, we will hope, we believe that we will have land that would be affected. Okay. Thank you. And then one last question. So – and then you said the dates. There's something in regards to the dates in the legislation that – Well, it's – they – one of the comments that was made is that it doesn't go into effect until a year from now. The legislation doesn't say that. We're taking them at their word that they're accurate on that, and that we're not going to ask for deferrals because of that. But the legislation itself clearly goes into effect right away. It doesn't wait a year. All right. Thank you, Mr. Harden. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. We'll go next to Council Member Peluso, who you recognize. Thank you, Chair. To the chair, to the body. We had the special downtown development committee where this has been discussed, so we knew that the bid expansion has been coming for quite some time. DVI brought it up. This is no surprise to, I think, many of us who have been following this. On top of that, I just think I'm going to speak kind of a little bit both personally and about how other kind of cities and places do this across the state. A business improvement district in your central entertainment district is very, very common, right? The downtown area has a CRA, which is what the downtown investment authority is. So you look at other cities. So you look at other cities, they have CRAs, they have bids, they have DDAs, they have multiple different taxing districts to help move public policy in a way that makes sense to them. When it comes to our downtown area, we've seen the emails and the hullabaloo, if you will, from some of our residents about how much we invest in certain areas as opposed to investing in our neighborhoods. Having things like a bid helps make sure that the dollars that are generated in that bid remain in that area. We've done considerable work with the Jaguars and Iguana, and I was in the Shanna Collective in the next couple. We'll be doing a lot with them for many, many years. I think what the bid is looking for is additional support to make sure that they're able to get their work done, which is the ambassador program, which is additional security, which as the downtown area grows, we're probably going to need more police presence, right? We've already seen some incidents on Bay Street. The dollars that go into the bid go to all these different things that we want to make sure allow our downtown to pop without the dollars coming out of the general fund, right? Which is something that we consistently get calls and emails from. Just to make sure everyone knows what these different districts do and have done in other cities and other major entertainment districts around our state, I think the Jaguars have had an incredible relationship with the city over the past 40 years, and we will continue to do so. But I think it's not a massive ask to make sure that the business improvement district expands, especially as the downtown area grows and expands, right? The amount of public investment we're putting into the parks and the shipyards, Met Park, for instance, right, which is a city asset. Wouldn't you want to make sure that we have business improvement district out there keeping it clean? That's probably not a good example since we're the one now putting that money. Some money. However, it's still a city-owned asset, right? And thank you, Mr. Harden. Yeah, I'm sorry. And then also we'll probably see Lot J, possibly the fairgrounds get developed, which, by the way, was city-owned land that we're willing to give to the Jaguars. The point being is the bid expansion should not be some sort of shocking development from anyone who's looking to see downtown development grow. I'm in support of this, but, you know, if there's any amendments or edits, I'm happy to discuss, and I'm happy to discuss this for the Jaguars. I'm intrigued to see why you guys showed up in committee and didn't talk to us much earlier. May I respond to that, Mr. Chairman? Yes, please do. Mr. Poliso, I just found out about it within the last. Now, that doesn't mean that other people haven't known about it earlier, but I just found out about it within the last 10 days, and that's why I'm— And yet you didn't call the district council member. Thank you. Well, I called the person who introduced the legislation, but y'all can fight about that. All right. Yeah, let's get back in regular order here, and let's—as much as we can be factual, that'd be great. We'll go to past president Carrico, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair, just a little blindside. Like, I knew we had the bid expansion coming, worked with downtown committee, and I just don't think this is ready for prime time, given that we have opposition from one of our, you know, biggest companies downtown, so this maybe needs worked out. I don't know if we can do it before finance. We have the day off tomorrow. Maybe they can get some amendments or some negotiations or a deferral if we can't get it done by finance. Also, I have to check in to see if I can even vote for bid stuff now that I have an office downtown. I just opened last week, so I feel like I may have to abstain just out of abundance of caution until we can do some research into what my vote on this might accomplish. So out of confidence, I'm going to abstain, or abundance of caution, I'm going to abstain today, and then we'll hopefully get to some resolution either through finance committee or by the time we have our next meeting. Thanks. Thank you. We'll go next to Councilmember Holder. Holder, you recognize? Thank you. Through the chair, I guess to the body and to Mr. Harden. So it seems like the date or the timing is an issue, and then there's some other issues that feel substantial to this bill. So I'm just wondering, I heard you mention, Mr. Harden, that you're not asking for a deferral, but for me it feels like I need to have more information, possibly a meeting, and some more conversations. So is a deferral not on the table or a possibility for today? Because I just don't feel comfortable voting on this. May I respond to that, Mr. Chairman? Yeah, please. Ms. Holder, we spoke with the folks who spoke earlier. We don't want to get in their way of doing anything they want to do or need to do, and if they need to get it out. I don't understand why they have to have it out, but they're telling me they do. So that's why we're not asking for a deferral, but we will be here opposing it before it goes into effect. All right. Thank you. We'll go next to the sponsor. Vice President Carlucci, you recognize. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. This does feel a little blindsided, if I'm being honest. Me and Mr. Harden had a meeting last week, not about this bill, about something else, and there was maybe two minutes' worth of conversation about this. And I'll just say the reason that it doesn't need to be deferred and that he's not asking for a deferral is because this legislation doesn't do anything. It legally cannot do anything, regardless of what it says, because state statute dictates this process. This is step one. Step two actually effectuates this bill. I'm going to work with the Jaguars and everyone else that are stakeholders between now and the final vote. So this is all for nothing, in my opinion. So I'd like to have Ms. Shell actually lay out what the process is, because I think we're all getting a little bit overly concerned here on a bill that is intent-driven, not actual change-driven. Can you please elaborate? Thank you. Sure. Please. Please, Ms. Shell, go ahead. Thank you. Through the chair to the committee. That's correct. This is the initial assessment ordinance required by Florida statutes. It's your declaration of intent to do the special assessment. It says in the bill clearly that the public hearing for the final assessment ordinance will be held on August 10, 2027, at 5 p.m. in council chambers. And at that time, you have the option to confirm, modify, repeal the initial assessment ordinance as you see fit. I'm a little surprised to hear Mr. Harden call this a tax. Most lawyers know a special assessment is not a tax. Special assessments can be levied only for the purposes enumerated in the Florida statutes. And they must confer a special benefit on the parcel commensurate with the assessment amount. So each parcel will receive a benefit that is different in type or degree from the benefits provided to the community as a whole. So very different from a tax, but I'm here to answer any questions about that. All right. Thank you so much for that, Ms. Shell. I really do appreciate you kind of laying that out. So at this point, what I think we all need to do is let this process play out. Nothing is happening today. Nothing is happening next month. Nothing is happening the month after that to the Jaguars or to anyone else in this expansion. Nothing is happening. Hope you all understand that. So for now, I think we just need to vote this out so we can actually make the changes that need to be made, and then we can all just get on the same page. Thank you. We have three people in the queue, but that just, what the sponsor just said, just to me begs the question, if nothing is going to happen now, then what was the issue that Mr. Harden talked about saying they were trying to have meetings and be able to delay this or defer it, but it had to go through now, if nothing is going to happen now? I just want to make sure everybody hears the same thing. Yeah. It doesn't say that, but we're taking it at your word that what he's saying is true. We have in writing, I don't know who wrote the memo, Michael, William, but, oh, Colin did, saying that although it says stuff's going to move forward, this is not what the bill is intended to do. It just doesn't say that. Okay. That's why I'm raising the issue, and we're taking them at their word that nothing is going to happen. Okay. Thank you. We'll go next to Pastor President Salem. You're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to Ms. Schell. This passes today. Let me get back to some basics here. It goes to the council meeting Tuesday night, where I'm assuming it will pass potentially as well. That passing of it does not in any way, shape, or form lock anybody into this process. I see everybody out in the audience saying no. Is that correct? The Jaguars or anyone else for that matter? Through the chair to Council Member Salem, that is correct. This is just the initial assessment ordinance. It directs that a publication rule be created. It directs notices to go out, and a number of different things that need to happen before the final assessment ordinance would be considered in August. Well, my suggestion would be to make Mr. Harden comfortable, make me comfortable. That kind of language should be in the bill, and between now and Wednesday, I would urge it. It's in the bill. That specifically. Through the chair to Council Member Salem and the committee, it's an initial assessment ordinance, so it does not, it's not final action. It's just directing a number of steps to occur, and this process is required by Florida Statutes, which is cited in the legislation. It has, this initial declaration needs to be, it needs to be approved before the end of the fiscal year, before the, excuse me, the end of the calendar year. It needs to be before the other steps can occur. Okay. I'm fine. Ready to vote. The reason I use the word tax is when I give my money to the government, I call that a tax. We'll go next to Past President Carlucci, you're recognized. Okay. I appreciate Councilman Joe Carlucci explaining. So this is enabling a process, and this has to be done now in order for the next step to be done, and the next step has to be done at that time in order to be ready for the next calendar year for the budget. And it somewhat reminds me of when we did the solid waste fee, that we had to send out a notice notifying our constituents that there would be an assessment of what the solid waste fee might be, so to notify everybody. And then we did a process of what that fee might be, and then we voted on that, set the fee, sent that out to our constituents, and then voted on it a second time. So this is a process that is in order to stay in tune with our budget process. So it enables a process of evaluation of the tax roll of the bid, and then the stakeholders will be included in somewhat of a workshop. Would that be correct, Councilman Carlucci, where everybody is involved, and that's when it takes shape as to who may or may not be included? Would that be correct? That's, yeah, through the chair to Council Member Carlucci. That's certainly a possibility. DVI, DIA are going to be the main ones driving that ship, so to speak. And I would just encourage everyone here, speak to Laura Edgecombe and Colin Tarver at DVI and DIA. They also have a lot of information on this. Okay. So I think if this is going to be considered, then this has kind of shifted my thinking on it. And this will not change anything. This just sets the table for the process to be evaluated. So nothing will happen. Nothing will change. It just allows the downtown bid to be evaluated in terms of whether it will expand or not. And at that point, the Jaguars would be at the table. So I now understand what you're trying to do. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now go to Council President Howland. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for the Vice President. Does this have to be passed on this cycle for approval next week in order to generate what you need in August? Or can this just be deferred while we have an opportunity to learn more about it? It can't be deferred. And I'd like to have Mr. Eric come up from DVI. If you can kind of explain why the timing of this is what it is. It will actually help everyone understand. Absolutely. Eric Miller, interim CEO of DVI. Address is on file, I believe. Yeah, so the statutory, and looking to Michelle for affirmation, but the statutory deadline for passage of this Step 1 legislation is January 1, which, you know, any type of deferral, I don't have the exact calendar in front of me, would, you know, severely decrease our comfort that we could just get this interim step through. That kind of, once again, is just an interim preliminary step with no final result or final impact on anybody. We are firmly committed to working with the Jaguars. We've been meeting with them over the course of the last few days. We'll continue to do so along with any other property owner, major or minor, across that could be impacted by this legislation over the course of the next few months to make sure that, you know, all questions, all issues are resolved. Everybody's on the same page, and that, you know, the bid and the assessment, fueling the bid is structured in a way that makes sense and adds a perceived value to the stakeholders. Okay, and then if I may, Mr. Chair, still have the floor here. The extension, geographic extension, does it go all the way to heart and even beyond? Does it incorporate where Fincantary is, the working shipyards? What is the maximum east that it goes around the river? Currently, as contemplated by this legislation, it aligns completely with the North Bank and the South Bank CRA, so correct, it does at this time. Do you know where the eastern border is? The eastern, St. Johns River at this point. It kind of, it's a geographic boundary that follows the, it runs south of the Arlington Expressway until it reaches the Matthews Bridge and then just follows all of the land there. Okay, a lot of industrial development going on there. Have you had conversations with this about Fincantary or any of the subcontractors that are moving into that area along the working waterfront? We've had preliminary conversations about that. Kind of, once again, we view this as opening the conversation. Once again, at the time that this, that the submissions for this bill needed to be filed, just based on the timing necessitated by the state mandated process, we didn't have a lot of the information that's necessary to truly inform what the impact will be. For example, when the information on this bill needed to be sent, we didn't even know the property values that would inform what I would be able to tell somebody, what their impact would be. So at this point, no, but we view this as opening that process where we're going to engage with everybody with any type of concern that might be worried about it to, you know, work through those issues with them and make sure that we're not imposing something upon somebody that they're not going to receive and perceive value in. Okay, then last comment. I'm never inclined to hurry, ever, increasing or extending a one-point will, one-mill increase, a tax or assessment, whatever you call it, on businesses who aren't fully informed, even if it's only just to start the process. And I've checked with ODC, and we can actually defer this for two more cycles and still meet the deadline. So if we don't defer today, I'm going to be a no. Thanks. All right. Okay, we had a couple people drop off, so we're back to the sponsor, Vice President Carlucci. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I'll be brief. I mean, I think what we have is a good, long runway to make changes to this. Everything has been already said. The Jags are okay without a deferral. I think we're all going to end in a good landing spot when this actually comes up for a final vote, so I ask for your support today. Thank you. Okay, no one else there. I just want to confirm what I just heard. So, because I'm fine either way, actually, as the chair, deferring or taking the vote, but I want to check back with the two individuals who are here representing Shawna Collective and the Jaguars. Are you all okay with this voting through and the plan that was laid out, working through, going to announce meetings, working through that process as it goes through, or is that not okay with you and you really are asking for a deferral? On behalf of Shawna Collective, we're okay with it moving forward today, subject to the further discussion outlined. Oh, Mr. Harden, would you come over and put that in the microphone so we get that for the record? If I may, I think the confusing language in the ordinance is that it suggests that the new EMSA would be signed upon approval at City Council this go-round. It suggests that the map takes effect. And so it's confusing in that respect, and I guess it would have to get repealed if the final assessment ordinance were – I don't know what would happen to the signed agreement at that point. But our understanding from Mr. Tarvert is that the agreement won't actually be signed, even though it does direct the mayor to sign it in the legislation. So that's where the confusion, I think, is coming in on our end on the actual import of this ordinance in that respect. Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify. The amendment that you approved reflects that the revised agreement would be attached to indicate it would not be effective until 10-1-2027. So that is part of the amendment that was approved that the auditors had noted on your agenda. Okay. Did we need to get Mr. Harden's comments on the record? I would recommend it just to allow him to do so. Yeah, Mr. Harden, we do – Yeah, I guess the only comment I made that was of significance was we're not asking for a deferral because we've been told that this bill doesn't go into effect, notwithstanding what the bill said prior to the amendment. I didn't know you were going to be here to amend it today. But prior to the amendment, it was very clear that it wasn't going to be signed right away. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We still will be here, though. Okay. Thank you. We'll go next to President Howland. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, just a question through the chair for OGC. I had corresponded earlier with OGC about the timeline for this and deferral. Could you – are you in a position, Mary, to opine how there still is the opportunity to defer two weeks if we do and still meet the deadline? Through the chair to Council President Howland. I'll defer to Michelle, but, yes, you have some opportunity to defer and still meet the deadline, but Michelle can give you the details. Through the chair to Council President Howland, this initial assessment ordinance, this declaration of intent, needs to be approved by the end of the calendar year in order to be able to take the next steps of producing the publication rule of the notices going to all the property owners of that final hearing in August. So, you do have a little bit of space before the end of the calendar year to approve this. Okay. Thank you. Then I'll stand with my conclusion that if we don't defer, I'm going to vote no, and that's just because I don't want other businesses like the Jacksonville Jaguars to be wholly surprised by this, and I think we have some time also to work through some issues, including disagreements on language and intent of language. So, I'll stick with my position. Thanks. Thank you. We'll next go to Pastor President Carlucci. You recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chairman. I just want to make sure that we understand that in the downtown area, some people or some businesses in a certain section are already paying the special assessment. Is that correct through the chair to our council auditor? Through the chair to Council Member Carlucci, that is correct. This is going to expand the area. So, if it expands, that special assessment would extend to the expanded area. Okay. That would bring perhaps some additional services that the area that is paying the special assessment is receiving. Okay. I think this is a policy that is worth having a conversation with in this entire area. The reason that I do support this now is because you cannot really have this conversation on this policy until you pass this legislation that enables that conversation to take place. You cannot have that conversation on this unless this legislation passes, and I'd like to have Ms. Schell confirm that. Is that correct? Through the chair to Council Member Carlucci, I would say so. So, this sort of starts the conversation. It sends out all the notices. It gives you a chance to consider the special assessment and the boundaries, the rate of the assessment, and then all of that will be considered at that final hearing on August 10th. Right. Okay. Now, I understand what the council president is saying. We don't want to send any signals from here. That might would be miscommunicated that people outside the current boundary of folks that are already paying the assessment, that they get the idea that, oops, now we're fixing to get a special assessment, and we didn't know anything about it. That needs to be made very clear that any businesses outside of the area that they be proposed to be in it, they will not be assessed. All that is going to happen is they will have a chance to be a part of a conversation where they can decide whether they want to be in that area or not. And that's the conversation that has to happen, but it can't happen unless this legislation passes. And then the conversation is what is the merits of being a part of that special assessment area. And so that's why I support it. It just gives the merits and the conversations of this proposal a chance to be discussed as to whether it's a good public policy or not. And the public policy deserves a platform, but it cannot have a platform unless 2026-814 passes. So the leadership can do whatever it wants to. But I generally believe that if the council member who is proposing the legislation wants to move forward with it, that person has the final say as to whether it's deferred or not. That's just my opinion based on my experience. But I support the legislation. I see what he's doing. He's trying to put a platform together that will allow this public policy to have a discussion, and I think it's one worth having. Thank you. Vice Chair, Clark Murray, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. So through the chair to Ms. Schell. So basically we're not enacting anything today. We are simply, if we approve or disapprove this bill, we are simply giving consent for a study is the bottom line. And then once we get the results of that study, there will be another bill that we will need to vote on. Through the chair to Councilmember Clark Murray. Yeah, that's fairly accurate. I would say so. It sets up this process, and this is just step one, but there are a lot of, there's published notice requirements to notify the public generally. The mail notices go out to every property owner that you are considering the special assessment, and to prepare the initial assessment roll. But you can, that rate, the assessment roll, the map, all of that can be modified at the August 10th hearing. All right. Thank you so much for that. And then the last thing is about the timing. Although there is, through the chair, although there is some urgency, but still you have until the end of this calendar year to file. Through the chair to Councilmember Clark Murray. That's correct. Through the end of the calendar year. If you pass this by December 31, then you'll be set up to start the process. Otherwise, it would need to wait another full calendar year. Okay. All right. Thank you. So, with that being said, I am okay with the deferral for however many weeks, because it is, although time is important, it is not of the essence. So, whatever the body wants to do, I'm fine with that. Thank you, Chair. There's no one in the queue, no one else in the queue, but I did want to ask the president one question, because you may not have heard that previously, because I sure didn't, about the notices, the specific ones, and the general ones. I just wanted to ask you, does that change anything before you reference the deferral? Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, it doesn't. Just by the fact that we had two representatives here relatively surprised by this bill and the language of the bill. There was some lack of clarity with the language. It's been, obviously, discussed through today and clarified. But I still think, why do this if we risk surprising other businesses like that? In particular, I'm particularly mindful of and bought into the expansion of ship repair over in that area, and they're captured within the expanded boundaries here. So, I want them having this conversation now before we even think about doing something like this. There's nothing prohibiting us from having a conversation with these businesses now. This passage of this bill doesn't start a conversation. That conversation can happen before this bill is passed. So, I'll stick with my preferred to defer. If not deferred, then I'm going to vote no. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Let's see. No one else in the queue. Yeah, maybe not. Maybe not. That's why I'm thinking. I heard what someone said. Yes, please. You recognize. No, thank you. And I see you struggle over there. Here's, let me just spoil the end of the movie for y'all. You defer it, nothing happens between now and then. You know why? Because the process is not to get with all of those stakeholders before this bill is done. The process, that process, what you're describing, what everyone wants, takes months, months and months and months. This enables the city to send out notices so that everyone is notified, can read the actual bill, can talk about it, and we can get everyone on that same page. That is what this does. If everyone's hoping that a deferral is going to solve all problems, you're going to be really sweating it in two weeks from now because nothing is going to have changed, in my opinion. So, that's, I don't know what else we can do other than have everyone here be on the record saying we're going to get the Jags to a good spot. We're going to get all the other stakeholders to a good spot. And look, if after five months it's very contentious like this, then maybe it's not the right thing. And then we vote it, and then it gets voted down, or we don't follow the second piece of legislation, and nothing has happened. So, that's just my advice right here, right now. So, yeah, thanks. All right, go back to Council President Howell, and you recognize. Yeah, and Mr. Chair, don't let me press you into deferring. I could have also made the motion because as soon as I came down here, I became a de facto part of the committee, and I haven't made the motion. So, I'm just going to, even in two weeks, I'd probably vote no because fundamentally I don't believe we should be unless, you know, I don't believe we should be extending a 1.1 mil to an area of the city, assessment to an area of the city that we want to grow and attract businesses to and create jobs. So, I'm going to be a no anyways, and I'm sure this discussion will be even more impactful on a Wednesday at Finance. All right, got it. A lot of back and forth here. I was leaning toward a deferral, I will say that, earlier, but the notices and the agreement to sit down, and everybody's going to work together, and I know this is the first phase of this process, and because of that, I'm going to go ahead and we'll go ahead and take it to a vote. So, no one else in the queue, please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, two nays, one abstention. By your action, you approved 2026-0814 as amended. Now, this is the one that we thought wasn't going to take any time. That's why we took it first. So, surprise me. So, we're now going to page number eight, item number 12. Excuse me while I get there myself. Item number 12, 2026-08-06. We have an amendment. We have a motion. We have a second on the amendment. No, everybody just wants to stay right here. Do we have a second on that amendment? Thank you. We have a motion and second on the amendment. Ms. Reaver, please explain the amendment. To the chair to the committee, the amendment will clarify that the preservation priority properties are exempt from the requirements of Section 122.401F, whether sold through auction or donated, and correct scrivener's errors. Okay. Thank you. And I don't see anyone in the queue. I just want to say in advance, I believe Vice President Carlucci has an amendment as well after this. So, I just don't want to move straight on through just to let everyone know. So, no one in the queue, all those in favor of the auditor amendment, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment passes. We'll now go over to Vice President Carlucci, recognize. All right. Thank you so much. Well, this will be a non-controversial amendment. It's just going to attach a Exhibit A map for the San Marco area, the St. Nicholas area, and Durkeeville and Durkee Gardens. So, me and Council Member Peluso had a meeting on this last week, and we figured out that certain wording in this bill doesn't include San Marco and St. Nicholas because of the historic designation classification. So, we had to draw a specific area and a map for San Marco and St. Nicholas, as well as Durkeeville and Durkee Gardens. So, with that, that's my amendment to attach this map, and also, you have in front of you a letter from the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission, and they're giving their support for that as well. All right. Thank you. Don't see anyone in the queue. All those in favor of the Carlucci amendment. Oh. Looking for a motion. Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. I was thinking we had one. That was on the auditor amendment. There we go. Well, on the amendment, on the Carlucci amendment, do we have a motion and a second? Yep, we have a motion and a second on the Carlucci amendment. No one in the queue. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment passes. Please roll those up, and we have Vice President Carlucci, are you still? Yeah, no, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say I appreciate it. Thank you for your graciousness on the last bill. I also appreciate that for taking that up as a vote. And with that, that's my amendment, and I'm going to leave the other bill sponsor to answer all the rest of your questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Council Member Paluso, you're still in the queue? I do have another amendment. I'm here to offer another amendment. We have a motion second on the bill as amended. Go ahead. No, you have another amendment? Through the chair, yes. And Ms. Shell can kind of speak to it. It's a technical amendment that was offered up during the notice meeting that Council Member Carlucci and I had. Through the chair to the committee. So currently, the legislation as filed reads that the real estate division shall not sell any preservation priority property to any person or affiliate of the person who previously acquired a preservation priority property after January 1, 2027, and failed to comply with the covenants and restrictions. And as a result, the city had to initiate an action for reverter. That's how it reads currently, so that people can't receive these properties, fail to comply, and then keep getting more properties. I believe Council Member Paluso would like to amend the bill to place the Housing and Community Development Department in charge of ensuring that a recipient has complied with past covenants and restrictions instead of the real estate division. That's my motion. And the reason is, is real estate had just sort of asked, hey, can we have housing take this on? Housing said yes. So looking for a second. We have a motion and second on the Paluso amendment. Any discussion? No, I think we had that on the last one. Okay, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment passes. Yes, please. So that's three. Three for one. That's better than BOGO. Move the bill as rolled up amended. We have a motion and second on the bill as amended. No in the queue, please open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By our action, you approved 2026-0806 as amended. Now we'll go, I believe, to the top of the order, which we have a lot of deferrals, so I think there's only probably one in there that we'll have some conversation. So we'll start out with item number one, 20-24-09-66 is deferred to request of Council Member Carrico. Item two, 2025-0361 is deferred to request of Council Member White. Item three is 2026-0227 is deferred to request of Council Member Diamond. Item four, 2026-0320 is deferred to request of Council Member White. Item five, 2026-0377 is deferred to request of Council Member Johnson. Item six, 2026-0677 is deferred to request of Council Member Matt Carlucci. Item number 7, 2026-0756. May I have a motion on the amendment? We have a motion. Do I have a second? We have a motion and second on the amendment. No one in the queue. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment passes. We have a motion and second on the bill as amended. No one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, seven yays. By your action, you have approved 2026-0756 as amended. Item number 8, 2026-0779. We have a motion and second on the bill. Seeing no one in the queue, please open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you have approved 2026-0779. Item number 9, 2026-0800. We have a motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you have approved 2026-0800. We have already taken up item 10. We go to item number 11, 2026-0805. We have a motion and second on the bill. Seeing no one in the queue, please open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you have approved 2026-0805. We have already taken up item 12. We move on to item 13, 2026-08-07 is deferred due to the Planning Commission. Item 14, 2026-08-08 is deferred at the request of Council Member Pittman. Item 15, 2026-08-09 is deferred due to the request of Council Member Diamond. Item 16, 2026-0810 is deferred due to the request of Council Member Diamond. And item number 17, 2026-0811. We have a motion and second on the amendment. No one in the queue, please, excuse me. All those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment passes. You want to hear the amendment? Yeah, I should have done that. Before we take a vote, would you please explain the amendment? I was just on a roll. I know, I know. Moving, moving, moving. Through the chair to the committee, the amendment will remove the emergency language within the bill. Place a revised agreement on file to note that there is an existing balance within the trust fund. Clarify that the Gator Bowl shall be eligible to request a disbursement from the trust fund if the away game results in a net operating loss or shall be required to deposit 50% of any net operating profits in accordance with the agreement. Clarify that interest generated by the trust fund shall be available to GBS to cover annual revenue shortfalls but shall not be included in the calculation for determining if a deposit to the trust fund is required and correct scrivener's errors. Okay, I know we had it explained before, I mean, after we took a vote on it. We have a couple people in the queue. Is this on the amendment? Pass to President Salem, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Through to the chair to Ms. Schell, what is the total amount in the trust fund today? Auditor, I'm sorry, probably more appropriate. Ms. Reaver? Through the chair to Councilmember Salem, the trust fund balance as of 9-30-2026 was $973,642. Through the chair, is there a limit on the loss that they can take? And could they empty that trust fund if the game in Gainesville, I'm assuming it's going to be in Gainesville, is not a good one? Through the chair to Councilmember Salem, yes. They could take whatever balance is left in the trust fund to cover any losses. And then the city would be required to replenish that trust fund up to $500,000. If the loss was greater than 926,000, are we subject to even paying more than what's in the trust fund? From my understanding, no. We just have to keep that trust fund balance at $500,000. So, just to clarify, the loss is $1,000,000. We give them the 926, and then we put another half million in, and that's it? Through the chair, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. We'll go next to Vice Chair Clark Murray. You're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to Ms. Reaver. So, the last bullet that talks about the Tourist Development Council budget, so the 464, is that, it says Gator Bowl game. Is it referring to the Tax Layer Bowl? Through the chair to Councilmember Clark Murray, that is correct. Okay. So, then, so right now, it's short, through the chair, it's short. And so, right now, the city will need to add the 28? Through the chair to Councilmember Clark Murray, they would have to find a $28,282 to cover the Jacksonville game at $492,000. Okay. And so, then, one last question. So, then, the fund that we have for the Tax Layer, and then the fund for the Tourist Development, they, Tourist Development, they contribute to that fund. Is that the way it works? So, through the chair to Councilmember Clark Murray, the Tourist Development Council, that budget, the 464, is for game day expenses. So, security, ticket takers, any normal game day expenses. Okay. This 270, as a contribution, is just a contribution to help them put the event on, not necessarily for game day expenses, but for other ancillary costs. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Thank you. So, we've taken a vote on the amendment, correct? Is that, yeah. Which, if, does anyone have any differences on your vote? We could retake the vote after hearing the explanation. I know it's written in your agenda. So, I'm taking that there are none. So, given there's no one in the queue, please open the ballot and record. Okay. We've got a motion on the bill as amended. We have a second. How about Jimmy? Somebody. Okay. Okay. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. No one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. All right. Everybody hand in your phones before the next meeting. Seven yays. Zero nays. By your action, you approve 2026-0811 as amended. Go to item number 18. 2026-0813. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. We have Vice Chair, okay, on the bill. All those in favor of the amendment, please signify best. Oh, we're going to hear about the amendment. I almost did it again. Go ahead. Through the chair to the committee, the amendment will attach a revised Exhibit 1, which is a term sheet and budget, to reflect that the fiscal year 2627 public service grant funding, that amount was $125,000 for this same program. Okay. So, the amount is $287,640 when you put the grant that they received in there as well. Okay. What's that? Right. All those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment passes. We have a motion and second on the bill as amended. Vice Chair Clark Murray, you're recognized. Okay. Well, I did have a question for either the introducer or someone else. You heard my comment. I said there we had to have a waiver for this because they had already received $125,000 through the public service grant funding, and then we're putting on top of that $162,640. What was the initial ask or requirement that went to the Homeless Initiatives Commission for this organization, for this purpose? Yeah, please. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And, I mean, if you want to jump in, Shannon, and dive in on this as well. No, so this was a request from last year, and they did all the work for it. So they built out their program and did exactly what the city asked them to do, and because of HIC not having the means to get the dollars out as fast as they did, this is just kind of a carryover from the year before, but they did all that work. Well, I get that. Thanks. I guess my question is, is it for the same purpose as the public service grant that they just got because of that delay? They didn't get the money they were looking for, and now this year they've gotten both. So I'm just wanting to make sure the city isn't two times giving for the same purpose. It's my understanding that no, they're not, but I would need to see the PSG grant. Okay. I would like to – I'll support this. There's no one else in the queue. I'll support this now, but I would like to know that. Like I said, it goes from $162,640 to $287,640, and it's all taxpayer dollars. I just want to make sure we're not, because of the catch-up and the timing issue, giving for the same thing. No one else – let's see. Where are we right now? Okay, thank you very much. No one else in the queue? Please open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By reaction, you've approved 2026-0813 as amended. Okay. We've already taken up item 19 for quite some time. And then go to item 20, 2026-0816. Mr. Chair, you do have a rules amendment. It's not marked on your agenda. We didn't get a chance to get it on there before we had to turn it over. But there is a rules amendment that would need to be moved, and I'm happy to explain it if you take the motion. Yeah, if someone would move that and second. Second. We have a motion and second on the rules amendment. Please explain, Ms. Stavopoulos. Thank you. So the legislation as filed, the J-Bill language was amending – is proposing an amendment to the city charter for both the aviation authority and the port authority to require that the meetings of the boards of those two bodies be televised or live streamed. And then an audio – an AV recording of the meeting placed on their respective websites within three business days of the conclusion of the meeting. There's one difference for the port authority where there's an exception that they do not have to televise or live stream informal or formal workshops of the board, and that was at the request of the JPA board and their staff. The amendment would also include an additional exception from the requirements to televise, live stream, and post for meetings that are recognized under state and federal law that do not have to be held in the sunshine or open to the public. So, for instance, under the state law, there's exemptions – we call them shade meetings typically – for various things that can be discussed by the boards without the requirement that they be open to the public or televised. And there are also federal regulations that do the same. Both JAA and JPA are responsible for oversight of federal infrastructure, and there are federal regulations, for example, that would require that those meetings not be held and open to the public based on the nature of the discussion that would transpire regarding federal infrastructure. So, what this amendment is doing is incorporating language into the J bill that would allow for that additional exemption for those types of meetings that would not be required to be held in the sunshine or in the public based on state or federal regulation, just so it's clear that the charter does not somehow conflict with the state and federal regulations that allow for those exemptions. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We have two people in the queue. This is on the amendment. Both of you? You're on the bill. Okay. I had a question. I guess it is on the amendment now that I see it written out as you explained it. Is there anyone here from JAA or Jaxport and or Jaxport? It doesn't look like it. I say J-E-A, but okay. Okay. One of you, I'm sure, knows this. I just want to make sure, since it pertains to those organizations, that this amendment is solid with both of those organizations, as well as I'll bring the same thing up unless it's mentioned now on the bill. I know we're just talking about the amendment now. Yes. Past President Salem, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. I've spent extensive time with both the port and the airport on this issue, and they are 100% on board. I didn't ask them to come today because I could clearly state that. Yes. Thank you. That's very helpful. I just wanted to make sure. All right. We're just on the amendment now. So, no, let's see. Those two are just on the bill. So, all those in favor of the rules amendment, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment passes. Second on the bill as amended. We'll go next to past President Salem, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. This is purely a transparency bill. The airport has not consistently live streamed either their meetings or their board meetings or their committee meetings, and they are moving forward with that as we speak even before this becomes law. And the port has always live streamed their board meetings but not their committee meetings, and they're on board with that other than this exception for workshops where strategic information on other ports may be discussed, and I clearly do not want to put them at a competitive disadvantage. There's a similar bill coming through the process on JEA that will do the same thing, but it doesn't have to be a J bill. It's simply a change to their charter. So, hope that answers your questions. That's great. Thank you. That's exactly, exactly what I wanted to hear. And we'll go next to past President Carlucci, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I support the bill. And you just answered part of my question, Mr. Chair, through the Chair to Councilman Salem. So, there's one coming through on the JEA. What about the JTA and any other authorities that we have? I just think if we're going to cast a net, let's cast a net over all the authorities. I wanted, through the Chair to Councilmember Carlucci, I wanted to do it on JTA, but it's a quasi-state city, and I was advised by OGC that I could not do that. Okay. Now, the one that has come up, frankly, is the Housing Authority. Mm-hmm. And initially did not, I don't consider that one of the big four, at least in my mind, but I would be welcome to introduce, with you or others, a legislation on the Housing Authority. I'm not sure if their meetings presently are streamed. I'm looking at Councilmember Dennis. He says they're not. I'm all for transparency. You ought to be able to watch these things from home or your office. And so, I will entertain some legislation on the Housing Authority. I would co-introduce that with you. Okay. I think the Downtown Investment Authority, as well, because, I mean, we know what just happened with the Housing Authority, you know, and the Downtown Investment Authority. A lot of people are interested in downtown, and if you want to take the lead on that, I will co-introduce that with you. Okay. I think it would be well if you want to contact, I don't know if anybody's here for the Downtown Investment Authority. I don't want to do anything against their will if they got a good reason not to, but a lot of people might be interested to know what is going on with both of those. And housing's a big deal right now, and I commend you for putting this bill together, but I just think, while we're at it, let's get the other authorities involved. Well, through the Chair, I would never do anything without talking to them first. Yeah, I get that, sure. To make sure they're comfortable and everything else, but I will start that process and include you as well. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. That's great. Thanks. We'll go next to Council Member Peluso, who we recognize. Thank you, Chair. To the conversation we just had, I think the Housing Authority is a great idea, especially given everything that's been happening. I just want to make sure that they have the capability to stream. It's a very small conference center that they have, and it's on their, at their main site, which is very close to where a lot of the residents live. So I would want to make it, I wouldn't want them to have to now go deeper into downtown or some other place just to get streaming activity if it's going to hurt the ability for residents to go to the meeting in person, which many of them do. So just kind of keep that in mind. As for DIA, I'm sure that's going to be perfectly fine. They do stream their meetings right now. Thanks. Thank you for a vote, Ray. Just want to make sure. I will say, and I love hearing this. I love hearing the desire for more transparency. I love hearing better ways, more efficient ways for the taxpayers to be engaged. And there are many of our citizens who can't go to the meetings. They just physically can't. And so I think this is great. I think this is great, and I like everyone's discussions on, comments on wanting to help out and move us more in that direction. So, and on the part of the organizations themselves, the independent city organizations, being willing to open up more in this regard. So thank you all very much. Please open the bout and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0816 as amended. Go to item number 21, 2026-0817. We have a motion and second on the bill. Signaling the queue, please open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0817. Item 22, 2026-0832. I have a motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0832. Item 23, 2026-0846 is on second read. Item 24, 2026-0849 is also on second read. Item 25, 2026-0850 is on second read. Also 26, 2026-0851, second read. Item 27, 2026-0852, second read. Item 28, 2026-0852, second read. Excuse me, 0857 is on second read. Item 29, 2026-0858 is on second read. Item 30, 2026-0862 is on second read. Also, item 31, 2026-0863 is on second read. Item 32, 2026-0866 is on second read. And takes us to item 33, 2026-0867. We have a motion and second on the emergency. Ms. Reba, would you please explain the emergency? Through the chair to the committee, the nature of the emergency is to ensure friends are available as soon as possible. Okay. All those in bed in the emergency, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. We have one no. The emergency passes. We have a motion and second on the bill as an emergency. We have, first, Councilmember Peluso, you recognize. Thank you, Chair. You know, honestly, we had a lot of conversation about this earlier today. A lot of conversations have been happening now since this morning's meeting. We had JEA for, oh, good, we have Dr. Moreland coming up. We also have United Way here. Melanie Pats is here to help kind of answer a few more questions. But at the end of the day, I think the conversations that were had were about how many homes are going to be serviced, how many households are going to be helped through this program. Is this the manner in which we want to do it? And frankly, the main dollars would be going towards United Way to put towards this new city to neighbor program. That's where 1.9 million would go towards. And so I thought she could be here to kind of help answer those questions a little bit better. I know it was uncomfortable for some folks as to whether this was the best use of those dollars. I believe that it is. I believe that we are in a place economically in the city and in the state and in this country where we are going to see a very large swath of individuals show up with some great need because costs are not coming down. And so that is the real purpose of the emergencies. I think we'll be getting a ton of calls and stuff from our residents in the next couple of months. But I want to see if there are any other major questions. Again, with some of the folks we have in the audience, we could hopefully get a few more answers than what we had before. Thank you. We'll go next to Pastor President Salem. You're recognized. Thank you, Chair. I don't want to spend as much time on this this afternoon as we did this morning, but just let me summarize a few points that I took away. The situation we have with JEA and their bills is not a great deal different than what it's been for the last five years. In fact, during COVID, it was worse than what it is now. And the amount of people over 120 days on their bills is basically the same. So we hear we have an affordability crisis, and I understand that. But in terms of bills being paid at JEA, it's really not that much different. I suggested, many of you might remember at the council meeting last Tuesday, that JEA gives the city, as a part of our agreement, $140-plus million. And if we were going to put money towards something like this, it ought to come from that. And we're one month into the budget. I encouraged Mr. Dennis and his colleagues with the mayor's staff to carve out some money from their budget presently and put it towards this versus going into the reserves. That was one suggestion. The other suggestion that I gave, and I've not had a chance to talk to JEA much about this, but we own JEA. Can they modify their collection procedures? Right now, they start getting a little excited at 120 days plus. Could we modify that in some way? Maybe it's 150 days. I don't know what the answers are, but I would challenge JEA to look at how they're collecting and are there ways to sort of tighten that, loosen up that rope a little bit to get more people the ability to pay without cutoffs. And they gave us some numbers on cutoffs, but we don't know how many of those are cut off for a day, a week, whether they're moving away. There was just a lot of information that we didn't have answers for this morning. I doubt if we have it now, but hopefully we can get that type of information over a period of time. I'm not sure it's an emergency personally, and maybe we could get all that information and have some alternatives before we voted on this, but the author of the bill appears to want to move it forward. And so that's where we are. So I voted no, and we had a majority at committee this morning that voted no. So we'll see how it goes here. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. We'll go for, I think, the first time on this. We'll skip over to Pastor President Carlucci, who you recognize. Thank you. I was going to say, if you take the money from the contribution from the JEA that went to the budget, then you're taking something away from the budget that those dollars are funding. So I'm not going to take money away from something the budget has already been funded with from the contribution. I support the bill, and people need some help with it. We talk about, we're hearing so much about affordability and people having problems with their electric bills and so on and so forth. And I certainly support helping where we can. So I support the bill. Thank you, sir. We'll go to Pastor President Carrico. You're recognized. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. I'm not going to support it right now. It's mostly due to the funding source. It has nothing to do with United Way or Melody Pats, who I know if we were able to find money somewhere else, it would go to great use. I think this is a need, but we have a lot of city priorities and going out of the reserves to solve this problem, which is really just short term. It doesn't seem like a fiscal responsibly way of using the dollars. Not physical, but fiscal, of course. We'll go back to Councilmember Peluso. You recognize. Thank you, Chair. I mean, I feel like we're not using Melanie very well during this. The poor woman got here. We haven't asked her a question yet. But I think I understand some of the concerns that are coming up about funding source. I do think that we have the reserves as a rainy day fund, right? It is meant to be used for emergent issues, for natural disasters, for things that we believe public policy is asking us to dedicate and invest in. In this case, we're asking, I'm asking, and I believe my colleagues are as well, that we invest in the very people who live in this city, right? Rates have gone up at JEA. People are confused as to why. There's a lot of concern and angst. Costs are going up in every other way. I went up earlier and looked up that Bureau of Labor Statistics had said that energy prices have gone up 25% and fuel over 35% in this past year alone, year over year. It's just we're in a place where I think, especially with the federal government starting to scale back on different programs that assist low-income families, things are going to be placed on the city and on the municipal governments more and more and more. And we need to make sure that we're ahead of it because I've heard and gotten a number of emails and calls from folks over the years about how bad things are. And Melanie, if you don't mind coming up, maybe you can answer a few questions that were brought up earlier today. One was, you know, some of the funds are being, you're asking for 25% up front. On top of that, some of those dollars will go towards different employment positions, which I believe some people were a little bit concerned about. Could you sort of answer that question why? And could you also maybe give us some answers on how many folks were serviced last year when it comes to utility assistance? Melanie Patz, United Way, 550 Water Street. So for number of people served with utility assistance last year, we had 5,700 people who called 2-1-1 who are Duval residents who either received utility assistance or received a referral to an organization like the city of Jacksonville who might be able to help them pay their utility bill. 1,100 Duval County residents who called did not receive assistance because funds were not available nor was there an organization who could assist them. Regarding funding for staffing, there is $30,000 in the proposed legislation for staffing for some additional 2-1-1 call center specialists. A couple weeks ago, we had 1,926 calls to 2-1-1. We answered 1,171 of those calls or 61%. The other callers did not get their call answered because they hung up before we were able to get to them. Wait times can get as high as an hour on high call volume days and those high call volume days are typically days when we have referrals for either rent or utility assistance. If this funding is approved and it is promoted publicly, we know that the call volume will increase and we will need to include some additional specialists to answer those calls. There is $170,000 in the legislation for our partners, Jewish Family and Community Services, Catholic Charities, and Downtown Ecumenical Services Council to manage the funds. So, if a caller calls 2-1-1, we will determine if they meet eligibility criteria, which includes income limits, and then pass them over to our partners if they do. Our partners will then document that they do meet income eligibility, retain that documentation, make the payment to JEA, and be available to provide any information to council auditors if requested in the future. Sure. Thank you for that, Melanie. So, 61% dropped off, and that's 1,926 calls. And you said last year 5,700 received services but 1,100 didn't. Are we, you know, I'm wondering if that, if we have any data to suggest that number will go up this year based on current funding levels. Like, do you have the same level of funds this upcoming fiscal year that you did last year when it comes to utility assistance? Through the chair to Councilmember Peluso, just one correction. We answered 61% of the calls, so it was about 39% or 40% who dropped off and didn't get their calls answered. Regarding increased need since July of this year, we have measured that we have received 467 additional callers or more callers in 2026 than in 2025 who are Duval County residents requesting utility assistance. We have seen an increase in need since July. Have you seen an increase in need for rental assistance? We have seen an increase in need for rental assistance as well. I did not bring that data with me. I can certainly get it to you. Understood. And the reason why I even brought that up is, I mean, when we were looking at ways to help make sure that we were able to assist these needy families, it made the most sense to go with utility assistance because it was kind of first in our mind and something that we know that we can get done based on prior programs like the neighbor-to-neighbor program. And so, as much as I would love to see rental assistance be something we tackle as well, I saw this as, hey, JEA utility fees have gone up. People have been talking about that the most. And we had sort of seen that as a major issue in people's lives. My point being was that United Way is the first one through the line that does all this work. And so they kind of get all these calls. And we can at least help with utility bills and keep people in their homes. And that's why we're kind of going down this road. But I'm not sure if anyone else had any questions for Melanie. Okay. I want to remind everybody if you, well, maybe not remind everyone, but let everyone know, we have another meeting here at 3 o'clock. So if we could keep the comments to a, you know, to a non-narrative, you know, level to, as best we can, make the points so we can get to a vote, that would be appreciated. Thank you. What's that? No, we have, we've got Council Member Holder in the queue. You recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wasn't in Rules Committee earlier today, so I just wanted to say quickly that as a co-introducer, I obviously will be supporting this bill. And I agree that this won't fix the problem overall, but it's a step in the right direction as we try to address affordability. Because we do have a responsibility as leaders to bring some relief to our neighbors. As it relates to another funding source, I think, you know, there's options to explore that. But that's going to take time, and unfortunately our most vulnerable communities, including our seniors, don't have a lot of time before the temperature begins to continue to drop here as we reach the holiday season. So, again, I ask that you all support this bill so we can move it forward and hopefully get it passed. Thank you. Thank you. I won't repeat everything I said this morning. But I do agree with everything Council Member Salem and also Council Member Keriko have said. You know, JEA gave us the information that shows what our situation is right here specifically with JEA. And they've gone from 0.25% net write-offs in FY25 to 0.20 in FY24. It reduced to 0.17 in 25 and stayed at 0.17 this year. So, and they've said consistently that the number of people losing services has remained pretty steady over the last four years is what Mr. Moreland said. So, the scenario I've heard some people say isn't the same scenario JEA has told us. So, certainly want to help people, but there was an opportunity during the whole budget process to go through this. And we have an opportunity through the budget process now with adjustments. We just started the new year. And so, we approved a budget. If there are lower priority items on that budget, I suggest we relook and reprioritize those funds if the administration and others agree. This is an emergency that needs to be addressed right now. If that's so, then fine. And address it with that reprioritization. But to one month in to an improved budget say, let's take $2.3 million out of operating reserves outside in addition to the budget we just approved. And let's apply it toward these services. I just don't see it. I can't support it. Yes, we need to help people, but helping 5% of the people that were identified. What about the other 95%? And have we, by doing this, opening the operating reserve door, which I disagree, it's mostly open for emergencies, meaning natural disasters, other things like that, where we couldn't have foreseen what the situation was and we couldn't have planned for it. But we've known these situations were developed before we approved our budget. So, I see things differently on the operating reserves and don't think that's where we should be pulling funding for, for plussing up programs like this. They're very, very good programs, I believe, overall. And JEA is doing everything they can to give people the option of moving out their payments, setting up a payment plan to let them pay later, to make it go slower, the process, so that it spreads out their payments. They're open to all kinds of things in working with customers. So, anyhow, I said I wasn't going to say a lot, but I did, and I will go to, so I'm not going to be supporting this just like earlier this morning. There are lots of other options, timing, funding sources, but we haven't explored them. So, Vice Chair, Clark Murray, you recognize. Thank you. I appreciate you recognizing me before Mr. Peluso, because I do believe that he'll probably close on this bill. Just, I do not want to go into the rhetoric that I spoke earlier today. Just, just once again, remember when you're looking at this data, you're looking at the accounts that were closed. In other words, the people did not pay. We're trying to help residents to pay so that these numbers where it says in the data, and I don't think all of you have this, right? Yeah. Thank you for that. So, through the chair, Dr. Moreland, do you have additional handouts so that the members of the committee can see the actual figures in regards to the residents and residential and commercial accounts that have been written off? So, what we're trying to do is to prevent these numbers from getting higher by providing assistance through various programs, such as United Way. The- Yeah, I have it. Thank you. The, the need is going to become greater because the cost of electricity and water is higher. So, Dr. Moreland told us before that the average is 650, as far as bills. Someone asked earlier, well, well, originally, Council Member Gaffney just asked for $100,000. If you divide that $100,000 by the 650, then you're only going to help 153 people. So, that's not enough funding. And then, you don't want to use just one source because then you have tons of people going to just one source, which I'm sure creates a backlog. JEA has a program. United Way has a program in which they assist those with going to alternate to other programs. And remember, 85% of the people do pay. So, we've got that 15% who need assistance. And there isn't any time where anyone hasn't needed help in some way. And the idea is that this is a one-time ask, not something that's going to continue every year. And I know some of you have made up your minds. And I would hope that you just consider, once again, we're not just looking at the numbers. It's great. But think about the people. We have five minutes until the next committee meeting starts. Yeah. So, thank you. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to conclude my statements now. Thank you. Actually, there were 97% have paid within 60 days. Correct, Mr. Moreland? Dr. Moreland? Thank you. We'll go next to Jimmy Peluso. Thank you, Chair. Just to finish up. Councilmember Peluso, excuse me. You're all right, sir. I'm just saying this is a one-time ask to a reliable partner that we know does the good work. We dole out dollars to large entities all the time and organizations. And residents always ask, when are we going to get some help? And I think that's what we're trying to do here. I know we have time to vote. I just ask that you sit down with United Way, talk to them about what they're really seeing on the ground. No one sees this stuff more than they do. This is not just some sort of fly-by-night thing that's happening. But I will be working with the administration, hopefully, to have something different maybe by finance. But if not, we must proceed forward with going into the reserves. It's what they're there for. And I believe we could not have anticipated the conflict that we've had overseas, nor could we have anticipated gas prices and utility rates the way that they are. So this is fully within our purview. I ask that you vote it up. Thank you. All right. Thank you. I heard the need is going to continue, but this is a one-time ask. I'm sorry. I'm not believing that. I just, God bless you, but I don't see that happening if we open this door on the operating reserves. So, obviously, I'm still voting no. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, two nays. By reaction, you've approved. I'm going to get the right bill, 2026-0867 as an emergency. What's that? No, actually, sorry about that. I want to reconsider. Move to second. Sorry about that. Apologize. Yeah, she's, I apologize. She was typing away, so I was thinking we were pulling it up. All those in favor of reconsider, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. I would like us to raise our hands in that approving of the reconsideration, because I didn't hear everyone. Thank you. Okay, all those in favor of approving or reconsider, please signify by raising your hand. All those opposed, no. Raise your hand. Great. We got a motion and second on the bill as an emergency. What do we have over there? I was just clarifying for Mr. Garrett that the motion on the reconsideration was properly made and seconded. Mr. Peluso was one of the five that voted in favor, so he was on the prevailing side and he moved it. Anyone can second the motion to reconsider, so Dr. Salem was within his right to second it. So yes, you'll take up the emergency and then you'll take up the motion on the bill again as an emergency. So we're ready to go. Are we ready on the vote? We did. Okay. Oh, I got it. All those in favor of the emergency, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. We got a motion and second on the bill as an emergency. On the queue, please open the ballot and record your vote. My apologies again to everybody for hitting the wrong one. No, I didn't. I absolutely did not. My head and heart were both involved in that decision, not just my heart. Okay, by your action, you've approved 2026-0867 as an emergency. Okay, the rest of these are on second read, 2026-0876, second read, 2026-0877, second read, 2026-0878, second read, 2026-0885, second read, and 2026-0886, second read. And with that, we are adjourned. Thank you. .