Welcome everyone to the October 19th Neighborhoods Community Services Public Health and Safety Committee meeting. We'll get started with introductions just on just in time. Mr. Delaney. Noon. Good afternoon. Bill Delaney, Mayor's Office. Brandon Russell, Council Research. Mary Stifopoulos, Office of General Counsel. Heather Reber, Council Auditor's Office. Good afternoon. Monet Holder, At-Large, Group 1. Good afternoon. Matt Carlucci, At-Large, Group 4. Good afternoon. Tyrona Clark-Murray, District 9. Hello. Chris Miller, At-Large, Group 5. Good afternoon, everybody. Kevin Carrico, District 4. Ron Salem, Group 2, At-Large. Good afternoon, everyone. Jimmy Peluso, District 7. All right. Do we have any public comment cards that you're aware of? I see somebody shuffling for one. Do you have one, Mr. Oliver? Oh, okay. I saw you. I saw you there, so I figured I better ask, make sure. All right. Thank you. All right, Mr. Oliver, your name and address for the record, please, and the floor is yours. All right. My name is Colonel Oliver. Address is on file. Oh, 2026-065. The more I tap into the 1866 Civil Rights Act and some of the information I'm able to process and analyze coming from the Human Rights Commission, if there's one area that I can tap in to make this city fall in compliance with this law, it's through housing. We're a protected class. And the thing about it is, with this $100 billion, I really don't care too much for the mayor putting a bond out there on the streets, because the lessons that I've learned being in D.C. is that when the Biden administration ran scared going towards the election, they made a big enough mess that Trump had to come in and clean up behind. I'm not in favor of putting $100 million out there on the street, or it may be $100 billion out there on the streets to finance new homeownership. She's running scared. She's trying to buy votes. That's how I look at it, because that's why I saw what the Biden administration did when they led all them immigrants into this country. They pissed off their traditional voting base. Yeah. Mr. Oliver, if you just watch your language, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. And the thing about it is, is that if we're going to put some money out there on the street, I'd rather put at least a lower capital number of maybe $25 million, and it's tied to those that fall underneath the 1866 Civil Rights Act, that's too much money. She's trying to bribe too many people, because that's the only way they can do. They can spend their weight out of trouble that they already created for themselves. And it is what it is. This is probably by far the worst administration I have ever seen besides Alvin Brown. I campaigned for Alvin Brown. And you cannot tell me I don't support black people. You cannot tell me that I don't support women. But when you put a BS administration like this together, and you fumble the ball the way you have, and you think I'm not going to attack you and drag you? Mr. Oliver, if you could get back, I noticed you were on 2026-0765 bill there for a while. If you could get back on that bill, that'd be great. The bill in itself is garbage. Either you lower the threshold to maybe $5 million, I'll be comfortable, and target the money towards those that fall underneath the 1866 Civil Rights Act. This is a catch-all to try to get voters for next year's election. And it's garbage. I have never been as frustrated as I have been with an administration and with a council. This has been probably the worst I've ever seen. All right. Thank you, sir. No other public comment cards. We'll go to the top of the order and just work our way through. No visiting council members or other items that I'm aware of to move up front. If there are, please let me know before we start into it. Is there anything we need to move up that anybody's aware of? Okay. All right. We'll start page two. Item number one, 2024-0966 is deferred to request of Council Member Carrico. Item two, 2025-0361 is deferred to request of Council Member White. Item three, 2026-0227 is deferred to request of Council Member Diamond. Item four, 2026-0320 is deferred to request of Council Member White. And item five, 2026-0377 is deferred at the request of Council Member Johnson. Item six, 2026-0672 may have a motion on the withdraw. We have a motion. Do I have a second? We have a motion and second on withdraw. No one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your actions, you withdraw on 2026-0672. Item six, 2026-0672 is deferred at the request of Council Member Johnson. Item six, 2026-0672 may have a motion on the withdraw. We have a motion. Do I have a second? We have a motion and second on withdraw. No one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your actions, you withdraw on 2026-0672. Item number seven, 2026-0677 is deferred to request of Council Member Matt Carlucci. Item number eight, 2026-0749 may have a motion. Yes. Through the chair to the auditors. Do you need me to move the auditor's concern or did we just go ahead? We need, yeah, we want to move the bill and second it first if we could. Okay, so. Okay, we have motion and second on the bill. Yes, and so we'll go to the auditor concern here. If you would explain that, please. I'd appreciate it. And I think the COO is here for the zoo because I think we'll have a couple of questions. Through the chair to the committee, we just notated an auditor concern that if the zoo fails to provide adequate evidence of the expenditure of the matching funds of the $12 million, and they get this $4 million and they get this $4 million and spend that, we have, the only recourse we have to get those verified documents to verify their costs would be to sue for a specific performance. Because once they get the $4 million, because once they get the $4 million, the contract's done and all the funds have already been dispersed. And I guess the question was regarding this $4 million, is it correct that they're supposed to provide evidence of an expenditure of the matching, for the matching funds before the $4 million is issued? Is that the agreement? Through the chair to the committee, this bill will allow them to receive those $4 million in funds, the last tranche of funding, before they provide documentation on that $12 million, their matching funds. The last amendment was to provide them advance funds of $12 million, and then before they receive that $4 million, they needed to provide documentation on matching funds of that $12 million, which I believe, through Public Works, they have provided documentation on that $12 million, but I don't think it was for the specific phase of improvements. So I think there's some disconnect on what documentation we do have for that $12 million. Would anybody from Public Works or the zoo like to comment on that, please? I just want to make sure we all know what it is we already have compared to what the agreement that was entered into said. Good afternoon. My name is Jeff Vettlain. I'm the president and CEO of the Jacksonville Zoo. Steve Henry, COO of Jacksonville Zoo. To the question about the $4 million, we probably a little over a year ago came and requested that years 3, 4, and 5, which was the last $12 million, be forwarded so that we could finish the current build that was completed in early March of this year. We've spent the $4 million that was in the budget for this year has been spent already as part of that project. We've got a loan right now that we're paying on for that, and that's why we're requesting bringing the $4 million forward. We've already raised 2.2 that we'll be able through restricted funds that we'll be able to show the money coming in. We will still be able to meet the five-year match that was originally in the original contract that over five years we would meet our match of $12 million. We're still on track to meet that $12 million, and we'll be able to show that through funds coming in and going into our restricted fund. But if I understand what you just said correctly, you aren't able to show the $4 million that is what we're considering today, correct? Well, that's correct. You know, the amendment that we just proposed was to bring that $4 million forward, and we would continue to raise to match that over the next five years, and we wouldn't come back for another installment of $20 or $25 million, whatever it might be, until we had met that $12 million. Okay, thank you for that. We'll go to the queue. We have three members in the queue. We'll go first to Vice Chair Clark Murray. You recognize? Thank you, Chair. So through the chair to the gentleman representing this, good afternoon to you. So you said you raised $2.2. Is that $2.2 million? What is it? $2.2 what? So our next project will be education was part of the, you know, the approved, if we look at, like, the timeline for resumination projects. We're already raising money because we've already completed the front entry and manatee project, which was $7 million. Yes, but you were, I'm sorry to interrupt, but you said you've already raised a certain amount. You said two point, but you didn't give, like, a, what, $2.2,000? $2.2 million. $2.2 million, okay. And so the documentation, getting back to the auditor's concern, the documentation of what you've raised thus far, where is it? Have you submitted it to Public Works? Because that's their concern. Where's the documentation? Yeah, what we've submitted so far was projects that we finished. I think there's about $750,000 of that that looks like it's going to be counted. To who? To Public Works. Okay. The other money that we've raised is just either through a contract with an outside entity or donor that is in restricted funds through our finance department. Okay. Thank you so much for that. Ms. Sickler, if you would come forward. Thank you, gentlemen. If you would just move to the side and so let Ms. Sickler come to the microphone. And so, Ms. Reber, I'm through the chair. I'm going to say that you can chime in at any time to get the answer that you need in order to satisfy the auditors. Good afternoon, Ms. Sickler. Go ahead and introduce yourself. Good afternoon. Nina Sickler, Public Works. Okay. So, the gentleman here said that they presented documentation of what has taken place thus far to Public Works. Can you verify that they have done that? Yes, that's correct. They have done that. There are reasons that they're here in terms of their match. And when you're ready, I can describe some of those reasons. You may do so. Okay, great. So, they have provided good documentation regarding their match. The challenge was the way that the scope of the project was written originally versus what it was revised to in Amendment 7. So, what I mean by that is in Amendment 7, the scope of the project was expanded to include additional elements. And, but the match dollars that they were showing were before that amendment. So, because the match that they're showing didn't match the scope of work early on, our goal is to have the definition of that match expanded. And then they'll be in actually a good position with the way that their match has been presented to us. But we can't approve it now because they're showing work that was done towards the project, but it didn't match the scope of the work that was defined in the legislation originally. Oh, okay. I understand. All right. Thank you so much for that. Chair, Ms. Reaper, are you satisfied? Mr. Linsky. Through the chair to Councilwoman Clark-Murray. In order for public works to be able to accept the support and do the validation that's necessary, the definition of what can be, those funds can be spent on needs to be expanded to include any activity that would be approved for the project. So, the project's laid out in various phases over several years. It's our understanding that the $12 million, as well as the additional funding that may be associated with this new money, might span multiple phases. And so, by laxing the requirement on what the $12 million could be used for, would allow them to proceed forward. So, thank you for that, Mr. Linsky, through the chair. So, we don't need to amend anything. What we're doing now will satisfy the requirement that you just spoke of. Through the chair to Councilwoman Clark-Murray, no, someone would need to propose an amendment to expand the definition of the $12 million match, as well as, if they were intending to proceed forward with pulling down the $4 million now, before finalizing the match with the $12 million, that's the amendment that's being presented to you as the bill introduced. So, you have the amendment as introduced to allow them to pull down now on the $4 million, as well as an additional amendment that would need to be proposed to relax the usage on the $12 million. All right. Thank you so much for that. Through the chair to Ms. DeFopolis, are we at a position now to add that additional amendment, or do we need to wait at another point? Through the chair to Councilmember Clark-Murray. So, you can propose that amendment, but we would need to know what the relaxed definition is. I don't know what that is. Thank you. I can answer that question for OGC. Sorry. Through the chair to OGC, it would be any phase as approved in the Seventh Amendment. So, there are a total, I believe, of nine phases. It would need to be inclusive of all those phases in order to proceed forward. You know, through the chair, this is a wonderful Monday, I'm telling you. This is a little complicated, but Ms. DeFopolis, I'm sure you're processing that. Through the chair to Councilmember Clark-Murray. So, if you were so inclined to offer that amendment, so you could move an amendment to provide that the $12 million match could be applicable to any phase of the development. So moved. All right, we have a motion and second on the proposed amendment, extending over all phases of the project. We have three people in the queue on the amendment. Okay, we'll go next to Pastor President Salem. You're recognized. Thank you, Chair. I'm trying to get an understanding of before that amendment was made. It was $12 million. I'm through the chair to Ms. Reber, if I can. And there was an understanding that their expenses needed to match that particular phase. Who went sideways in this? Did they expand the project and used it for other things? I mean, I want to understand exactly what went wrong and why we're amending this versus holding them accountable for the original process. I don't necessarily have a big problem with it, but I just think we need to understand exactly what went wrong. Through the chair to Councilmember Salem, the Sixth Amendment provided that the $12 million could be advanced to them. They were to provide $12 million in matching funds against that advance to show that they had matched those funds before they could get to the $4 million. So, they would provide evidence of matching dollars spent against the advanced amount on a quarterly basis until that full match amount has been met. Can I stop you there? They're not able to do that. I believe they have provided documentation for the $12 million match, but it wasn't for a particular phase that this $12 million was to go towards. It was their matching dollars spent for other phases listed in this contract. Is that correct? You're nodding your head correct. Why did you do that? Why didn't you stick with the original $12 million to $12 million versus expanding it to other phases? Yeah, well, we obviously spent the $12 million to finish the front entry of Manatee. All that money was directed at that project. That was where we needed the funding. To be completely open and transparent, none of us caught the fact of the $12 million before we could tap the last four, because the reality is the only reason we were asking for years three, four, and five in advance was that we had $17 million still to finish, and this project was on task to be finished at the end of last year, and that's where all the funds went was to finish that project at $71.5 million. The other projects that are outlined that we spent money on are things that are following after that that were improvements to the grounds. We expanded on the terminology of what's in there. We didn't change the phase, so to speak. It was more definition to what was going to be included there, which included upgrades across our entire campus, which are over 100 years old. So that's what we turned in was things that were part of the re-zoovenation campaign and are approved as future improvements to the zoo with this being finished moving forward. If that makes sense. Through the chair, you don't have $12 million match under the original one through six amendments. Is that correct? That's correct. Yeah. You have to – you're applying stuff on Amendment 7, et cetera, to get to the $12 million. That's correct. You recognize the problem. Yes, I do. Okay. Yep. Okay. Now, let's get to my understanding. I'm slow here. Let me understand the $4 million now. The $4 million is to be released once they show the match to the $12 million. Correct? Is that correct, Ms. Rieber? That is correct. Through the chair to Council Member Salem, that is correct. Okay. Now, from what I'm hearing from them, they've already spent the $4 million out of their own – apparently they've borrowed the money to finish that phase, and they're paying interest on those dollars presently. And I would understand, similar to JTA, that you want to get out of that and pay it off as quickly as you can so you don't pay any more interest. Is that an accurate description of the problem? Through the chair to Council Member Salem, and that's why this bill has been filed, so they can get the $4 million. Okay. So we just have to expand the scope, as my good friend, Council Member Clark Murray has stated, to allow the $12 million and at the same time release the $4 million. That is correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We have three on the queue. Anyone on the amendment? Yeah. So, Pastor President Carlucci, are you on the amendment? You're the next one in the queue. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Where's the city money coming from? Through the chair to Council Member Carlucci. This was in the CIP, so it's been budgeted through debt. Okay. Well, I'm for the amendment. I'm for the bill. And let's let the zoo be the zoo. And they do a great job out there, and it's one of the places that so many of our children and schoolchildren get to enjoy. And there may be some issues with which came first and in what order that things didn't get done in. And I understand what my friend, Councilman Salem, is saying, although I wouldn't compare it to the JTA. I don't think I'd compare anything to the JTA. God bless America. And I wouldn't compare the JTA to the darn JEA back in that Jehundum bill that took place in the first term before this. But anyway, I'm going to support the amendment. I'm going to support the bill. And I want the zoo to leave the confines of City Hall and advance their work because this is one of the great quality of life issues for Jacksonville. And y'all do a super job out there. My grandkids, they love the daggum zoo. I'm trying to keep from cussing, but, you know, at some point, you know, we like to talk about running the city like a business. So that means we have to be accountable, which I am all for. But there are times when I don't like to see us continually going around our elbow to get to our thumb. I want to see some results. So I want y'all to get to the results part of it and keep doing what you're doing. We don't ever get any bad reports on the zoo that I know of. And so I appreciate what y'all do. And, folks, I'm going to support this amendment. I'm going to support the bill. And let's move on. Get out of here. Thanks. Please, let's move on. Going to Council Member Peluso. You're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair, I just want to make sure you guys are comfortable with the amendment. You are comfortable with the amendment. All right, cool. Let's vote it up and move forward. Okay. And last but not least is Council Member Holder. Thank you, Chair. Just a point of clarification. Does this amendment remove the requirement for reporting the match? And if so, if it doesn't, will it still have to happen on a quarterly basis? And is it just for the $12 million still or now for the additional $4 million? Through the chair to Council Member Holder, they would still have to provide matching documentation for the $12 million and the $4 million. So that's still required. Thank you. All those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment passes. We have a motion and 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 approve 2026-0749 as amended. We go next to item 9, 2026-0751. May I have a motion on the bill, please? We have a motion and a 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 approve 2026-0751. Item 10, 2026-0752, looking for a motion on the rules amendment. We have a motion and second on the rules amendment. Ms. Reaver, would you please explain the rules amendment? The rules amendment will correct the extension language in the bill to make it consistent with the contract for a 12-month extension. Place a revised agreement on file to revise the general partner annual distribution limit from $500,000 to $280,000, which is 10% of the general partner's loan and consistent with other contracts, and corrects Scrivener's errors. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Pelluso, are you on the amendment? Not so much on the amendment on the bill. Okay. All those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The rules amendment passes. Your motion is second on the bill as amended. Council Member Pelluso, you recognize. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I just wanted to see through the chair to possibly anyone in housing, what's the AMI here? Is it 80% AMI, 60% AMI? Is it 60% for all of them? For all 180? Understood. Very supportive. Thank you. We'll go next to Vice Chair Clark Murray, you recognize. Thank you, Chair. We had the same bill and rules this morning, and part of my concern and why I voted against it was basically Amendment 3, which is looming, but I've also had an opportunity to look a little more into the funding and where the funding source is, and this is, we're looking at a loan. So, with that being said, and looking at another time frame, I'm going to change my vote today. I am going to support it. Somebody's saying yay. Okay. All right. So, and once again, we could always use more affordable housing. Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? No one else in the queue. I didn't, wasn't able to listen to the discussion this morning, but the gist that I took away was an attempt which I support, I fully support. As was mentioned, we have a lot of things looming that could impact our finances, and so anytime we can identify a funding source or ensure that there's a requirement to associate future requirements, in this case, I think FY28-29, with a budget submittal, a requirement, and nail that down, I think all the better, rather than leaving it open, approving it, and then leaving it open to figure it out later. I know that's my loose way of interpreting that, but I applaud the concept and the idea that was explored extensively this morning in rules. I really do, and I think we need to go more in that direction. So that's my concern here. The administration, I guess that's maybe one way I could come at this. Given there wasn't a funding source identified through this process, would the intent be to ensure this is included in the budget? I know we made a requirement in a couple of other areas to ensure, like completion grants, that they were in fact included in the budget proposal. Would this be looked at in the same way by the administration, regarding the intent, to make sure it's covered, it's not something we have to figure out? To the chair, yeah, that is the goal, is that we would incorporate it into the budget of the year that it's anticipated to reach the substantial completion. The reason that we're not identifying something now is the substantial completion is a couple years down the road, and so if we were to identify money now, it would be the $2 million and change just sitting in a pot until it was ready. But, no, we're absolutely intending to include it in the budget process, loop all of you all in for that, you know, in the year that it's coming. I don't have my good glasses, so I can't see which year it's supposed to be. I can get the answer for you, but. I think it's 28-29. Is that correct? Yes, I'm hearing, or I'm seeing, nodding that that's correct, 28-29. Okay, thank you. That's very helpful to me. We'll next go to past president Carlucci, who you recognize. Thank you. Where is this located at? District 5, where in District 5? Through the chair to Councilmember Carlucci on the corner of San Diego and Spring Park. Oh, okay. And where are the dollars coming from? Through the chair to Councilmember Carlucci. So there's no appropriation in this legislation. So when the dollars would become due, it's subject to a future appropriation, which, as we discussed, was going to be in fiscal year 28-29. So whether it's in the proposed budget or through separate legislation, a funding source would have to be identified at that time. So if Amendment 3 passes, maybe we could go up to Tallahassee with hat in hand and see if they want to give us some money, huh? You can go up to Tallahassee with hat in hand with or without Amendment 3. Yeah, yeah, because, you know, hopefully that thing doesn't pass. And, okay, well, we need affordable housing. I'll support it. Thank you. I thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Seeing none, yeah, we've got it passed as amended. So please open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. Your actions, you've approved 20-26-0752 as amended. We'll go next to page 8, item number 11, 20-26-0753. We have a motion and second on the amendment. Mr. Eber, would you please explain the amendment? Through the chair to the committee, the amendment will correct the appropriation fiscal year, attach revised Exhibit 1, which is the BT, to correct an account name, and attach the ship disbursement schedule to be in compliance with the municipal code. Okay. Thank you. All those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment passes. Is this on the amendment? Okay. So do we have a motion on the bill as amended? We have a motion and second on the bill as amended. Vice Chair Clark-Murray, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. I simply want to be added as a co-sponsor. Okay. Thank you. Seeing no one else in the queue, please open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By reaction, you've approved 20-26-0753 as amended. Item 12, 20-26-0755. We have a motion and second on the amendment. Ms. Reber, please explain the amendment. Through the chair to the committee, the amendment will include a reference to Ordinance 2025-186 that also appropriated funds to the traffic calming and traffic safety improvements. Thank you. Seeing no one in the queue, 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. Anyone in the queue? I'll just say real quickly, this just makes sense to me. So I applaud Council Member Boylan for this amendment. It gives the district council members the option to be able to do this. They make the decision for their particular districts, and I think it's a reasonable amendment. We go next to Vice Chair Clark Murray. You recognize? Thank you, Chair. I want to be added as a co-sponsor. Thank you, Legislative Services. Okay. Thank you. No one else in the queue? Please open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0755 as amended. Item 13, 2026-0756 is on second read. Item 14, 2026-0765. May I have a motion on the bill, please? 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've approved 2026-0765. Item 15, 2026-0778. We have a motion and second on the bill. We have anyone in the queue. You know what? I'm just going to save my comments for when I see the draft strategic plan. I think no one is commenting. I think we've had four extensions up to this point. And everybody knows what we're looking at here. So we'll look forward to seeing the draft plan. Okay, please open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0778. Item 16, 2026-0779 is deferred due to the Planning Commission. Items 17 and 18, 2026-08100 and 2026-08-02 are on second read. Next page, the rest of these, I believe, are on second read. Item 2026-08-05, 2026-08-06, 2026-08-07, 2026-08-08, 2026-08-09, 2026-08-10, 2026-08-11, 2026-08-13, 2026-08-14, 2026-08-16, 2026-08-17. and also on second read 2026-0832. Is there anything else? Pastor President Carlucci, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Since I don't have a chance to, as a committee member of any other committees, I've been on these committees, this and TEU, all four years with the exception of one. So while I got the attention of some other members who were on those committees and other committees that may be taking up the, I don't want to call it necessarily the public's incentive because it's not for public's, it's for that entire development. And I respect, I can respect the idea of our council president delaying that vote until after the Amendment 3 vote in terms of voting for that incentive. But what if Amendment 3 passes? Does that mean we're not going to vote for the incentive? And so I just want to take this chance because it is a neighborhood issue. Downtown is a neighborhood. And it's not just for Pearl Plaza. It's actually for the entire neighborhood of downtown and Springfield and in other adjoining areas of the downtown area. We can wait until after Amendment 3, but folks, we're going to have to take that up. And regardless of Amendment 3, whether that passes or not, let's say it does pass. That should not dictate how we vote on that incentive this year. It just should not. We have the ability to vote for that now. The money is in place. And we won't be having to appropriate that money until, what, 2028, 2029 on that incentive? I have to tell you, if we certainly, in 2029, 2030, we can certainly vote no on that regardless because we have a green and red button in front of us. But that development group, they've got as much as risk, as much as risk or more than the taxpayers. And they are counting on this city council in this administration to act in good faith in voting for that based on the merits of that project. And we're waiting until Amendment 3. If Amendment 3 passes and we just decide, okay, well, we're just going to vote no because, oh, my gosh, what are we going to do? We've got all this year to figure out what we're going to do with Amendment 3 if that passes. And if we don't pass that, I'm going to tell you, that is going to really put a sour taste in the math of any developer, of these developers right now, who are risking their private money in that development for Jacksonville. And we're lucky to have them to do that. But any other developer that wants to come downtown and invest for Jacksonville, they're going to look at us like, well, we can't count on them. We can't count on them because they're going to be subject to the whims and the whims of politics. So I just want to urge those who are on this floor, I just want to urge those council members who are in this committee to think about that when we get ready to vote. And if Amendment 3 passes, oh, well, we'll have to deal with that. But the amount of money, this incentive, doesn't come up until $29 and $30. And if we pass that, it's not going to make that big a deal in the big scope of things in terms of the big picture of what that amendment is going to cost us. Now, I respect the idea. I do respect the idea of putting it off. I can respect that. But the more I've thought about that over the last couple of weeks, the more I thought, what difference does it make? We've got to make a decision on that. And we've got to make a tough decision. And I just hope we don't let the politics of the fear of the polls keep us from doing the right thing. And because it will hurt more than just not having that development, which is so important to the entire lifeblood of downtown. But I'll tell you, it might be a short-term political gain to vote no, but it will be a long-term loss to downtown Jacksonville. And in your legacy that you leave behind, it will be a long-term loss to your legacy as you walk away. It will be one that you'll wish you could have taken your vote back before you leave. I'm trying to be very kind and very gracious here, but if we could wrap this up, I'd appreciate it. Thank you, Councilman Miller. I appreciate it. You know what? I have served a long time up here, and I have been on the same committees year after year after year and stripped of the committee last year. So if I take a few extra minutes, a few extra seconds after I speak, I don't think that's too much to ask to speak as a senior council member up here. Thank you. And I granted you that, and you said the same thing multiple times. We get your points, and we appreciate your points. Sometimes I'm not sure if you do, Councilman Miller. I've got to tell you, I'm not sure if you all do. We're adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.