Neighborhoods, Community Services, Public Health and Safety Committee - Sep 14, 2026

Good afternoon, everyone. Sorry for the late start. We had a couple of technical things going on here. I think we're good now. Welcome to the September 14th Neighborhoods Community Services Public Health and Safety Committee meeting. We'll start with introductions over with Mr. Delaney, please. Good afternoon. Bill Delaney with the Mayor's Office. Brandon Russell, Council Research. Barry Stafopoulos, Office of General Counsel. Heather Reber, Council Auditor's Office. Ron A. Holder, City Council at Large, Group 1. Good afternoon, Tyrona Clark-Murray, District 9. Good afternoon, Chris Miller at Large, Group 5. Ron Salem, Group 2 at Large. Good afternoon, Jimmy Peluso, District 7. Michael Boylan, District 6. Last but not least, good afternoon, Rockman Johnson, District 14, the West Side. All right, thank you, everyone. Do we have any, I'm sorry, I heard a couple more comments here, so I want to make sure we didn't miss something from someone. Okay, thank you. Before we get started, I just wanted to ask Ms. Stafopoulos to make a couple comments about excused absences, unexcused absences on the front end. We have today for the meeting, we have one excused, which is Council Member Carlucci, and the other unexcused, Council Member Carrico, but it's based on which one came in first on the front end. So I just, if you would, Ms. Stafopoulos. Yes, of course, through the chair to the committee. So Rule 2.202 is what addresses attendance at committee meetings of the council, and it provides that you can have one council member excused from a regular meeting of a standing committee meeting, with the exception that you can have additional absences that are authorized for things, three specific things. There's an exception for medical issue of the council member or an immediate family member, military service, and a third one that was recently added for when a council member has an obligation to their outside employer that they cannot reschedule, they can miss up to four committee meetings total in a council year. And with respect to the neighborhoods committee, the chair announced at the beginning of the year that he would take the excusal requests, and then he would just, rather than deliberating as to who would get the excusal, it's just first come, first serve. So in this instance, we had two council members that submitted excusal requests. None of them were for one of the three categories that I recently met, that I just mentioned. And so the first in time was Mr. Carlucci, and so he's in excused absence, and the second one is in unexcused absence. Where that really affects the committee today is, because you have one excused absence, your quorum requirement is five, and therefore no one can leave the dais during the pendency of the meeting unless the chair wants to take a brief recess to allow a member to step away. So that's where this rule really comes into play as far as the committee today. Any questions on that? Yes, Dr. Johnson, you recognize. I know I'm not on the committee, but I appreciate you indulging me, Mr. Chair. Through the chair to Mr. Fopolis, could the chair, and I'm just procedurally, could the chair excuse the absence during the meeting, or does the excused absence have to occur prior to the gaveling of the meeting? Through the chair to Council Member Johnson. So with respect to the reason for the absence, that would be part of what would have to be considered by the chair. And I believe this chair didn't address at the beginning of the year how he was going to handle late arrivals, early departures. And I don't think that's the case here, because the two members who aren't here are not going to be present for the duration of the meeting. If a member had to excuse themselves from the meeting today, during the meeting, if it didn't fall within one of the three categories for exceptions to the rule, then it would be an unexcused absence from the meeting. But if Council Member, I'm just making it up, if Council Member Carlucci could, if let's say he sent in an excusal now, maybe it hasn't come in, let's say it's something going on, it comes in, could the chair during the meeting accept the excusal, which then lowers, the reason I'm asking the question, could that then lower the quorum threshold during the meeting? The chair may not excuse any more than one Council Member from a meeting unless they fall within one of the three categories. It could have. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate that. Thank you. Do we have any public comment cards? Thank you. Okay. We have Mr. Carnot Oliver. And Mr. Oliver, if you will focus on one of the bills that we're considering today, I would appreciate it. And if you'll state your name and address for the record, please. Yes. My name is Carnot Oliver. I just want to ask for a waiver for just one moment and make a comment about Rockman Johnson and Johnson's comment. Council members should not be part-time. They should be completely obligated to the people they serve. That's my comment. And focus on the issue that I'm bringing forward to hand. 2026-072. Linda Bell, Eunice Bartom, brought an issue to me about an issue about this affordable house and donating of public land. Jacoby Pittman did not go through the proper process. She violated the Sunshine Law, number one. The 1866 Civil Rights Act, the first section of it, talks about contract agreements, just like what my business is talking about with American Freedom Initiative. Number two, land rights under the 82 section. She got this one wrong. And the one thing that I'm expecting is that this council does not take this bill up. Because we got a lot of house cleaning to do within our own community. And when I talk about my own community, I'm talking about American freedmen and white Americans who fall underneath the actual real civil rights act that made this country what it is. You step out of the line and you realize a lot of furniture has been broken. I have been consistent with my message. I want accountability. I've already submitted complaints to the Office of Inspector General. I submitted a complaint to the mayor's office. But my chances are is that I'm not going to be heard. Just like my business plan, American freedmen will not be heard because the intentional actions of racial discrimination underneath the 81 section. There is accountability. And this one project and the way she handled business and old freedmen settlements, it should come with accountability measures. You know, trying to get my words out without me cussing is one of the hardest things speaking to y'all. Because, simple fact, y'all know better. But you choose not to do better. You took an oath of offer and you did not uphold those constitutional laws from the federal, state, local level oath of offer. And accountability is coming. Thank you, Mr. Oliver. Okay, we have a couple of visiting council members here. We're going to take up their bills first. And I believe each of us should have a handout here and we'll follow that agenda. And then we'll pick up at the beginning of the published agenda after that. So we're going to start with page 11, item 14. And that is 2026-0663. I have a motion second on the bill. Past President Salem, you recognize. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair to Council Member Johnson, we had a lot of discussion about the Council on Physical Fitness last year. Didn't have a board. Been vacant for quite some time. And you're asking for the dollars to be shifted to the next physical year. Where are we with all that? Can you enlighten us, please? Absolutely. Thank you. Through the Chair to Dr. Salem. The Mayor's Council on Fitness and Well-Being had pretty much been defunct when I came in as we spoke about it. Took time to, many of the members who were on the previous board were not interested in being on and continuing. So I had to go out, try to recruit new members. We have them. We are in the process. We haven't had the first culmination meeting, which should be coming up next month. And we're working to ward with Dr. Kia Mitchell Kemp. There's a National World Obesity Day, so that will be the signature initiative of this board, at least what I'm going to present to them. Long story short, it's just not finished yet, and that's why I asked for this carryover so that this event can happen. As you remember, there were no funds allocated to it, so these were the funds that came from the strategic initiative funds that I had for District 14. One other question, if I can. Do those appointments require council approval? From my understanding, they do not. They would just be the mayor just saying, yes, it's okay that they serve on the board. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you. Seeing no one else in the queue, please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0663. We'll next go to page number 21, I believe. Item number 26. Make sure I get the right one myself here. 2026-0688. Motion and second on the emergency. Ms. Reber, would you please explain the emergency? Through the chair to the committee, the nature of the emergency is that the current grant agreement will expire September 30th. Okay. No one in the queue? Okay. Pastor President Salem, you're recognized. I can ask my questions on the bill if you want to get through the emergency. Okay. Sure. All those in favor of the emergency, please signify by saying yes. All those opposed, no. The emergency passes. And we have a motion and a second on moving the bill as an emergency. Past President Salem, you're recognized. Through the chair to Heather, what's the dollar amount we're moving? It's not reflected in the summary here. Through the chair to Council Member Salem. So we're just extending the grant agreement, but the dollars associated with that grant agreement is $143,710. Have any of those dollars been spent? They are currently obligated, but they have not been spent. So that's 100% of what we appropriated originally. Through the chair, our financial system says it's the $143,710 that's currently obligated, and nothing's been spent. So that would be 100% of the funds. Thank you. Yes, please, Dr. Johnson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me clear some things up. Not to, and Ms. Reber has been so helpful in the finance team. This is not the, with all due respect, not to say that you're incorrect. Based on what we see now of these funds, yes, this is 100% of those funds. The original funds were appropriated under Councilman Gaffney Sr. When I came on board, this is prior to Judge Ruth becoming the chair of the board, they were trying to use the funds. But as you know, Stanton is such an old building. There had to be certain contractors doing things in certain ways in order for that, the funds to be spent. It took time. So I did the carryover for this one because we had just done that carryover from last year. They were waiting on a window vendor. Judge Ruth came, sat down with me, and you and I talked about it, or we talked during committee. I wanted to make sure all the pieces were in place. The problem is the agreement with the general counsel's office had not been ratified until, I think, about a week ago. And that's why I put this in as an emergency, just to carry it over. They have the vendor now that's been approved for the historic places. Judge Ruth has given us a plan of action. They will have these funds spent. It's just they didn't meet that window. Hope that explains it. So it wasn't, not to say the initial amount, I think it was like $300,000, I think, Gaffney put in, Gaffney Sr. But $300,000, they did spend a part of it for the roof. But now the roof and the windows is what's going to keep the building from being demolished by neglect. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. No one else in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0688 as an emergency. We'll next go to page 29. No, change that. Page 30. Item 30, excuse me, item 44. 2026-0717. We have a motion and second on the emergency. No one in the queue. Now we have Dr. I think we're fine unless someone comments. Okay, no one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Excuse me. Yeah, jumping ahead so quickly. All those in favor of the emergency, please signify by saying aye. Those opposed, no. Emergency passes. Okay, we have a motion and second on the bill as an emergency. We have Dr. Salem, you recognize. Man, I don't mean to dominate this. Can someone briefly explain Project T? I haven't had a chance to research that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would love to be able to do that. I was afraid of that. Through the chair to Dr. Salem and Todd Rubin as well as Ed Randolph are here. It's a film project. It's called Project T Codename because we're under contract not to discuss the actual name of it. The players in it. Major Hollywood production. It's going to net. I think the number is, Todd, am I right? We're spending $5 million in the, about $5 million economic impact to the Jacksonville area. And so we just hadn't gotten there literally a month away from the contract process, and that's why we needed to carry these funds over. And it's the same one, too, Dr. Salem. Just while I'm talking, so I don't have to talk again. The same thing that's coming up for the next bill, so I don't have to talk on that one. There's the Emerging Filmmakers Grant at $10,000 apiece. But as you know, with that Emerging Filmmaker Grant, they have to go through the contract process with the Office of General Counsel. That's just happening, so they just needed to carry over so we won't hit up against the deadline of this budget year. Thanks. All right. We have Council Member Peluso. You're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to Council Member Johnson. I just want to know, is Ice-T going to be in this movie? Project T. Through the chair, Project T, not Ice-T. But I will say, having been a really big part of this, thanks so much to Todd Rubin for all the great work you've done. The name, the actors, huge. And it's going to be a big boom for Jacksonville. But it will not be Ice-T. I was just going to say, is this going to be like the sequel to Friday? I mean, I'd be into it. All right. Thank you. Okay. Is that it? All right. No one else in the queue. Please open the bow. Record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By reaction, you'll be approved 2026-0717 as an emergency. We will then go to the next page, page 31, and item 45, 2026-0718. I have a motion. Do I have a second on the emergency? Do I have a motion and a second on the emergency? Ms. Reaver, would you please explain the emergency? Through the chair to the committee, the nature of the emergency is that the funds will lapse on September 30th. Okay. Yeah, I think we have a similar situation here on a few of these, given the time of the year. Okay. Thank you. No one in the queue. All those in favor of the emergency, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The emergency passes. We have a motion. Do we have a second on the bill as an emergency? Do I have a second? All, let's see, no one in the queue. All those in favor, excuse me, open the ballot and record your vote. We've got no one in the queue. You guys are throwing me. Could I get a second whenever we bring those up? I'd appreciate it. Five yays, zero nays. All right. By your action, you've approved 2026-0718. Same page, item 46, 2026-0719. Motion, second on the emergency. No one in the queue. All those in favor of the emergency, signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. Emergency passes. The motion is second on the bill as an emergency. No one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By your actions, you approve 2026-0719 as an emergency. We'll go next to Council Member Boylan's two bills. We'll go to item number seven on page five. That's 2026-0570. We have a rule substitute. We have a motion and second on the rules substitute. I'm sorry? Yes. Oh, either Council Member Boylan or Ms. Reber. How would you like to do that? That's fine. I'd probably best that I'd... Okay. If you don't mind, Ms. Reber, I'll do it. If you take a look at the handouts, you have a couple of them there. One of them, Cidal Electric Bicycle Ordinance 2026-570. It itemizes the nine changes we made to the original bill as it was drafted. I'm not going to go through my entire spiel, but this morning I commented on the fact that, you know, as it stands right now, any child who qualifies by reaching the pedals of an e-bike can go 30 miles an hour or 28 miles an hour plus on a sidewalk. And that didn't make a lot of sense to me and to a lot of folks out there. To that end, I have to say over seven years, this bill has won as I've received the most, other than my CQLI work, efforts and interest in supporting this. People are just saying we've got to do something, and this bill today, ordinance today, does something. So to Council Member Peluso's question, if you will take a look at that sheet I hand out, I'm going to walk you through very quickly the changes that are embedded into the substitute. Number one, obviously a definition of shared use path. Number two, added is authorized locations for the use of e-bikes on that path and extending the sidewalk operating requirements to include, then, the shared use paths. Item number four, initially when we drafted the bill, we put it into 10 miles per hour. The JSO, and I want to comment again on the support, working with JSO on this bill and understanding the challenges of enforcement, which I'm sure we'll talk about in a second. It's important for me to point out to my colleagues who are not at rules this morning, that state statute does require that if a city or county takes up an ordinance, a municipal county takes up an ordinance like this, the limitations on the speed limit on sidewalks and sidewalk areas, as it says in the statute, requires that we make the speed limit on those at 15 miles per hour. So we settled at 15, and OGC has advised me that this bill cannot, if this bill does not include that, we can't, this bill can't move forward, because it would be, and contrary to the state statutes. Item number five, and what we tried to do here in the context of this bill is to address the, one of the concerns that JSO has brought to us about the fact by putting a speed limit in place, we limit their discretionary decision-making when it comes to making a determining unsafe operation of an e-bike on sidewalks and pathways. In the bill, it says, unsafe operation may be established based upon a manner of operation and the conditions existing at the time, and does not require proof of the electric bicycle's precise speed. In other words, if we happen to send it and successful in getting this bill passed, 15 miles an hour becomes the standard in this process. And if a JSO officer happens to see a young man or a young woman on an e-bike on a sidewalk going clearly faster than that, it doesn't mean they have to put a gun on it to prove it. They can identify that as unsafe operation and cite them accordingly. So we try and re-instill the discretionary concern they talked about yet. Item number six, although I'd like to see it in the bill, and many people would, we have limited, we eliminated any age limitation, leaving that to the discretion of parents and guardians to making determination as to whether or not their child are in a position mentally, physically, and otherwise to handle an e-bike. Number seven speaks as to the modification of these devices. And then eight and nine speak to a couple of other things. One of the concerns that was raised in rules last time when the bill was brought up was the fact that the cost associated with signage, speed limit signs, throughout the city. I reached out to Chris Ledoux. I don't believe he's here this afternoon, but he was here this morning to get some clarification over the requirements. The state statutes do not specify the number of speed limit signs or the location of the speed limit signs. However, the uniform traffic control devices, the manual on that, does specify that speed limit signs could be, should be mounted at the entrance to the state or to the appropriate jurisdictional, I'm sorry, be installed at the entrances of the quote-unquote appropriate judicial boundaries in urban areas. In other words, as we discussed this morning, we're looking at probably 26, 27 signs on the main arteries leading in and out into Jacksonville. So we were trying to minimize the cost with respect to the concern that was raised with respect to the signage situation. And lastly, and in context with that, one thing we added to the bill most recently was a retailer slash education provision. In other words, and Matt Fall, here was from the planning department this morning, talking about how aggressive they are going to be in providing and making it as easy as possible for the brick-and-mortar retailers who sell e-bikes, that they can post a sign, some information that directs folks to both FDOT or to the cities or the TBO, others who have a wealth of information regarding the safe operation of e-bikes on our streets and highways and sidewalks. I should point out, too, the speed limit situations we talked about specifically apply only to sidewalks as shared pathways. Speed on the regular roadway is, as the current statute allows, which is 28 miles per hour. But that was put in there only so that we can raise the level of understanding of the potential change in this ordinance that puts a speed limit on sidewalks and sidewalk areas. And working with DCPS and others, we think this is really important. As I mentioned when I started out this conversation, a lot of folks just say, quote-unquote, we've got to do something about the sea bike situation. And this bill is the first step in that process. So I'm looking forward to your support of this and be glad to answer any questions. And with that, I would encourage that you move the substitute. We'll go next to Dr. Salem. You recognize? We spent considerable time on this over the weekend. Over the weekend. Seems like the weekend. This morning. I voted against it for a couple reasons. One is the signs. The sheriff's office has indicated to me if there are not signs up all over the place on sidewalks, they will feel uncomfortable enforcing it. And number two, there's a state law that says if someone's recklessly driving an e-bike, they can take action just from that. And we don't necessarily need the ordinance. I would love somebody from JSO, the appropriate person, to come up and give us your feelings on the bill as it stands today. Good afternoon. I think it is. Through the chair, I agree with Councilman Salem that we do have the state statute that we will most likely use the majority of the time. The state statute usually has more teeth than a municipal ordinance does. And it is easier working through a state statute through the court system than this particular bill would be. And part of that is going to be the signage and the speed limits. In my opinion, as a law enforcement officer, it would be difficult to go in front of a court and defend writing someone a citation for speeding on an e-bike if there is no signage there indicating what that speed is. Therefore, I believe JSO is going to fall back on the state statutes. When we see an individual who is riding recklessly on a sidewalk on an e-bike, then we will take appropriate action. So, through the chair, it is my feeling from hearing from JSO that they're going to use the state law and reckless driving, for lack of a better term, as their way of enforcing this, which may leave this bill as something we might pass, but is not being used to enforce e-bikes. So, that's my feeling. Thank you, chair. Thank you. We'll go next to Councilmember Peluso, who we recognize. Thank you, chair. Through the chair to the sponsor, obviously the work that you've done here is impeccable as it tends to be, so I'm grateful to you for doing this. There's a lot of issues in my district involving e-bikes and scooters, which I know we talked about how this isn't necessarily scooters, but could kind of lead to that. Is there a date that this starts? Can we change the date, perhaps, so that we have a later time to find funding for signs and stuff like that? Because I think JSO is right. If there's not signage, then, yeah, it might be difficult in front of a court to push back on this. So, if we said January 1 is when this started and we were able to find a couple bucks between now and then, is that something that's of interest to you? Through the chair, if I may. Number one, the only thing we put time sensitive is on the last piece, the new retailer education provision. But that would not go into effect for 60 days once the bill, assuming, is approved by council and signed by the mayor. That gives the planning department and others the opportunity to educate the retailers about what's available to them, at no charge or effort, frankly, to educate potential buyers of these e-bikes. Recognize, in fact, that that takes us on or about to November 1st. And you rest assured, we're going to see a huge infusion of e-bikes as Christmas presents this year, holiday presents. So, we're going to see a lot more of these bikes on the road. And making sure that we educate folks and letting them know that there is a speed limit now on sidewalks and shared pathways, I think, is sufficient. And I do appreciate the point. I get it. And I fully expect there will be many communities and developments in HOAs who will gladly create such signage and post it themselves. Because I've heard from a lot of folks in various developments talking about this particular issue and looking for the opportunity to do that. So, I see you'll see a lot of work that way. I think deferring this until we can identify the funding or even the rationale for it. I mean, Lord knows I drive a lot of different roads in Jacksonville. I don't see speed limit signs everywhere in the context of that process. So, as we make a determination, perhaps over a period of time and with the help of JSO, where we are seeing incidents of high speed on e-bike beaches and other places, then maybe we should take a look at it and say, as needed, the signage could go into place and work at that front. But to me, this is a starting point in this bill. You know, and it's not a perfect bill. But it allows you and I and all of our colleagues for that matter to be saying, we're doing something about this. And this is a good start, in my view, in that process. But to your question, I would not suggest we move in that front, defer this, because I think finding the funding, even making a determination of what that would look like. But, as I heard this morning from Chris Ledoux, you know, all we are required to do, and that's the minimum, and I appreciate that, is to do it at the main entranceways into the area. Through the chair. Through the chair to the bill sponsor. Okay, thank you for that answer. I mean, I'm not saying we defer it. I'm just saying we add potentially a date that this actually starts execution. That way we have a little bit more time to kind of work on it. I mean, if that's not what you want to do, so be it. The other thing is the minimum age, you are removing that, which I understand why. If you're using an app, if I'm using Lime or Bird or one of the other ones, I can't remember if state law, is there a state minimum age to be able to use one of them? Does anyone on JSO know anyone else here? Any of our attorneys? I can't remember. Like, I'd be fine putting in an age so that Lime, Bird, and also, is Peter Sherwell in here? Sorry. All right. But, right, like, I'm okay with using that for the, if somebody's going to privately own one, that's one thing. But the ones that are going to be on our right-of-ways that are app-based, I would be okay having an age restriction. And I wasn't sure if state law already has that currently or if we could add that, because that is something I wouldn't mind doing. Well, the age limit was taken out to accommodate the concerns raised by JSO as an effort to meet, you know, them halfway on some of these issues. The two managers, and under Sheriff Corsi can speak to this, but I was communicating to me two very serious concerns. Number one, the ability to enforce it, and number two, the age limit. And so we took out the age limit and raised the speed limit. So I thought we came to a pretty good place on this. To the Chair, Chief, Under Sheriff, do you know if there's an age right now under state law? All right. Maybe I'll try to dig into this. I can live with this substitute, and I can live with this bill. I think the work you put in makes sense. I do believe that if there's real concerns or if this thing finds – we find out that it's defunct and can't really be used, then it's just not going to be enforceable. But I got no problem kind of moving forward on it. If it's unenforceable, then I'm assuming JSO has got other things to do. Okay. We'll go next to Ms. Stepopoulos. You were recognized. Thank you. Thank you. Through the Chair to the committee and for consideration, one of the things that was included in the rules substitute was establishing a 60-day effectiveness delay for the signage to be posted. And Mr. Boylan did touch on this a little bit. So the effective date of the bill is when the mayor returns it signed or unsigned, and that's a little bit of a moving target that's not publicly available. So when it comes to an effective date being built off the effective date of the bill, it would be difficult for most people to be able to ascertain what that day is because they won't know when the mayor has returned it to legislative services. So my recommendation – and, of course, you may want to ask Council Member Boylan to weigh in on this as the bill introducer – is that you pick a date for that provision to be effective. So if it's December 1st or January 1st, whatever that date might be, so it's approximately 60 days out, and then that way there's a set date, and we don't have to go find out when did the mayor sign it, when did she return it, because that's just not information that would be available to staff in general. So to the extent that the committee would want to consider that, you can offer that as an amendment to the substitute after you've taken up the substitute, but I just wanted to put that on your radar for consideration. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We'll go next. Then I'll come back to that. We'll go next to Vice Chair. Clark Murray, you recognize? Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair, let's go ahead and continue with Ms. Stepopoulos, her recommendation in regards to dates, because I think that is important. Through the Chair to Council Member Boylan, the fact that Christmas is coming up is extremely important, and we know that e-bikes will be given as gifts, and we want as many people as possible to be educated before they receive those gifts. So through the Chair to Mr. Boylan or Ms. Stepopoulos, suggesting a date, a day certain. Thank you. I think 12-1 makes sense to me. It puts us a little more than 60 days out, I think. Yep. September, October. Yes. So we're sure to get done. And I'm really interested in making sure the brick-and-mortar retailers have that information in hand by 12-1. And I know the planning department and others are available to do that, so that when the bikes are sold pre-Christmas, that that information is readily available to the parents. Thank you. Thank you so much for that. And just continuing, because I do have the floor, I know that JSO has a concern about enforcement, and I understand the concern. Like, what will you do if you stop someone? What's your justification for stopping someone who's on an e-bike? Well, just like we stated, it doesn't have to be based on speed. It could be based on just the recklessness of the person's act. And I've seen plenty of recklessness in the times that e-bikes have been out, in addition to some of the other new ways of transportation. The other thing is that you're concerned about the individual who's operating the bike having knowledge. Well, I'm sure this is going to go out on a broadcast, so that's part of the knowledge. The fact that this committee and the other committees, if we exercise good common sense, we'll pass this bill. It doesn't have to be perfect, but it's a start. And I think the expectation of the city and of our constituents is that we start somewhere, because this is a problem. I think they're tired of us operating from once-a-child-is-killed position. And once again, think about retention ponds. We keep operating out of, instead of being proactive, reactive. Well, let's be proactive. Most of the injuries and deaths that I've heard of are not in Duval County. They're in St. John's County. But just as sure as we are sitting here, it's going to happen. And if we had the opportunity to do something and we didn't do something, shame on us. But I'll go back to the knowledge piece. So in a court of law, we know that there are different kinds of tests and different kinds of standards. So you have the should-have-known or should-know standard. This helps to operate as the should-know or should-have-known. This is knowledge. We go through those e-bike retailers and those who purchase the bikes and whom they're giving them to. They will know what the rules are in regards to this city and operating an e-bike. So that right there is an opportunity or a reason to stop or give the enforcement because they should have known what the rules were in regards to operating one. So, once again, this bill doesn't have to be perfect. It's a start. It's not anything new to change and amend bills. But once again, it's a start. And I think the city expects us to start somewhere. And it's a great start. Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you. Knowing no one else in the queue to be in the right posture, we're going to take a verbal vote on the substitute, correct? Okay. All those in favor of the rules substitute, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. We have three yeses and one no. Excuse me. Four yeses and one no. Yeah. So, absolutely, we have a motion and a second on the bill that's substituted, and we have Council Member Boylan with an amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the Chair, as Ms. Tafopla suggested, I amend that the bill goes into effect no sooner than December 1st, 2026. Need a motion and a second on that, please. Yeah, Mr. Chair, I believe the discussion was that the provision that had that 60-day effectiveness delay with respect to the signage being posted by the retailers, that the date, rather than saying 60 days from the effective date of the bill, it would say December 1st, 2026 would be the date that that requirement would go into effect, and that's the amendment, I think, that Council Member Boylan is. That's your intent. Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any discussion? That would need to be an amendment that gets moved and seconded. Okay, I thought I heard one. Okay, so we have a motion and a second on the Boylan substitute, excuse me, Boylan amendment, rather. Any discussion? All those in favor of the Boylan amendment, please signify by saying yes. Those opposed, no. The Boylan amendment passes. Mr. Chair, may I roll that into the... Yes, please. So then what you'll do is move the bill as substituted, and that, if it's passed, will become the neighborhood substitute. Okay, we have a motion and second on the bill as substituted. Anyone else on discussion overall? I had, if not, I had one question. I'm not sure who the right person is to answer this. My concerns are on enforcement. That is a concern. We've heard from JSO what they would more than likely do regarding enforcement, and it sounds like it would be more associated with the state statute. Reckless driving would be the focus for them. I get the desire to do something because of the very real concerns that we in our neighboring counties have experienced. I get that. My concern is are we fixing accountability and then making people think about this and the instructions that they give their children or whether they even get the e-bike or not, given that some of them can now go 50, 50 miles, 50, 55 miles an hour, some of these e-bikes now. So do we want them on the sidewalks? They're there. My concern, and that's why I said that, my concern is, and one of the lawyers maybe who worked on this could answer this, as state statute currently reads, do we affix responsibility on the individual riding the e-bike? And my concern would be that they yield to all pedestrians. Is there anything in place right now that requires all e-bikes ridden on the sidewalks? Because it's a sidewalk, it's not a side ride, but it seems we've turned them into side rides with all the bicycles, the e-bikes, and other things operating on them. I'm concerned about the pedestrians. They're the main ones supposed to be using these sidewalks. I have a friend who was walking with her young boy, walking hand-in-hand down the sidewalk, and a speeding teenager from behind on an e-bike just plowed right into both of them. She's pregnant, broke her nose. Thankfully, the baby in her womb was still okay after the scans. But both of them really, really shooken up and still to this day are. And so my concern is, is that already built in the state statute to hold someone accountable who does not yield to pedestrians when they're riding these e-bikes on the sidewalks? If there's someone who could speak to that, I'd appreciate it. I'm Corey Milo, the Assistant General Counselor who assisted with the preparation of this legislation with Council Member Boylan. I will note that the legislation as drafted does include a provision that says that they can be found in violation if they fail to yield to pedestrians where required. So that is language that is included in the bill, and that is still in there with the substitute. But to the extent of if you think that language should be different, but it is in there. Yeah, if it is in there like that, I guess I would want to know what, please define where required, because in my mind, it should be everywhere on that sidewalk. Anyone riding, young or old, riding an electric bike should be yielding to pedestrians. Good afternoon. Corey Milo with the Office of General Counsel. I can speak to the Florida State statute. Currently, as written, riders must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before overtaking and passing pedestrians. That's what it reads or how it reads in the Florida State statute. Okay. And then with regard to our ordinance, we put in there that they have to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians at all times. So that's in the ordinance, as well as provide an audible signal before passing a pedestrian and shall pass in a safe manner at a safe distance. Okay. That's, to me, that's very clear, unless I've missed something in both fronts, both the state and what's been introduced. So thank you for that. And then it becomes a matter of publicizing, educating, communicating, and making sure everyone fully knows. And that's where I think there's some goodness in the recommendation for the effective date. And it gives time for everyone to be able to educate and communicate what's been done here. So thank you very much, Mr. Milo. I appreciate that. Anyone else? Yeah. It looks like we've got a few more people who have some comments here. Council Member Palouseau, you recognize. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair to the bill sponsor. Just want to make sure. So as I understand it, there is no minimum age in state statute right now, unless I'm, unless it's wrong, Mr. Milo. There's no minimum age in state statute? No minimum age. There we go. No minimum age. So I would be, I'm going to talk with Peter Sherwell today. I'm going to find out if there is a way to, and maybe they already do on some of the apps that currently exist today. But I might want to add language for that, just for those, those apps, right? Not the privately owned ones. If that's something that you'd be okay with by tomorrow. Understood. All right. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. We'll go next to Dr. Salem. You recognize. Oh, okay. He's withdrawn. No one else. So, okay. Help remind me where we are today. Of course, Mr. Chair. So, the motion has been made to move the bill as substituted, which includes that amendment that was proposed and approved by the committee to establish the specific date of December 1st for the effectiveness of that retailer signage provision. And so you're ready to put it to ballot if there's no one else left in the queue. Okay. Thank you. No one else in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Four yays, one nay. By your action, you've approved 2026-0570 as substituted. Okay. I believe, let's see. Yes, we have one more for Council Member Boyland on page seven, I believe. Sorry about that. I need to get there myself. I have two copies here. So, I get to the right page. Here we are. Page seven, item number nine, 2026-0624. We have a motion, and do I have a second on the rules amendment? Through the chair to the committee, the rules amendment will establish that a maximum of 50% of the award amount may be initially advanced, with the remaining 50% to be paid out upon receipt and approval of documentation, confirming the initial advance was spent accordingly, and then corrects Scrivener's errors. All right. Thank you. We have a motion and second on the rules amendment. Boy, this is something here. And it's written on our documents here. We'll go to Vice Chair Clark-Murray, you're recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So, through the chair to my colleague, Mr. Peluso. So, previously, the auditors had a concern in regards to the awarding of these grants. And initially, the language in the legislation stated that they would receive 100% of their funding, as opposed to 10%. So, the auditor at that time talked about what they would be more comfortable with. And I think Councilmember Salem offered the amendment so that they are no longer going to receive 100%, they'll receive 50%. Well, she may not look very comfortable, but that's what the amendment is from rules. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. All right. Yes, please. Councilmember Boylan, please, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, we went through this this morning, as we said. The micro-grant program has been in the works for multiple years. Ms. Figueroa, if you want to come on up. And as you know, last year, we would put a pause on it for two reasons. Number one, the money, the PSG Council had not yet put together its program at the appropriate time. And then, Councilmember Freeman at the time then was able to pull those dollars out and use it someplace else. Okay. And then we had the situation with the CBA coming along. And grants and compliance was not in a position, as per the administration, to monitor and manage the micro-grant program on top of the CBA Eastside program. And so, what happened was we've kind of put this on the table, you know, deferred it for a while in order to get our house in order. And that's where we are. So, this is not a new bill. It's been three or four years in the making. The PSG Council has been very diligent in putting together the program itself, the requirements of the program, the reporting process. It is adhering to a bill that we passed prior that's saying that no grants can be less than $10,000 in this process. And the concern that was raised, and we addressed this morning, as Councilmember Clark very correctly pointed out, was the concern raised by the auditors that 100% of the funding was supposed to be up fronted. We changed that to 50%. So, I think we're in a pretty good place. And Ms. Figueroa, if you want to comment any further than that. We, yeah, I'm going to take a pause here. We haven't voted on the amendment yet. Correct. Yeah, I think, because we're starting to get into some details of the overall bill, if we could take the rules amendment first. Do we have anyone who wants to speak on the amendment itself? Okay. Yeah. Let's go first to Councilmember Peluso. You recognize? Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair to Ms. Reber. I just want to, because what percentage would make our auditors feel a little bit more comfortable? Through the Chair to Councilmember Peluso. So, the percentage that's stated in the code, the 10%, would be what we would be comfortable with, because that's part of the code. We are still not comfortable with the 50% up front. Understood. But this is only for the microgrants? 10% of the grant. Okay. Understood. All right. Thank you. We'll go next to Dr. Salem. You recognize? Thank you, Chair. Roughly $220,000 involved here. Probably, I think, around 15 grants, roughly. 10 to 20. So, basically, we're at risk for half of that, or 50-something thousand if something should go wrong. I'm sorry, 100 thousand if something should go wrong, versus fronting the whole 220,000 at one time. You know, you've got to find middle ground here. I hear what the auditors are saying, but 50% is a lot better than fronting 100%, Ms. Reber. So, I think it's a reasonable compromise, and I encourage you to move forward. Thank you. Okay. We'll go back to Council Member Palouse, so you recognize. I understand. Thank you, Chair. Through the bill sponsor, does that percentage make you feel a little bit more comfortable, or have you been working with the administration on this? Actually, the amendment was offered this morning by Councilman Salem. So, if he said yes, if he's happy with it, I'm happy with it. You're said. Through the chair to our grants chief, is this something that you'd be comfortable with, 50% up front? Do you think that you have the capacity to even handle these grants? Maribel Figueroa, Grants and Contract Compliance, and I'm here with the vice chair of the Public Service Grant Council. There was a question as to whether they supported that or not, which I can respond in terms of my position. I'm comfortable with that because it does include carry-forward language. Initially, the reason that we wanted to make sure that we get the funds out there is they had about a six-month window that they would spend that, so we will extend that. But we can make it work, and we do have tighter controls in place to make sure that we monitor it very, very closely. I understand. Through the chair to Mr. Delaney, is the administration okay with us? Through the chair to Council Member Poulouse, so we don't have any objection to this. All right, no one else in the queue. We're on the rules amendment right now, right? So we take a verbal. All those in favor of the rules amendment, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The rules amendment passes. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. Anyone in the queue? Okay, I just had one. Actually, maybe two questions here. I was concerned about the 100% up front. I am personally, I would like to see it lean more toward the 10%, but I get the middle ground that was achieved, and so I thank Council Member Salem and others for that. One of my questions was, and this may have been covered in previous discussions. Ms. Figueroa, I know we've talked a number of times. We've had some good meetings, and your board members really appreciate the thinking and the focus on continuing to improve each year and to be able to make the process a better process as we go forward. This is a little bit in the weeds, but I just want to ask it. What adjustments were made to the number of scores and the criteria? Because that was of concern previously. Have we adjusted that for this process for the upcoming year? To the Chair, the scorers, in terms of the micro-grant program, the scorers will be the Public Service Grant Council. That is different than the regular Public Service Grants. If you're asking about the regular Public Service Grants, the scorers are at least five, and there are three categories, 15, and so basically five per category are the scores there. I don't believe, I'm trying to remember the language, I don't believe that we changed the legislation to say five minimum. I believe it was still at three minimum, but it works out that we have 15 and basically five scores per category, if that's your question. And then as far as the micro-grants, how many are involved in that process? The way that this is written, the PSG Council will be the scores, which are 15, unless there are conflicts of interest, and those cannot score. Okay, that's great. That's all I had at this time. I know we'll have further discussions going forward. And again, I appreciate those exchanges because I think collectively with Council Member Boylan and others' involvement and previously, Council Member Salem and others, we continue to make this process run better with you and your team working with us on this. Okay, no one else in the queue? Please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0624 as amended, I believe, would be the right term there. Thank you. All right, I thank you, Council Member Boylan. A lot of good work on both of those. Thank you very much. There was one more that I wanted to take up earlier. If we could just take one step back to, let's see, make sure I have the right one. Item number 8, 2026-0588. We have motion and second on the rules amendment. Ms. Reber, would you please give an overview of the rules amendment? Through the chair to the committee, the rules amendment will increase the maximum rev grant amount from $1 million to $1.5 million. It will increase the grant payout from 10 years to 11 years and increase the capital investment amount from $20 million to $28.5 million. Correct the project address and the name of the entity that completed the project. And correct the public investment policy waiver language within the bill. Place the revised economic development agreement on file to correct the project address, base year, changes to the term of the rev grant mentioned above, the capital investment amount, and Scrivener's errors. Okay. On the amendment, either one of you? On the bill. Okay. All those in favor of the rules amendment, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment passes. We have motion and second on the bill. As amended, we'll go first to past president Salem. You're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Debenow is in the audience, might want to speak. Councilmember Amaro was here this morning. It's in his district. I live very close to Councilmember Amaro. So anyone that's driven down Arlington Expressway is familiar with these three buildings. This is for the first of the three. We hope the other two are down the road. And I have visited the property, toured the building a couple different times, and I think it's a good project. I encourage you to support it. But if you have any questions, Mr. Debenow is here. We'll go next to Councilmember Peluso. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair to Mr. Debenow. I thought that some of these were affordable or had an affordable component. Is that another part of this, or is that just a misconception that I have? No, through the Chair to Councilmember Peluso, Steve Debenow, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200. I'm here on behalf of the applicant and the property owner. Mark Cosman is here with me as well, who's one of the owners and the manager of the property. There were discussions two years ago about an affordable component of the project generally. And this is a conversation that we have this morning at Rules as well. In the workforce and in the community that this property is located in, the units are essentially affordable already. It's workforce housing. They're not subsidized units, but the rents, by the way, the buildings are, the first building is 70% occupied. But the rents are, would be considered affordable under our regular metrics. But they're not deed restricted or limited in any way. That will probably be, if future phases are developed, that will probably be a component of those negotiations. Long answer to your question. Short answer is, no, there's no restrictions. Good, Chair. So I just want to make sure, is this one of the buildings that's already done? It's the building, right. This building had a rev grant already in place. And the building was not finished in time. The rev grant lapsed. And so we requested that the rev grant be reinstated. The administration introduced a bill that came before this body about a month ago that was for a project that was $20 million with a million-dollar rev grant. The actual building costs closer to $28.5 million. And so we asked that the rev grant be increased from the million to 1.5, which keeps the ratios and the ROI essentially the same, which is, as we discussed at the Rules Committee, also is about $1.34. Understood. So it's still a positive ROI, about the same as what was introduced. Just the amendment reflects the commensurate increase in the cost. And as Councilman Lannan said at the meeting, yes, there's more of rebate, but there's also more taxes that will be collected. And as a result, that's why there was a positive recommendation at Rules this morning on these amendments, Councilman Amaro's amendments. Understood. And the last thing, so the other buildings that are there, is this developer going to fix those other buildings in the years to come based on the support of this piece of legislation? Yeah, so a couple of things there. And again, same, similar question came up this morning. The first answer is yes, as soon as I'm... I'll start, I'll start watching the Rules Committee again. It's okay. No, it's, it's okay. I just want you to know your questions aren't unusual. Well, they're, they're asked by others as well. One would think my questions wouldn't be unusual. Thank you, Mr. Divenow. Please continue. Man, I would love to keep going on that topic, but let's just stay, I'll stay on the bill. So the, the, I've completely forgotten your question now. Oh, what happens with the next two buildings? So the, so what we talked about at Rules was that the moment that the buildings can be renovated, they will be, um, the, the developer is proceeding with, uh, building the amenity center for the entire property. That's actually under construction right now. It's an additional $5 million that they're spending on the amenity center that will serve the entire property. The first building has 95 units in it. The next two buildings would have about 95 units in it as well. And then there are plans for an additional 400 units to be constructed right now that additional 600 units just aren't financially feasible. Um, interest rates are moving the wrong, wrong direction. Materials and labor are moving the wrong direction. And as a result, those next two buildings are on hold. We were not able, we're not able to commit to a timeframe when those next two buildings will start, but just as an illustration of the commitment to the project, Mark, who's here in the audience, uh, moved from Arlington into the property in order to manage it. He's on site all the time. Um, they have 24 hour, you know, surveillance security on those other two buildings. They're doing everything they can to be great stewards of the property. So they're committed. They're not going anywhere, but right now it's a really difficult task to get those next two buildings started. No one wants to start more than Mark and his partners. Understood. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Deebnow. All right, um, I just, I did have a couple of questions and, and maybe the, um, maybe general counsel or auditors can answer this. Um, I didn't, I didn't see all the discussions earlier today. Um, my, my question is regarding going forward. This seems like the project was done and then we renegotiated the incentive agreements and that doesn't seem to be something we would normally do. Um, and my, my concern is, and I just, if someone could, uh, could address that concern, um, I certainly want, wouldn't want us to say this is how we do business normally. This is our precedent and when, um, when a project is done, they can come back in, somebody can come back in and say, I want more because I spent more on the project. Um, I don't think that's normally the way we do projects. And I know you're involved, Mr. Deebnow, on a lot, a lot of projects. So, um, and, and I think also there was a side concern that I saw on including the land, um, in the cost of the purchase when calculating, uh, the numbers here. And, and, and so I just wanted to see, are we, where are we with those from your perspective? And then if there's any comments, anyone else would make, because I certainly, uh, I don't think we, this is the norm and, and, and I'm sure the situation isn't the norm. So I wanted to put that out there. So we have the opportunity to address that, that this isn't a precedent we're setting for a standard project. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman, again, um, this, this topic was also discussed earlier at, um, at, at rules and, uh, it is an unusual circumstance. It's, it's almost at this point, looking back, it looks like a, an agreement that's in reverse. Um, but what's different here is that they had an agreement in place before they started, uh, but for that agreement, they wouldn't have started on the first building. They've spent almost double what they originally projected on that first building. And so this, what I would, the way I would characterize this agreement is it is a recognition of the tax rebate concept and recognizing that the building was more, the return on investment is the same. And yes, it is a typical, but without the original commitment from the city, the building never would have been constructed. So the bud four test and the return on investment, those two, which are hallmarks of our investment policies, they remain solid. However, you're right, this is unusual. This is in my career, the first one that I've worked on when mid project, the rev grant expires and we had to come back and ask for, um, it to be a reinstated. And then it's also, I think the first time in my career where we've come back with a developer and said, by the way, it's, it's so much more expensive. Would you please, uh, keep the rev grant the same proportion as it was, uh, before? Uh, yeah, it is unusual. Okay. Thank you very much. Any, anything to add? Um, I mean, if you don't, that's fine too. I just wanted to give the opportunity because again, I just want to make it clear and make it public. Uh, this is not, uh, how we normally do business. Uh, this was considered an exception for a number of reasons. Yes. Ms. Reber. Um, through the chair to the committee, I just want to add that usually land is not included in the ROI, ROI calculation. And I guess Ed Randolph could speak to that as well, because we usually look at the actual private capital investment, the investment amount into the buildings itself, not the land to purchase. Yes. Yes. Ed, if you, if you wanted to comment on that or either one, really. Good afternoon. Ed Randolph, OED to the chair, to the committee. Um, that's correct. Uh, Heather, normally a land purchase in situations like this would not be baked into the overall ROI in that they've already purchased the land. And when we originally did the REB grant in 2021, they own the land and the building. So as more of moving forward, what would be their investment from that point forward? Um, step, taking a step back, addressing your previous question, uh, chairman, uh, basically, um, over the last two years or so, the administration has been working with the developer on looking at the brand, the grander plan there for the property, which would include a good amount of affordable housing units. And as Mr. Devenau just laid out, interest rates and other market forces right now just are not, you know, in our favor to do that. So that's why we're kind of stepping back and, uh, honoring the original REB grant because we just couldn't come to terms with a broader, bigger, um, development, um, deal, if you will, uh, on the bigger, on the larger property. So we're hoping at some point those other buildings get underway and we'll include affordable units, but at this point, we're just trying to go back and, and honor our original REB grant on the, on the, uh, original project of which has now grown in, in scope and, uh, cost. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We ready for a vote here. Okay. All right. Anyone else? Um, okay. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026, um, 0-5-8-8. Um, I know I said we were going to go to the front of the line here, but we've got so many, uh, JSO folks here, especially under Sheriff and others. Um, I want to make sure we, we take up the bill that they're waiting for. Um, so let's see. It's item 16, I believe. Let's see. 16. Okay. Yes. Item 16, 20, 26, 0-6-6-7. We have a motion. Do I have a second on the bill? I'm moving the bill. May I have a second, please? Motion second on the bill. Um, we have two people in the queue. Um, Vice Chair Clark Murray, you recognize. Thank you, Chair. Um, I'm not sure if it would be the auditor or, um, um, the Office of General Counsel. The bullets that are here, could you just expound a little bit on those for the bill? Um, through the Chair to Council Member Clark Murray, uh, we were just trying to explain what the funds will be used for, um, it's going to procure an AI analytical platform and software subscription for two years, which hopefully JSO can expand on, and then, um, cover city staff costs. And then, there's no city match required, and the grant term is from February 17th, 2025 to June 30th, 2027. Thank you so much for that. So, these are all state dollars. No local dollars. All state dollars. All right. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. We'll go next to Council Member Paluso. You recognize. Thank you, Chair. Uh, and through the Chair to the body. Um, I, I'd spoken with JSO about this last week. Um, you know, I spoke with Bill. I don't know if Bill or you in the audience. Are you, are you willing to come up? Is that all right, Under-Sheriff? Unless you prefer to come up under-Sheriff. I don't want to, I don't want to chain of command and all that. Um, so, truly, you know, most senior guy. I want to ask him first. Um, so, so we discussed this a little bit. How long does this grant last? Do we, do you have to execute on it right now, or could it be pushed back for a couple of weeks or months? Bill Clement, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office. Through the Chair to Council Member Paluso, uh, this grant runs through June 30th, 2027. Uh, we have to have all the funding, uh, encumbered on a contract or a PO by then, and the payment has to be made by August 31st, 2027. So, June of 2027. So, we've got a little bit of time. And the reason why I bring this up, folks, is we, we've been hearing a lot about AI recently. So, I was briefed on what this company is, Peregrine. Um, they have a number of different contracts within the state of Florida, and I think a couple on the Eastern Seaboard. Um, seems like a relatively reputable company. However, as I've been doing more digging, I spoke with procurement today. I spoke with folks in IT. I don't believe that there's a citywide policy on, or whether it be a citywide, whether it be an ordinance that we passed, or whether it be just a policy in regards to, hey, what data is, what does a contract look like, right? So, so by the time we get an AI platform, and keep in mind, all of consolidated county stuff, right? So, tax collector's office, property appraiser's office, sheriffs, public defender, um, anyone within the consolidated government, um, the state of Florida. I think that there needs to be some kind of known, here's what you're allowed to provide, here's what you're not allowed to provide, so that whether it's Peregrine or some other AI platform that comes to talk to Joyce Morgan's operation, or Jim Overton's operation, or Jerry Hollins, or, or, or Melissa Nelson's, if they come there saying, hey, we've got a really good AI platform, all of them now know, via our procurement system, hey, here's, here are the things you have to, to put into your contract. So, as this one comes before us, I just kind of ask those questions, hey, you know, what, what do we have a, a policy so that JSO's not doing it by themselves, the other, the other constitutional offices kind of know, like, what, what, what's, want to make sure that the public's information is protected, want to make sure that these are, are platforms and programs that are going to be in the best interest of the taxpayer, which I believe this one could be, right, based on the conversation we had, it can, it can help out a lot, but I'm sure, again, all the other constitutional officers are going to say the same thing, right, if you're, if you're a tax collector's office, it might be a great tool to have a certain AI search engine or whatever else. In the military, we have a bunch, right, we do have Palantir, and I got my own issues with that, but frankly, it works quite well. My point is, I think that we defer this bill until we have a consolidated countywide, I don't care if it's a white paper, or if we need to pass it through an ordinance, exactly what is allowed and not allowed to be given for any of the departments and anything that goes through the procurement team, which everything does, right, all the constitutional offices, DCPS, everyone, they all have to go through procurement, and either procurement has to go through their own procurement policy and do the ERP and everything else, in which case it would have sort of what we can and can't allow, or in this case, right, this is a grant coming from the state, so they basically hand it over to procurement and say, go, go and buy this thing that we already know we're going to get. Now, procurement can still say to Peregrine, hey, here's exactly what you're allowed to do and not do, otherwise you don't get the money. So that's my, I just want to make sure we have that policy, and one right now does not exist. So I'd like to either have Council President put together a committee, or the administration gets with the sheriff and the different constitutional offices to say, here's a we'll allow or not allow, and so I'm going to move to defer the bill, and I hope that I can get a second on that. Okay, a motion and a second on deferral. Any comments? We do have everyone in the queue, so talk about the deferral. Past President Salem, you're recognized. Just to get a clarification through the chair to Ms. Tafopoulos, I know the chair can defer a bill, and can there be a vote separately from that to defer a bill? Through the chair to Council Member Salem, yes. The body can also choose to defer, inasmuch as the body could also appeal the decision of the chair to defer a bill and have it taken up if they so chose. I assume majority of the committee? Correct. Okay, I'll get back to this. I have it, don't I? Okay. I saw you grabbing your microphone. I have watched this AI discussion on CNBC, which I watch every morning about the race for AI with China and the United States, and I've heard the discussion of the CEOs of Anthropic and other AI companies about slowing down the process and making sure we do this right. I'm not opposed to what you want to do, but I am opposed to stopping the process boom and not approving this legislation. And I think we should move forward with this legislation, and if there's appetite by the body or the president to move forward with some policy, so be it. But I could see that taking months to develop such a policy, and I don't want to lose this grant or give the impression that Jacksonville is stopping AI. Frankly, I was concerned, and maybe I shouldn't say this, but I will, the way we stop flock cameras. Yes. I thought that that was done in a way that I see a lot of good with flock cameras. I wish we could have developed some legislation to control the other parts of it, which are very legitimate concerns that people have. But we stopped it, and I don't want to be in the same position here with AI. So I will vote against this amendment to defer it, and I will vote to pass this. And then, Councilman Peluso, I would encourage you to set up a notice meeting or whatever is appropriate to have a discussion about AI and see where the city wants to go. I agree with you. We should include the constitutional officers, the state attorney, public defender, whoever else is out there that this could impact. But I suspect there is already a lot of AI out there already by several of these areas. I don't know that for a fact, but I suspect there is. And I think we're sending a bad message by saying, boom, we're going to stop this. Thank you. I would like to hear, before we go on here, I'd like to hear on those comments from JSO. I know you're both up there, and I want to make sure we hear your perspective, because my understanding is this is a state grant. The state's saying, here's the funding for this. You see the use for it. I believe it's for a database associated with this program. And so, if you would, that may better inform us to make a better informed decision. Please. Absolutely. To the chair, so just a couple points. Yes, the grant does run through June 30th, 2027. So it seems like it's a long way away. But we still have to go through the procurement process, the contracting process, and then the implementation process. And conversations with Peregrine, the software manufacturer, that can take at least 90 days, but given the size and complexity of our systems and the size of our organization, that could go well beyond that. So any deferral could jeopardize us getting this done in time. And Chief Chris King here can talk to you about the software package itself. Good afternoon, Chief Chris King, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, through the chair, Chris Miller, to everybody on the council. I appreciate your time and listening in the conversations on AI. I fully understand it. One of the reasons is the sheriff's office hired a chief technology officer. Part of that was a concern of AI. We have a SME that deals with AI. He's here present with us and can speak to it if you have any additional questions. In reference to policy, the city, if my understanding, has already has a committee that's working on an AI policy, which we are a part of. If I'm not mistaken, every two weeks we get an update from that committee. However, since January, understanding about applications that are out there for AI and looking at artificial intelligence as an order for us, we've been waiting on the FBI and FDLE to come out with some of their policies that relate to the CIGIC information. And most recently, we do have a draft policy on artificial intelligence, excuse me, on AI, which is artificial intelligence. It speaks to policies and procedures. It speaks to authorized use and restrictions on what we can and what we cannot do as an agency. It speaks to the AI principles. More specifically, is it lawful? Is it ethical? Is it transparent? Is it necessary? And most importantly, we all understand the audit piece of some things and is it accountable? Our policy speaks to those things. Is it secure and it's safe? We all know we have concerns about AI. Is it going to get out there into the community? How is it secure? And how does an organization secure it? But one of the most important pieces, the human piece of this, the human oversights. Even though you have AI, you still have to have a human oversight to these things. Our policy dictates that. It makes sure that our investigators, who would be the primary individuals using the AI component of the software, would actually have the human in the loop on this and would be, excuse me, which would be tied to it. And then it goes into AI procurements. If we're going to be buying software as an agency, it talks about what the contracts need to look like. We've actually hired an internal AI contracts individual within our IT section. So we have an individual that works through policies and takes a look at those things. And then most importantly, as everybody wants to know, is the use and access of AI tools and how they're going to be utilized, along with let's find out if somebody's actually using these tools nefariously or not using them the way they're supposed to. Our policy speaks to that. They can be fired. They can be terminated. They can be suspended. Our policy speaks to that. This policy that we have in place, or excuse me, that is a draft, we've worked with a company called Darwin AI to take a look at it. Every critical component in reference to AI is listed inside of our policy. Thanks, Chief. Appreciate it. Anyone else on the deferral matter? Yeah, please. Okay. Vice Chair Clark Murray, you're recognized. All right. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here. So I appreciate what you just discussed, because that was going to be my next question. I know that we don't have a local policy regarding AI, but I was wondering if we have a state statute in regards to AI. And you said you're operating from a draft policy. Is that draft policy just tentative until there is a state policy, or is there a state policy? I'm not aware of a state policy, ma'am, or excuse me, through the chair. I'm not aware of a state policy, but as JSO, we looked at the importance of governing AI within our agency, and so we took a look at what that needed to be, look at all the information across the board, and drafted our policy. All right. Thank you so much for that. Through the chair to Ms. DeFopolis, in regards to this bill and whether or not we vote on it today, just say that we do vote on it today, and it passes through City Council. Once we do implement some type of legislation regarding AI, can we make it retroactive so that it impacts this bill or what JSO plans to do in regards to the information they receive through the AI piece that they're working on? Through the chair to Councilmember Clark Murray, that's kind of a difficult question to answer, because I think it would depend on what type of policy would be implemented and how. With respect to this, because it's a grant and they would be under contract with the state that would establish the terms and conditions on how they proceed with the project or the program, we'd also have to look at it from the context of could it put them in the position of breaching the grant terms or conditions? And so it's hard for me to be able to really answer that question for you as far as a retroactive application of a policy. But to the extent that conversation occurs, happy to have that conversation with you at the time when it's kind of more succinct what the council intends to do moving forward. Right. Thank you so much for that. And last, in regards to the deferral and listening to Chief Clemens, it does seem as if not necessarily time is of the essence for this particular legislation, their grant, but it is time bound because I know RFP takes a long time. And so once you go through all those processes, that's going to eat up a lot of the time. So I would not be in favor of a deferral today. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. We'll go next to Councilmember Holder. You recognize? Thank you. Through the chair to Chief, is there any timeline in finalizing that policy? I know you mentioned you've been working on it for the last couple of weeks, but do we know when? Through the chair, we're ready to go with the policy. I had a conversation with our CTO this morning, our LASSO, which is our security network engineer, and all the things are in place to meet FDLE's guidelines as it relates to AI policies and how they look at some things. So all it takes is us, for one final view, send it to our committee through our professional oversights and our written directive unit, send it out to the chiefs to take a look at it, and then it gets voted on. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go next to Councilmember Peluso. You recognize? Thank you, Chair. And actually, Chair, if you'll allow, I've got Dr. Gellers here as well from UNF. He's a PhD who's an expert in AI. I kind of want to call him up here if that's right with you. Okay. Yeah, I just want to make sure we're staying on the focus of the actual grant and where we are with the grant itself. This is in relation to the deferral. Yeah. Ms. Stavopoulos, please. I see you reaching for your... Yeah, I was just about to say, Mr. Chair, right now the motion on the floor is with respect to a deferral, so it would need to be germane to the discussion on the deferral, whatever it is Mr. Peluso is going to question this individual about. Yeah, so will it be on the deferral or will it be on the bigger idea of the actual funding and what it's for? It's for the purpose of the deferral, right? It's to help explain why we don't have an AI Bill of Rights, which is what kind of you were asking. But that's not what this is about here. This isn't about an AI Bill of Rights. This is in relation to whether or not we defer based on concerns that a council member has, and I would think that we want to hear about AI-related issues. Well, we don't want to turn this into a workshop on AI. It's about a state grant on whether they're going to get this state grant that they're ready to accept and be able to put in place to help them with their organization. But if you don't mind, Chair, to the point of this grant and what it's going to have access to, right, AI is still such a massively new concept that we just want to make sure that – I know I want to make sure, as I've had many constituents who are concerned about this stuff. I understand, though, I'll defer to you, but I ask Mr. Gellis to come down here and I would like him to speak. Guidance from general counsel, please. Yeah, because I just see this – I don't want this to be turned into an AI workshop. I think past President Salem talked about a good way forward for further things to explore, and I think he set out a good recommended path regarding what you're talking about. But I'd like us to stay focused on this being a grant that they're receiving from the state level that will enhance their ability for having solid database support that they can move forward with one of their programs that they have here. And we certainly don't want to put that process in jeopardy while we talk about the greater concerns of AI as a whole and policies that the city may need to put in place. I think there can be both, but one, in my opinion as well, should not hold up the other. To the chair, I think with respect to you as chair exercising your discretion on how to move along the meeting, you are within your rights to say that you would rather just take up the motion on the deferral and move on so that you can get to the business of this item. Without also – I don't believe to do so would ignore the concerns that Council Member Peluso is raising. I think that the topic of AI is a very large, very nebulous topic. And to the extent that you want to potentially consider yourself, Mr. Chair, having a workshop as a committee to discuss it, that's something you can determine in the future. If you want to call for a special meeting to have a workshop of this committee for that discussion, understanding I think that that's a topic that would legitimately land in front of this committee to the extent any legislation is maybe presented at a future date. But you are within your discretion as the chair to want to take up the motion on the deferral and move the conversation along. Yeah, that hasn't been said. Let's do that. And then if we see after we vote on this deferral, there's something of value to add to consideration of the whole, then I'd entertain some comments. But like I said, don't want to draw this out into a bigger workshop type of session here. So I'm going to take a vote on the deferral request. All those in – well, we'll raise hands for this so it'll be real clear. All those in favor of the deferral request, please raise your hand. All those opposed, no. The deferral is not approved. So now we're at the point for the overall bill itself. We had already moved that, correct? Okay. So we're back to Councilmember Peluso again. You recognize? Thank you, Chair. Now am I able to bring up Dr. Gellers to speak on this? But if you would, please, you've heard my concerns. I understand. Please do not turn this into a workshop. It should be specifically addressing this bill and what they're going to use it for and any concerns that you may have regarding this bill and use of grant funding. Yeah. Are you able to do that? Because that's what we're here to do. I think so, but I also don't want to put pressure on a tenured professor because I don't think he's allowed to speak directly on a bill or not. I want him to speak on what concerns might we have as a body that's now about to hire an AI company to go into our systems and our database and our information. What are the concerns that we as a policymaking body should be considering right now without an AI bill of rights? That's getting a lot more grand. Just like I said, I'm sorry. I don't want this to turn into a workshop overall, the concerns of AI overall. This is very specific to what this grant funding is. We know where it's coming from. They've set the terms of this grant funding and accepting it by JSO. They've met those terms and they're ready to be able to go through the process with the state level. So I don't want to hold that up to have a grander AI discussion on the concerns of AI in general. So if he can do that and stay within the parameters of this specific grant and the terms of the grant and the concerns, then I'm fine with that. But if not, then I think we're just going too broad for our purposes today. Dr. Gellers, do you think you can do that or no? I haven't seen my head shaking now. But I don't think so. I mean, to the body, I feel like there's so little we know about this company we're about to have a contract with. I trust JSO very much. I trust the work that they do. However, I don't trust certain – I want to make sure that we as policymakers know exactly the different companies that are about to have access to our information. That's my concern here. So I am going to vote no on this, and I would love to defer it so that we can have these workshops. But I understand. Okay. Well, and I encourage you to do just as Dr. Salem recommended because you feel so strongly about it, and for good reason. I get it. But I encourage you after this to pursue that path. Yes, Chief, you have something to add? Yes, sir. And through the chair, through the committee, one last thing I want to say because I didn't specifically speak to what Peregrine was. Peregrine takes our existing data that we have internally. It is all legally collected information that we have stored in all of our databases. It takes computer-aided dispatch, all the information that comes in from patrol or from a concerned citizen calling in a crime. It takes our report management system that we got officers on the street, investigators that are typing reports. All that goes in there. Our jail management system, all the records that come from there. All of the databases that we currently have and that we exist. And what that does, it takes the information that we have and allows investigators to quickly connect dots, understand if they're missing a certain piece in a case. Or let's say a robbery may be investigating something and it may tie to a homicide. It allows those individuals and those investigators to tie that information together and see what we may be missing and where we may need to be going for an investigation. So I just wanted to let everyone know, we're not typing in information all over the place. I know there's a current concern of LPRs. We're not even tying into LPRs. And we don't even have that system anymore right now. So my thing is, it's all of our existing data that we currently have and that we own. And that information, the system takes a look at what we have and helps our investigators faster and more efficiently. We still have to look at what the output is and it tells you where it gets the information. It's the investigators that are still looking at that stuff. And Chief, it's all internal data that you're aggregating and utilizing to enhance efficiency from what I'm understanding from what you're saying. And you will still control all of that data. 100%. It's your data to begin with and it still will be your data and controlled by you, not by some other company. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And we have the ability with the internal audits and certain things, we have the ability, let's just say, Kansas City says, hey, we think there might be a crime or suspect tied to you. We're able to share the information with them, only specific to what they need. So, I go back to 9-11. One of the most, and I've talked to Jim about this, one of the most critical things we learned as a country, our inability to share information and recognize what was going on. And at the federal level, those agencies didn't share the information. We have information at, say, St. Johns County, who I believe is going to this system. As a matter, there's 29 counties in the state of Florida that are going to this, or already in this system, and about another 20 that are about to go online. When you have entities that have the ability to share specific information that may be related to a crime that they're looking for, it's a fantastic tool to understand what's going on in the criminal world. Okay, thanks, Chief. Thank you for that. We have two more people in the queue. Dr. Salem, you're recognized. Chief, I just want to make one comment. I hear exactly what you're saying. I want to make sure you understand from my standpoint, I have no tolerance for anyone within JSO or anyone who has access to this information using it inappropriately. And it's important to me that your office makes sure that you've got policies in place as quickly as you can to make sure anyone accessing that data is doing it for an appropriate reason, particularly if you're sharing it with another jurisdiction, Kansas City, whoever it may be. You know, I keep reading reports of people that have used this type of program inappropriately, being fired, and I think that's what you need to do, frankly, from my standpoint. And I just encourage you to make sure that you have those policies in place. To the chair, to Mr. Salem, I fully recognize your concerns in our policy. It will say, as it said with even in our own, some of our additional policies, access to AI tools is restricted to official, legitimate law enforcement purposes only. Misuse of AI and its associated data may be subject to sanctions and or disciplinary action to include... revocations of the license, criminal prosecution, civil liability, suspension, or even termination. Under Sheriff, you have something to add. Yes, sir. Through the chair, to Councilman Salem, I assure you, if any of our employees violate this policy, that would reach my level. It comes to me. Most likely be terminated. We would look to see if there's any criminal intent there. And if it is, we would push the state to prosecute. Okay. Just want to make sure that's on the table because this thing is going so quickly. Absolutely. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you both. For the last time, we'll go back to Councilmember Pelluso. Thank you, Chair. To the point of what the understaffer just said, I fully agree. Like, I don't have any concerns that JSO is going to misuse the technology. That is not the concern that I have. I believe that they're deputies. They know what they're doing. I've worked with many of them. The concern I have is about the literal data itself, where it's stored, who may – we just found out maybe Kansas City could use it, maybe another department, maybe someone. I don't know enough. And I don't think anyone up here is an expert in this field. And the one expert left. And the point being is I just – I am concerned that we are allowing for things that our constituents, our residents, are not going to have their data in a place that I don't fully understand. I trust JSO. I trust these guys. I think that, you know – but I don't know Peregrine. And I don't know what is and isn't in the contract. And unless this – it's not going to come back to us to vote on once procurement okays it, I don't think. Right? Right, Sheriff? Once you guys have this, you're good. Okay. So, like, that's the other thing, because I would hope that we would be more involved in that contract process. But we're not. And that's my concern, so that's why I'm voting no. Okay. Thank you. And I will comment on something you just said there. I asked him the questions. Is it your data? Yes, it's your data. Is it going to stay controlled by you? Yes. The only comment that was made was he may share some information with another agency as it pertains to a particular case that they're working on. But they do that, and they've done that all the time throughout the history of law enforcement, is sharing information with another agency. So that doesn't speak to loss of control of data, sensitive data that would be of concern. They safeguard that like they always have. So I'm not sharing your same concerns that you have specifically on this one, because that's what we're picking up today. But I do, again, encourage you to do as Dr. Salem laid out, that for the broader purpose, for city policy, as it pertains to the overall city agencies, I think there's some value there. But having said that, we have some other business we need to do, so I'm going to take a vote on this one. So if you open about and record your vote. Four yeas, one nay. By your action, you have approved. I need to get back to the right page here again. I'm sorry. It's item 16. By your action, you've approved 2026-0667. Okay, thank you, and thanks to all the JSO folks. Sorry we kept you here so long. All right, now we will, I promise. We will go to the start of our agenda. Is that yours? Okay. We'll go to the start of the agenda. And item number one, 2024-0966 is deferred at the request of Council Member Keriko. Item 2, 2025-361 is deferred at the request of Council Member White. Item 3, 2026-0227 is deferred at the request of Council Member Diamond. Item 4, 2026-320 is deferred at the request of Council Member White. Item number 5, 2026-0377 is deferred at the request of Council Member Johnson. Item number 6, 2026-0541 is deferred to request of DIA. And item number 7, we have, let's see, I'll make sure I already have this. We've already taken up item 7. Item 8, 2026-0588. And item 9, we've already taken up. Go to page 9. Item 10. We have not, 2026-0634. We have a motion. We have a second on the movement of the bill. A motion second on the move of the bill. There's something I need to check on. We're going to take a quick two-minute break here. And I'm going to check with counsel here. So if someone needs to take a quick break out the door, please do. But we'll be right back in two minutes. All right, if everybody can take the seats. Who's part of the committee here? We'll get started again. If we can get Council Member Peluso and Council Member Holder back to the dais, please. If you're coming back. Otherwise, we can't go on without you. APB on Council Member Peluso. Be on the lookout. Everyone, I heard Council Member Peluso is buying dinner if we go that far. All right. We thank you all. We've got a motion second on the JEA bill. Anyone? Okay. We have past President Salem. You're recognized. Mr. Soto, I understand you're the spokesperson today. You've got Ted behind you, so I am convinced anything I ask. Just wanted to review, having come off as your liaison recently. As I recall, you're increasing your capacity quite significantly here, and I'm sure some of that's related to the combined cycle plan, which is about $1.5 billion that your board has approved. And we all hope it comes in at that price. And as I recall, your debt service presently is around $500 million a year. Is that correct? A.J. Soto, Treasurer at JEA, through the Chair to Council Member Salem. Yeah, in its entirety, our debt service portfolio, if you include the electric enterprise, water sewer, chilled water, and then our commitments for Project J, Plant Vogel. So, yes, sir, it would exceed $500 million. Which is quite an amount for a municipal utility right here in Jacksonville, Florida. I'll tell you, Mr. Soto, through the Chair, I get more e-mails as an at-large person, and I know Council Member Holder is just getting her feet wet, but on the recent increases in your rates to the taxpayers, you know, people are hurting out there, and they're constantly complaining to me. I'm not sure about the district people, about rates. And you don't need to answer this, but I think it's extremely important that we do everything we can to not to continue to increase rates, to find other ways of managing our finances. Because I think that's, like with any organization, it's very easy to raise prices, and that's essentially what you're doing to the taxpayers when you increase rates. So, I just hope the combined cycle plant comes out like your people have projected, and we don't run into a problem there, and that we can keep our rates down without an increase for the foreseeable future. Those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go next to Council Member Peluso. You're recognized. Thank you, Chair. And I just, I do want to kind of respond to that a little bit. Just because it's my understanding rates were not being raised for several, several years. And in doing so, it kind of put JEA in a really bad spot. And as we, in this body, didn't increase the garbage fee for so many years, it forced us into a position where we finally had to, because of the dire straits we were in. We need power generation. We need JEA to have power generation. It's what makes them a really valuable asset to the city of Jacksonville. If we keep buying our power from third parties, especially privately owned ones, it's only going to get more expensive for us in the long run. So, I know we're not necessarily talking directly about the combined cycle right now, but those are comments that I would just want to put on the record. Thank you. Don't see anyone else in the queue. I just wanted to thank you all. I've had quite a few really good discussions on this, a couple briefings to be able to walk me through to understand all this. And, yes, no one likes raising rates. You all don't like raising rates. However, when you compare to all of the others throughout the southeast, I think you guys have consistently kept things both on the water and the electric side in a good place, in a very competitive place for a long time. And, Ann, I agree with the thinking of the direction that you're going in producing more of your own versus, I know there are a lot of things we won't go into on Plant Vogel, and that's going to be with us for years to come. I get it. But from my perspective, the things you've laid out, you all have laid out for me on the direction we're going and the steps we're taking here and needing these actions bond-wise to be able to help you address those needs, it appears very solid to me, so I thank you all for taking the time to be able to get me smart on that. With that, please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By reaction, you've approved 20-26-06-34. Number 11, excuse me, item number 11, 20-26-06-39. We have a motion. Do I have a second on the bill? Do I have a second on the bill? Second. We have a motion and a second on the bill. No one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By reaction, you've approved 20-26-06-39. And Ms. Figueroa, sorry if we had to keep you waiting on that one. Item 12, 20-26-06-44. I need to open the public hearing, I believe. I opened the public hearing. We have no cards. So given no cards, I'll close the public hearing. And we now have a deferral due to Historic Preservation Commission review on 20-26-06-44. So item 13 is also deferred, 20-26-06-662, due to noticing requirements we've already taken up. Item 14, item 15, 20-26-06-66. I have a motion and a second on the withdrawal. No one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By actions, you've withdrawn 20-26-06-66. And that was at the request of Council Member Matt Carlucci. Item 16, 20-26-06-67. Oh, we've already taken that one up. That's on me. We've already taken 16. So we'll go on to item number 17, 20-26-06-68. We have motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By action, you've approved 20-26-06-68. Item number 18, 20-26-06-69. We have a motion. We have a second on the bill. Come on, guys. Please help me out there. We have a motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By action, you've approved 20-26-06-69. Item number 19, 20-26-06-7-0. We have a motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By action, you've approved 20-26-06-70. Item number 20, 20-26-06-72 is deferred. The request of Council Member Pittman. Item number 21, 20-26-06-73. We have a motion and second on the amendment. Ms. Reber, would you please explain the amendment? Through the chair to the committee, the amendment will correct the entity name within the bill, attach or revise Exhibit 1, which is the VT, to correct the oversight department and include carryover, and then attach or revise Exhibit 2, the term sheet and budget, and revise Exhibit 3, affidavit, to correct the entity name. All right. Thank you. On the amendment, Dr. Salem, on the amendment? Okay. All those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment passes. Motion and second on the bill is amended. Vice President Salem, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. We had a considerable discussion this morning at rules on this bill. I'll try to summarize it very quickly because I voted against it. This is, and I don't, I guess the, oh, no, they're here. Maybe they're here. This entity, which I have nothing against, and I'm sure they provide great services, has been attempting to get money through our public service grant process and has not been successful. They have about a million dollar budget, and now they're asking for an additional $204,000. I have several concerns. One, we've set up this public service grant process for people to apply. If they get awarded, they get awarded. If they don't, they don't. And to keep it out of the politics of the council, because what we don't want are a bunch of people coming to us, post their grant awards, and an end around to get money through the council. That's one issue that I have with this. The second issue, this, this will become reoccurring in the budget. We just finished the budget. There was no mention of this during the budget process. And if this is approved and gets into the budget, as I have said many times, it's 10 times more difficult to get something out of the budget once it's there. So you want to try to prevent it from ever getting into the budget if you don't think it's appropriate. So for those reasons, I would urge you to vote against this. This was a request of the mayor. I know it's co-introduced by Councilman McCarlucci. He's not here. But it's a request of the mayor. It says it right there. And this is just not the way we should be doing business. Thank you. Thank you. Next to Vice Chair Clark Murray. You're recognized. Thank you, Chair. If the representatives of the entity would come forward, please. Good afternoon. Just go ahead with your name and your address. Yes. Good afternoon. Sue Watson, Executive Director of the Exchange Club Family Center, 4161 Carmichael Avenue, Suite 154. Thank you for that. So my colleague has mentioned basically about the process, his concerns about the process. So can you speak to how you've tried to get funding from other entities, perhaps PSG, any others, and then what your success or failure was and why do you think it was unsuccessful or why you succeeded? Yeah. So, I mean, we've always applied for the PSG and have never made it quite over that line to get funded. This year we did file for the PSG and I found out after the first hearing that our application did not go through due to technical issues. So we won't be eligible for it this year, which is sad. We've also gone to KHA over the last four years to secure funding, and we can't do the statute. Our program services adults. We service families and parents in particular. Being one population being through the state attorney's office for families that are adults or parents, caregivers that are arrested for child abuse. And for their deferment program and their prosecution agreements to not have to be prosecuted, they have, you know, a whole list of things that they have to do, and one of them is complete our program. The state attorney's office came to us four years ago because before we started there, those agreements were very punitive. Community service hours, paying fines, seeing your probation officer, but there was nothing to support parents to change behavior so it didn't happen again. So we started working with them at that time. Since then, we've worked with 90 adults, and 100% of them have not had any contact with DCF or had any other connections with DCF or child abuse reported on them within a year after completing our program. We also work with the Duval County Public Schools around truancy, trying to get kids back into school. So that's what this funding is to help us continue to do that. We struggle every year. We get our funding through local funding requests and public funding, private funding, donations, fundraisers, but that's always an up and down thing. We don't want to end services with the state attorney's office or Duval Public Schools, and we'd love to be able to continue to do that. So that's why we're here today. Thank you so much for the chair. Thank you so much for that. Do you know or do you speculate as to, or maybe they did state, why the state attorney's office chose your program in particular? I'm not sure of that. I just took over the role of executive director a year ago. This was an agreement between the prior executive director and the state attorney's office, and I was not present during those meetings. Well, thank you so much for that. We are in the business of making sure that we help those who contribute their funds to this city, and this is an example of a program that's doing just that. We don't talk about, we hear about child abuse, but we don't see too many programs that address the abusers. And so for that reason, I'm going to support you today, and I'm going to do my best to push my colleagues to support you as well. I know that the process wasn't the process that we would like in terms of how you're going about receiving funding, but it is so critical. And as someone who is in the business of educating students as well as changing behavior, I know how important it is, because we need those types of programs in the school system and just in the general public. So once again, for that reason, I'm going to support you, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. We're next to Council Member Peluso. You're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to the body. You guys are good. I appreciate it. If you want to take a seat, you're good. I just have to say, we do stuff like this all the time. We do. And I mean, strategic priorities, all sorts of other stuff. This doesn't strike me as anything particularly different. We found out there's some cracks in our system that they can't apply for certain funds. What I would encourage you guys to do, perhaps, is if you can get Melissa Nelson to write you a letter recommendation for this, that may speak volumes to some of our colleagues. But I'm in support of this. This is not outside the norm of what we usually do. Council Member Holder, you're recognized. Thank you. Through the chair to the body. Just wanted to echo the comments from my colleagues. I know Council Member Carlucci held a notice meeting really long last week with this group. So I was able to hear a lot about the great work that they're doing and the impact and how they're essentially addressing public safety in a way that targets families. So definitely appreciate you. And we'll be voting in support of this. Thank you. We'll go back to Vice Chair Clark Murray. You're recognized. Just quite simply, Chair. I want to be added as a co-sponsor. Okay. We'll go next to Mr. Delaney. Thank you. Through the chair, grants has a little more information that we'd like to offer on why the program was not selected for PSG. If you'd allow me to bring up Maribel. Chief Figueroa, grants and contract compliance through the chair to the committee in full transparency and in fairness to this organization. I was puzzled that I didn't recognize the name as one of the applicants. And between this morning's committee meeting and this one, did some research to find out what was going on. Checked the system and their application was in draft status. So went through with staff to understand what occurred. Found emails, email trails. So approximately two weeks before the deadline for the PSG grant, they did contact us and there were multiple communications going back and forth. They were having an issue with the first question where if you put too many symbols in there, the system picks it up as a code and erases some of the text. It cuts it off. And so we know it's an issue that we're still working through to correct. But they did contact us. They were instructed to email the application verbiage, which they did well before the deadline. I think what occurred was a miscommunication and that I don't see in the communication that my staff sent to them specifically saying, send us the information, but go ahead and press submit on that application. So that's why it remains in draft status and speaking to Ms. Sue. She thought that it was sufficient to send it by email and didn't realize that she had to actually press submit. I don't find in our communications where we specifically told her that. So it could have been just a miscommunication. But unfortunately, you know, the process has already passed appeals. The applications are being scored. It's too late now to try to find a way around that. We certainly hope that they will continue to apply and we'll certainly be a lot more vigilant with making sure that our instructions are clearer, that, yes, you must submit it through the system, but also send us the verbiage to make sure that the scores have the full text. Thank you. We'll go next to Dr. Salem. May I recognize? Thank you, Chair. To my colleagues, I would say why do we have $7 million allocated if we're going to allow this type of activity? And I'm telling you, if this goes forward, there are going to be others. And this is what was going on in this government many years ago before they set the cap of $7 million. You've got to go through PSG. You've got to be awarded. That's the process. You can't come to the council. And I'm shocked that the mayor's office is handling it this way. This is not the way it should be done. They missed it. It's unfortunate they could apply next year, and hopefully if they're quality and they go through the process, they'll get it. But it will be part of that $7 million. This is a bad precedent. And I don't think I'm going to win on this one, but I want to make sure the public understands that that's the process, and this is going around that process. After we just went through the budget for a month, and the Finance Committee debated all of this, and now we have an end around on that whole process. Thank you. Thank you. Back to Mr. Delaney. You recognize? Thank you. Through the chair to the whole body, I want to clarify a couple of things here. One, this isn't an unusual ask. We have a number of things that come through towards the end of the year. This year, we didn't want to change the budget as we were working on it. But once Councilmember Carlucci, former Council President Carlucci, came forward with this and found a source of money that could supply it, and we discussed things with the operator and saw that their program was, one, operating at a high level, doing really good work out there, and that this money would just supplement, allow them to expand it more. We're happy to support it, but clearly the council, it's not unusual for the council to approve things like this. I mean, just two and a half weeks ago, the council approved funding for another nonprofit for an AI coach, I believe, that former Council President Salem was a co-sponsor on. That was another similar ask that, you know, obviously we had no problem with. So, I'm not understanding why there's a problem in this case. Yeah, since your name is recognized, do you want to respond to that? Yeah, please. Through the chair, I don't know the circumstances behind that. I don't know the bill number. You haven't quoted that. To bring that up without giving me the opportunity, because this is post the budget process as well. There are many circumstances that make this different from anything else. All the money that is going out of this debt service, I'm making sure is one-time expenses, and this will not be a one-time expense. This will come up again. That's the real difference with these dollars. I wish you would have prepared me if you were going to bring that up. I think it's inappropriate so I could respond. I don't know what you're talking about. Thank you. All right, last time, Mr. Delaney, and we're going to move on. Please. I'm sure through the chair to Dr. Salem. We do have the bill number. I mean, it's 575. It was for the organization Operation New Uniform, and that was just approved on August 25th. But happy to move on. Yeah, thank you. And as was pointed out, we're in a different part of our process here in our year. The budget process was still going on. There were other, well, I'm not going to prolong it anymore. I don't have any concerns with the work that's being done by this organization. My concerns are also the process. We spent a long time going into a lot of details and additional considerations during the budget process. And here we are after the process, and there was a process through the PSG cycle that I've seen various organizations not be able to get through the process. But none of them that I'm aware of came back after the fact or were introduced by a colleague after the fact to, as has been said, find another way. When the process that was established didn't work out or there were glitches, the ones I know of apply the next year and then move forward. Or they get put in the budget by the administration the next year. So, for me, we have 1,080, I believe, registered nonprofits in Duval County alone. And I'm sure most of them doing amazing things, but we cannot entertain all of those good things and be able to apply funding, especially, in my opinion, after the budget process has been completed. Yes, we still have the final vote, and there may be some amendments come the next council session, the full session. But I won't be supporting this. Okay, I was wrapping it up, but we've got someone else on the queue. But I won't be supporting it, not because of the organization or what they do or don't do, but because of where we are in the process right now. Council Member Holder, you're recognized. Yes, through the Chair, to staff, I have just one clarifying question. Is this appropriation recurring? Because I heard Council Member Salem mention that it will continue to be in the budget moving forward, or is this just a one-time thing? Through the Chair, to Council Member Holder, and Mr. Delaney may be able to add additional context. To my knowledge, this is a one-time appropriation. But I believe what Council Member Salem was referring to is that often when programs are initially funded by the city, you do see them come back in a budget or through an additional direct appropriation the following year. But to say that that would be the case with this particular one, I couldn't address that. Yes, Pastor President Salem, you're recognized. I pulled up 575. As I thought, this was CBA money out of Council Member Carrico. I have approved all CBA money for all the district councilmen. You could find dozens of examples of where I've supported CBA votes. It is not the same as this. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Delaney, and hopefully after this we can go to a vote. That would be great. Through the Chair, to Ms. Holder, I'm not going to continue the back and forth here from the dais in the interest of all of our time. But to clarify for Ms. Holder, yeah, this is one-time money. That's how we're seeing it. If they apply again and they apply to PSG and they get that grade, if they apply in some other way, you know, we can't predict the future. So what the bill is is what the bill says. Okay, please open the ballot and record your vote. Three a's, two nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0673. Mr. Chair, under the council rules, it requires a vote of four members one way or the other for a matter to be voted out. Oh, I'm sorry about that. I was thinking majority. Right. So that's amendments and substitutes. Oh, out of committee. Yes. So at this point, it will remain in committee unless you want to have a motion to reconsider to take it up again. And because there were not four votes one way or the other, it will remain and will come back on your agenda, come back to your committee the next cycle, unless it's discharged by the council president. Okay. Very, very, very good. We have a motion to reconsider. We have a second. Any discussion? I mean, I'll just tell you right now, my position's not changing, and I'm assuming Dr. Salem is the same thing. So just to address it, that may save us some time. Oh, what are you? Yes, please, go ahead. So I've made, thank you, Chair, through the chair to the committee. I did make the motion to reconsider, and it was seconded, but I will withdraw my motion at this time. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. We are now item 22, correct? 2026-0675. I have a motion and seconded on the amendment. Ms. Reber, would you please explain the amendment? Through the chair to the committee, the amendment will attach or revise Exhibit 1 to remove language within the fourth amendment regarding the city's use of funds in the reserve account to offset the cost of the cart lease. All those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment passes. We have a motion and seconded on the bill as amended. No one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By our action, you've approved 2026-0675 as amended. Item 23, 2026-0676. We have a motion. Do I have a second on the amendment? We have a motion and seconded on the amendment. 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 seconded on the bill as amended. No one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By our action, you've approved 2026-0676 as amended. We'll go to item 24, 2026-0677 as being deferred to request of Council Member Matt Carlucci. Item 25, 2026-0678. We have a motion and seconded on the amendment. No one in the queue. All those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. Those opposed, no. The amendment passes. We have a motion and seconded on the bill as amended. No one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By our action, you've approved 2026-0678 as amended. Item number 26, we've already taken up. Item 27, 2026-0698 is on second read. Item 28, 2026-0699. We have a motion and second on the emergency. Ms. Reaver, please explain the emergency. Through the chair to the committee, the nature of the emergency is to ensure that the code amendments are effective in advance of the upcoming special assessment process. Okay. All those in favor of the emergency, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The emergency passes. I have a motion and second on the bill as an emergency. Anyone in the queue? I've got some notes here. I'm going to take a quick look here. Okay. Now, those were addressed during the pre-meeting, so I have nothing to add. So, please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By our action, you've approved 2026-0699 as an emergency. To item number 29, 2026-0700 is on second read. Item 30, 2026-0701 is on second read. Also on second read, 31, 2026-0702. And we go to, let's see, item 32, 2026-0703. We have a motion and second on emergency. All those in favor of the emergency, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. Emergency passes. We have a motion and second on the amendment. Ms. Reaver, please explain the amendment. Through the chair to the committee, the amendment is to attach to revise Exhibit 1, which is the BT, to correct the description and the amount. Okay. All those in favor of the emergency, please sign... Excuse me. Thank you for that. The amendment, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment passes. We have a motion and second on the bill as an emergency, as amended, past President Salem. You're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Peluso, can you explain the use of these dollars, please? Yes, sir. Through the chair to Council Member Salem. Thank you for that. I am. That was what I was going to speak to as well. If anyone remembers, this was during our budget meeting where myself and Council Member White kind of struck a deal, if you will. Now I'm going to spend my CBA dollars, over $64,000 now, to be going towards the rehabilitation of the JFRD Tower off of Stockton. We've been, obviously, accumulating dollars over the past couple years for that. In return, I want to see if we can get dollars that we're going to expire at the end of the month to go towards two organizations that I intended to put into the budget. And so, instead of putting it into the budget, this is the method in which we're doing it. It's two additional sponsorships. Alex Alston is on board with it. The administration is on board with it. The two organizations have provided some information about what their organizations are. One is for Juneteenth, which is obviously going to be in June of next year. And that's the Melanin Market over on the east side. And the other one is the Uni Classic, which we just had in August. So, the dollars will be used for next year's Uni Classic, the third of its kind. They had about over 200 hotel rooms that were booked with students and with people coming from out of town. The Uni Classic, I think, is going to get bigger and greater as the years go on. I want to make sure that they have support from the city. So, that's where those dollars are going to. Did you know Council Member Monet Holder and I attended the Uni Classic? And we sat next to each other. Through the chair. Is that why there's so much collusion going on today? Is that what I'm hearing here? You don't have the specifics of how the money is going to be spent. There's not a budget or anything at this point? Through the chair to Council Member Salem. So, the dollars are going to go through sports and entertainment. I'm sorry. Yeah, sports and entertainment. Sports and entertainment, that's Alex Alston's office. And they're just going to do a basic sponsorship. With that, it provides additional support from the city for kind of – it depends on what the organizations really need for it. But it's meant to be a sponsorship. It's one-time dollars. They have to be reappropriated if it's going to occur in the future. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right. Vice Chair Clark-Murray, you're recognized. So wonderful. Thank you, Chair. I just want to be added as a co-sponsor. All right. Thank you. No one else in the queue? Please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 20-26-07-03 as an emergency, as amended. Go to item number 33, 20-26-07-05 is on second read. Item 34, 20-26-07-06 is on second read, as is item 35, 20-26-07-07 is on second read. Item 36, 20-26-07-08. I have a motion and second on the emergency. Would you please explain the emergency, Ms. Reaver? Through the chair to the community, the nature of the emergency is that the intended funding source will lapse September 30th. Okay. All those in favor of the emergency, please signify by saying aye. Those opposed, no. The emergency passes. We have a motion and second on the bill as an emergency. I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor as well. Seeing no one in the queue, please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 20-26-07-08 as an emergency. We'll now go to item number 37, 20-26-07-09 is on second read. Item 38, 20-26-07-10. We have a motion and second on the emergency. Please explain the emergency, Ms. Reaver. Through the chair to the committee, the emergency is that the allocation of funds needs to occur before the end of the fiscal year to prevent the property appraiser's office from potentially going over budget. Okay. Thank you. All those in favor of the emergency, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The emergency passes. We have a motion and second on the amendment. Would you please explain the amendment, Ms. Reaver? Through the chair to the committee, the amendment will clarify in the title, the purpose, and the emergency language of the bill that the funds are allocated to the property appraiser's office to prevent potentially going over budget for the fiscal year. Okay. 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 an emergency as amended. No in the queue. Please open the ballot and cord your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 20-26-07-10 as an emergency as amended. We'll go to item 39, 20-26-07-11. We have a motion and second on the emergency. Please explain the emergency. Ms. Reaver? Through the chair to the committee, the emergency is that the legislation must take effect prior to September 30th to avoid any interruption in funding for the project. Okay. Thank you. All those in favor of the emergency, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The emergency passes. We have a motion and second on the amendment. Please explain the amendment. Ms. Reaver? Through the chair to the committee, the amendment will correct the project name and the bill. Attach for Revised Exhibit 1, the BT, to correct the council district. And attach for Revised Exhibit 2, the CIP, to correct the project name, council district, and include the project number. Okay. All those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. Amendment passes. We have a motion and second on the bill as emergency as amended. I wanted to hit the auditor-recommended amendment here, if you would, please. Through the chair to the committee in review of this bill, we found out there were outstanding tax liens on this property. So we want to recommend language be added to the bill that stipulates, before the acquisition of the property by the city, those tax bills need to be paid. Motion and second on the auditor's recommended amendment. Is it on the amendment? Yes. Pastor President Salem, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to Ms. Reber, what's the dollar amount of the liens? You knew I was going to ask that. I think it's in the bottom of that page. Through the chair to Council Member Salem, the total amount is $1,885.74. $1,000? $1,885.74. Through the chair to Mr. Delaney, do you have any issues with that, the administration? I don't have any issues with that. Okay. I'll support the amendment. Okay. No one else in the queue. All those in favor of the auditor, recommended amendment moved by Vice Chair Clark Murray. Please signify by saying aye. All as opposed, no. The auditor amendment passes. Please do. Okay. We have a motion and a second on the bill as an emergency as amended. No one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By reaction, you've approved 2026-711 as an emergency as amended. Item 40, 2026-712. We have a motion and a second on the emergency. Ms. Reaver, this is probably end of year lapse, right? Okay, we got it. All those in favor of the emergency, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The emergency passes. We have a motion and a second on the bill as an emergency. No one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. I just thought I'd save a little time there. Five yays, zero nays. By reaction, you've approved 2026-0712 as an emergency. Item 41, 2026-0714. We have a motion and a second on the emergency. I think, what's that? Same thing. Okay. We've explained the emergency. All those in favor of the emergency, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The emergency passes. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. Please explain the amendment, Ms. Reber. Through the chair to the committee, the amendment will change the funding source to the general fund debt savings interest account. It will attach a revised exhibit 1BT to reflect that change in funding source and attach a revised exhibit 2, which is the agreement to clarify payment terms, update insurance language based on risk management's review, and correct Scrivener's errors. Okay. Thank you. All those in favor of the amendment. Nope. We have, okay. 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 an emergency as amended. Council Member Pelluccio, you recognize. Thank you, Chair. I just want to be listed as a co-sponsor. All right. Thank you. No one else in the queue. I have a question. Yes, he's still back there. Mr. Joseph, I just have a quick question. He's almost falling asleep. We've got to give him some coffee here or something. Hey, Mr. Joseph, I know we went back and forth on this, and I think everyone fully understands the intent now as it pertains to responsibilities with parks and Downtown Vision Incorporated and the movement of responsibilities here. I just wanted to make clear, this reads like maintenance, and so when I read that, I think parks. Could you help me out with that regarding this particular legislation? Through the Chair, Daryl Joseph, Parks Department, so the position is downtown public spaces would be the position. So from a park maintenance standpoint, parks would still maintain the park spaces. The position is more of a coordination of the public spaces, meaning the right-of-way sidewalks and have coordination with parks. I had a vacancy working with Council Vice President, but this will actually work closely with DVI to actually get some of the items done within the public spaces, street pole banners, trash cans, things along those lines. But this is not necessarily maintaining of those spaces. Okay. I think I have that. Okay. No one else. Thanks, Mr. Joseph. Appreciate it. We're ready to take a vote, right? Okay, just want to make sure. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By your action, you approve 2026-0714 as an emergency as amended. Item 42, 2026-0715. Do you have a motion and second on the emergency? Same thing? If not, please explain it. Through the Chair to the committee, the nature of the emergency is that the current grant agreement will expire on September 30th. Okay, so it is a grant agreement. Okay. All right. All those in favor of the emergency, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The emergency passes. The motion and second on the amendment. Ms. Reber, please explain the amendment. Through the Chair to the committee, the amendment will add carry over language to fiscal year 2627, and then correct an ordinance number that was referenced within the bill. Thank you very much. All those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment passes. I'll put a motion and second on the bill as an emergency as amended. Councilman Gaffney, anything to say or are you just for questions? Yeah, thanks. Sorry, I didn't mention you were here. I should have announced that. Thank you. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By your action, you approve 2026-0715 as an emergency as amended. We go to item 43-2026-0716. We have a motion and second on the emergency. Please explain the emergency, Ms. Reber. Through the Chair to the committee, the funds will elapse September 30th, 2026. Okay, all those in favor of the emergency, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The emergency passes. We have a motion and second on the bill as an emergency. I just wanted to ask, in one of the notes here, it says, the funds originally appropriated to provide funding to Lisk Jacksonville, but the city has recently been informed that Lisk will not be accepting the grant. Could someone speak to that? Because, you know, obviously what Lisk does is something we all know we need more of, and so I just wanted to understand that before we go forward. Yes. Thank you to the Chair, to the committee. So, yes, Lisk at the last minute pulled out. They pulled out over auditing requirements. I started to do just like Councilman White. They'll try to waive the audit requirements. The grant is only for $100,000. And I think that in order to do an audit, they would have had to pay anywhere from $15,000 to $20,000. So, they said they didn't want to pay that $15,000 to $20,000 for the audit. So, they said they don't want to do the grant at all. So, now I'm going to have to find another agency. I have identified another agency to oversee these funds. So, I'm going to have to transfer it over. But, yeah, they just informed me a few weeks ago that due to the auditing requirements, that they no longer want to fulfill this grant. So, I mean, like I said, I could have went in the direction of Councilman White, which he did, I think, a few weeks ago, a month ago, which is, you know, try to waive the audit requirements. But, I didn't want to get too deep in that. All right. Thank you. Appreciate the explanation. Please open the back and record it. Oh, excuse me. Oh, I didn't see you there. We have two more. I didn't look that direction. Dr. Salem, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair to Ms. Reber, I guess. Is this the same issue we had with the FOP, that it required a complete audit of the organization for a small component of the grant, or Ms. Staphopoulos, one of the... Through the Chair to Councilmember Salem, I wasn't really involved in the detail of what transpired with FOP. I think they conveyed that they would have had to audit all of their funding, and that was inaccurate. That's not a... The city doesn't go in and require that you have to audit every dollar that you receive. I think, though, however, they had done certain type of reporting. It just didn't meet the requirements under the code for the amount of dollars that they received. And so, what Councilmember White presented was taking them off the noncompliance list, because that was for past activity on a prior contract, which is a little different than what I think Councilmember Gaffney was referencing here. In this case, they did have some concerns with respect to the auditing requirements of our standard grant contract and some other requirements that had, I think, been resolved through discussions with them. And a lot of their questions and concerns about the audit requirements were somewhat resolved when the Council, not too long ago, amended the code to bring our auditing standards in keeping with the dollar thresholds under federal regulations, so that we were consistent with what transpires for federal and most of the state grants as well. I'm not sure about the cost to perform the type of audit that they would have had to perform for the dollar amount that was at play, because $125, I don't think, is one of the... It's not a very high threshold in the context of how much money an organization could receive that would trigger those substantial auditing requirements. But I do know that they carried that concern through and just declined to want to execute the contract. Okay. I guess, through the chair, my follow-up question is, do we have a problem here in what we ask of organizations in terms of audit requirements, and that it is much larger than what it should be, possibly? One of the things that I could recommend through the chair to Councilmember Salem, because I think the question has come up, is maybe if the Finance Committee, if there's not another committee that would also want to have the discussion, we have a workshop on what the code requires, so that you all have an understanding of what the audit and just general reporting requirements are in the code as it stands today, and then you can make a determination whether that should be adjusted through legislation to amend the code. I do know that LISC has received money from the city in the past, and they have signed the contracts with the city, so what might have been different here, maybe Mr. Gaffney could address, but it might help the council members, because you do seem to be getting these questions and concerns, to have that discussion about what does the code actually require and what dollar thresholds trigger what type of reporting by the organizations. Chair Miller, my suggestion would be that we put that on the agenda for neighborhoods. I would think the first or second meeting after the budget, we won't be sitting here for four hours like we are today, and we could have our 10 or 15 minute presentation if you would allow that. Absolutely. I think that's a great recommendation. We will definitely do that, and I just have to say it really bothers me when we have known entities who have partnered very well with us for years to do good things for our city, backing out because of an audit requirement, and so I think we need to put some visibility on this and see if there are changes that are needed. Yeah, please, Council Member Gaffney, you're recognized. I want to, through the chair to the body, another concern is that these non-profits, for-profit entities have is insurance requirements as well. You know, sometimes these dollars is only $50,000 to $100,000, but you have to carry insurance. If you go out and get an insurance plan, you have to pay a significant amount of money. So, I mean, sometimes on the back end, I just found some of this stuff out too, so, you know, you have to go find some type of insurance, especially if you're dealing with kids or something like that, so insurance is one as well. So, it's a few, I think, triggers inside these contracts that I guess I didn't find out until after the fact. You know, when we pass legislation, you pass it to the organization, then when you have to go through the grants department, now you need A, B, C, these organizations need A, B, C, and D, and then that kind of triggers some of the things as well. So, but yeah, insurance, make sure you put that as well. Okay. We will. Thank you. Councilmember Peluso, you're working nice. Thank you, Chair. I just want to make sure. So, these dollars are going into another contingency fund for next year, so they're just not, I'm not seeing, Ms. Reber? Ms. Reber. So, I just want to make sure these dollars are going into a contingency fund for next year, right? They'll be able to be expended next year, but it's not like there's, it's not identifying how the dollars are spent yet. Through the chair, correct. These are just carrying over those dollars to the next fiscal year. Cool. Thank you. This might be my last thing. Yeah, please go ahead. I have identified an agency, I have identified an agency, Wealth Watchers. They'll be taking and do the same thing on this list. The only thing about it, they would have had to do a term sheet as well as some other stuff, so it was already last minute. So, I'll be coming right before you guys. Hopefully, Wealth Watchers could, you know, fill out the term sheet, the other contract and stuff like that. So, it should be a few more weeks before I come right before you guys. All right. Thank you. We're ready for a vote. Is that correct? Okay. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0716 as an emergency. We've already taken up item 44, item 45, item 46, and item 47, 2026-0720 is on second read. Item 48, 2026-0721. I have a motion and second on the emergency. Ms. Reaver, would you please explain the emergency? Through the chair to the committee, the emergency is due to the funds lapsing September 30th. Okay. Thank you. All in favor of the emergency, please signify by saying aye. All as opposed, no. The emergency passes. We have a motion and second on the amendment. No speakers in the queue. Would you please explain the amendment, Ms. Reaver? Through the chair to the committee, the amendment will clarify account information within the explanation of appropriation and correct Scrivener's errors. Okay, thank you. Let's see. I want to make sure I had this straight. Okay, yes, I was going to ask, and I see you are on the queue. So, Pastor President Salem, you're recognized. Yeah, Chair, thank you for recognizing me. I voted against this this morning. Seems like yesterday. Did we take the amendment vote? Oh, okay. Oh, I'm sorry. Can you give me a break? Sure. I'm sorry. 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 an emergency, as amended, yeah, sorry about that, Pastor President Salem, please. No problem. I voted against this this morning. The lady, who I don't think is back today, oh, she is here. She doesn't have her hat on this time. I didn't recognize her. Just did not feel comfortable with the whole discussion. I would encourage you to go back and maybe watch rules for this particular segment so that we don't spend a bunch of time here. I will continue to be a no unless I get further information that changes my mind. Thank you. Council member Peluso, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. I will be listening about this earlier. I'm a little surprised at this. I know that you've come to many different downtown, you wrote the special committee for downtown, everything else. I understand the issue with so much that it's because it's not a brick-and-mortar operator in the downtown investment authority area and, therefore, ineligible to get dollars that way. However, this is still, I think, a critical business in our downtown area. I'm eager to hear more. Do we not just want to defer this bill so that it doesn't die here? Because I'm seeing some of the people's names on here, and it's making me concerned that it's not going to make it through committee. How about this? Through the Chair to Ms. Devopoulos. Ms. Oh. Ms. Devopoulos. If this gets voted down here and then gets voted down in finance, it's ineligible to go in front of council? Through the Chair to Council Member Peluso? No. It would still be able to go to council for a full vote of the council. Those are reports or recommendations from the committee. It's only when it's not for one way or another that it gets stuck in committee because you didn't have sufficient vote to move it forward. So it came out three to four in rules, so it passed out of rules. Depending on the vote here, if it's voted on today, if it's for one way or the other, for or against, it would be voted out, and then it would go to finance tomorrow. Unlike the other bill, which was two to three, and it could still be discharged by the President to take it to council next Tuesday. Through the Chair, yeah. I'm wondering. If we are going to take action on it today, I would like to hear both from her and from Ed. If it's all right with you. Okay. Yes, please. Won't need a full pitch on what everybody does and what happens, but if you could just give us the basics, that would be good. Sure. I guess the one question I got was money for improvements that were already made. Is that correct? Sure. Ed Randolph, OED. Good afternoon. Through the Chair. To the Chair. Yes. So literally the improvements that are being discussed today, the repayment, were just literally done within the last few days. I know they just received the vote back. So this is, they approached us a few months ago. As was stated, they approached the DIA. The DIA does not have any off-the-shelf programs that deal with entities such as this, which is a dinner cruise boat. Their programs address brick-and-mortar retail restaurant operations, of which they went before them requesting some support in that they've been in business about a year now, but they're not seeing the amount of foot traffic. They're not necessarily thinking that they're going to survive in downtown here based on the volume of patrons coming onto their boat. They want to stick it out, but just like restaurants and other retail entities come before the DIA for support to their programs, they do not have a brick-and-mortar location. And so that is why we are here under OED looking at this and underwriting this as if it's any other small business that's somewhere else in a distressed area, of which this is in the CRA downtown, underwriting it from the fact that they've got five employees and work with a lot of other small businesses, you know, caterers, bartenders, florists, musicians, laundry services. So they do interact, and there's a lot of trickle-down as it relates to sales tax, heads in beds, folks that come from out of town to go on a dinner cruise. And we just looked at it as being we're investing hundreds of millions of dollars in our downtown parks and riverfront. You know, most vibrant downtowns have at least one of these types of offerings. We have a taxi. This is not a taxi. This is a full-service dinner cruise, open to the public with different theme nights and whatnot. So getting folks out on the river, engaging them, having that offering, we believe, is key to driving people downtown to enjoy the benefits of all the money we're investing in the riverfront. So with that, they're really engaged in the community. I'm happy to let the co-owner here speak as well, but that was our reasoning behind this. So to your original question, they did engage us a few months ago, getting through MBRC, arriving here today, finding funds for a rev grant, which is not being paid to apply to this, is where we're at. So they literally had to get the boat done in order to stay in business, so they had to take it up to Savannah. Locally, they got charged. They were given a much higher estimate, so they had to drive their boat 17 hours to Savannah, unfortunately, to get the work done. It's a biannual Coast Guard inspection, mandatory in order to stay in operation, so that's what we're going to be for you today. Okay. All right. Thank you. Council Member Pelluso, you were going to ask. Thank you. To the chair, to the body. I mean, we've been hearing from this organization for a while, and yet to the point of timing was everything. They had to get into that berth during the time that they had. They couldn't have extended it any longer, it's my understanding. Can we at least learn about how business has been? Are you seeing an uptick in visitors and everything else? I've lived in other cities where we have these cruises. They're quite popular, but it does take a while, and I understand economics have been a little tough, but if you could, ma'am, I'd appreciate it. Yes, thank you. I'm Leslie P. Belenich of Jack's Yacht Charter and the Royal Princess. And for those of you who don't know who we are, this is concerning to me, because if you walk down the South Bank at any point in front of the Chart House, you can't miss us. We're there. We are connecting residents and tourists to the St. Johns River, which is the most beautiful river. We've designed our vessel so that we can go underneath the Main Street Bridge. We're offering something that's very important, and it's extremely important. It's just been a really long committee. Okay. Kate, how has business been in the past couple months? We just had an article in the Jacksonville Business Journal, and we had to pivot. That's what you do in the first year. We are not coming here every year to ask you for money. Please know that this is not something that I want to be doing, and I'm confident that in the next year people will know about us. If you all don't know about us, that means other people don't know about us. It takes time to get the word out. So business has increased because of all of the marketing that we're doing. I'm out there with my video singing and dancing with the people. Do you know how many patrons you've had in this past year before? We've had about, well, if we've done 24, we've done at least 30 public cruises. If we average 75 to 100, I mean, we're taking thousands of people, but it takes effort. And are you paying parks to? Yes. How much are you paying parks? We pay $750 a month for parks. We pay $80,000 a year in insurance. Just to stay afloat is $30,000 a month. Got it. We need help just right now to bridge this gap. We had to lift the boat out of the water. It wasn't something we wanted to do. It has to be done. And we know we'll be able to afford it in two years. We just need a little bit of a bridge right now. Please. We are here for Jacksonville. I mean, I wrote a song for Jacksonville. I'm always talking about it. I understand. Go ahead, Chair. Okay. Thank you. We'll go next to Pastor President Salem. You're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Ed, can you come back up? I'm just reading here. It requires retention of five existing jobs, continual operation of the vessel, and conducting a minimum of 24 events annually on the vessel and open to the public during the two-year term of the agreement. So what happens if they're not in business in two years? Is there a callback? Sure. Through the Chair to Councilman Salem, yes. So they need to stay in business, do at least 24 events open to the public, so they may do private weddings and the like. But then there's a clawback. So we claw back those dollars. So we're giving them money, but we want them downtown, offering these services, 24, at least 24 events open to the public for those two years. If not, we claw that money back. You claw that money back. Correct. 100%? Correct. Okay. Okay. I wish that would have come out this morning. Thank you. I know you're not on the queue, but I'm just curious because you were here at the rules meeting. Vice Chair, do you have any comments? You all took that up this morning. Is there anything else just that in general that was shared this morning that might be of value? That's all. Thank you, Chair. To the Chair. The issue I have with it is that I don't see the, although it's saying she's opening her business to the public, and I understand that, how that's defined within the context of her business. I just do not see the benefit that we're getting, and this is not the first time, and I don't mean to disparage her business or anything, because I don't know much about her business personally, although I did see the video in regards to how it is that you and your family came to reside in Jacksonville. I did watch that, and I watched it, like, some months ago, but the point that I'm going to make is that we've had other vessels that have taken dinner cruises before, and it's something that people pay for. When she talks in the legislation where it mentions 24, basically, events that are going to be open to the public, I was thinking that maybe she's going to have some, like, specific groups, maybe some kids, maybe some people with autism, some kind of niche things that are, in a sense, meets my definition of being open to the public, and then they're, like, maybe being free of charge, but once again, I checked with OGC in regards to my definition of how I was thinking, like, public, and how it's being defined in the legislation, and they're not the same. Once again, with the amount of the dollars, and I did listen carefully to her explanation as to what costs she's incurred being a yacht owner, I just did not see the bargain that the city is getting in regards to the benefit. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. Please, Council Member. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, sorry I put you on the spot, but I just, I saw the vote. It was three to four, and so it just begged the question to me. Council Member Peluso, you're working nice. Thank you, Chair, and I want to speak to this just because I've known this participant because of the downtown committee, as well as the fact that Downtown Investment Authority has a number of different, it's called Fab Rep Gramps. They're specifically for brick-and-mortar businesses within the downtown area. So again, like, what, to the point of, oh, are there special, special things for children with autism or whatever else? These other brick-and-mortars that are just businesses in our downtown area, we're looking to make sure that they succeed, and so there's public, there's public, it's good public policy to ensure that we have that, and so I see this as an extension of that. This just happens to be a yacht that's not brick-and-mortar, certainly a very real place, but it's kind of meeting the same requirement as the other stuff. Keep in mind, we just put in a ton of money for incentives for restaurants right downtown in Riverfront Plaza. We're going to be doing another one for European Street. This is not something outside the norm of what we as policy experts and the policy-making body put into practice. We put money into restaurants all the time, especially in the downtown area, that make use of our public parks. So I've got no problem from it from that perspective. In terms of the repayment, the timing of the repayment, I believe it seems odd, but it's only because when that berth is available for you or that dry dock is available for you as a vessel to go and use it, you have to use it then, otherwise you miss it for months on end, and especially a yacht of this size. There's only so many dry docks that can handle it, so that's why I understand why we're paying later on, but I'm in support of this. I was a little taken aback when I saw that it was voted down, but it's probably because of a lack of understanding about some of the DIA incentives that exist and why they don't qualify for it, but it's very much similar to any of those. Because I hear you, and once we get more fiscally solvent, we want to do this. I have ideas that I have not shared that I want to work with people because we're just getting it going, but we want to include as many people as we can on the vessel. We're also providing maritime jobs. There's no place for people to come and learn how to throw lines and how to learn about engines, and we're giving people opportunities here. And we also work with Downtown Vision once a month for free. People can come on the boat from 6 to 8 for two hours. Complimentary, we're an open house. They come on the boat. We have a marketplace for people to sell things, and they leave. Unless we're booked for a private charter, we have been doing this for four months, every third Thursday. All right. Thank you. No one else in queue. Please open about. Record your vote. Nays. Two nays. Same situation, right? Yes, Mr. Chair. Without four votes one way or the other, it will remain in committee and we'll come back next cycle unless discharged by the council president. Okay. Thank you. We'll now go on to, let's see, where are we here again? We can now go on to item number 49, 2026-0724. Who motioned and seconded on the emergency? Ms. Reaver, please explain the emergency. Through the chair to the committee, the nature of the emergency is that the license agreement expired on May 4th, 2026. So, how, well, it's going to be funny there. May 4th, like, so this is an emergency because May 4th has already passed. Okay. Okay. I'm trying. I'm trying on that one, but I'm sure they've caught it until now wanting to go forward. Okay. No one in the queue, all those in favor of the emergency, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The emergency passes. We have a motion seconded on the amendment. Please explain the amendment. Through the chair to the committee, the amendment is to clarify in the bill that the licensee is managed access to Child Health, Inc. and to clarify that the existing license agreement expired on May 4th, 2026, attached to Revised Exhibit 2, which is the First Amendment to correct the term and renewal expiration dates and correct scriveners. All right. Thank you. Vice Chair Clark-Murray, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to Ms. Reber. I know that the nature of the emergency, the licensing agreement, expired on May 4th, but I know that sometimes there are grace periods. So is that why we're able to continue to assist? Through the chair to Council Member Clark-Murray, in the original license agreement, there was holdover language, so they could go month to month. All right. Thank you for that. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. On the amendment, right? All those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment passes. Got a motion and second on the bill as an emergency as amended. Knowing the queue, please open the ballot and record your vote. Aye, yea, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0724 as an emergency as amended. Item 50, 2026-0740 is on second read. And I think that concludes the meeting. If there is nothing else, we have Council Member Peluso. You recognize? Thank you, Chair. Just a point of clarification to Ms. Tapopoulos. So right now, the exchange place bill, which is what, number 0673, whichever it was? 0673. That, so right now, that's not going to go before us as a council. Through the chair to Council Member Peluso. So unless it's discharged by the council president, it would remain in committee until the next cycle. So if we voted down now, if it's officially a fail, it does go before council. So if you get four votes either way, it would be reported out either as an approval or a denial, and then it would go to council. Move to reconsider Bill 2026-0673. I'm going to vote it down, and that way it fails and goes to council. Yeah, and I'd like some guidance on that because that just seems wrong. To the chair and through the chair to the committee. So it is not unheard of that if a vote lands two to three and it's stuck in committee, that a committee member won't just for the purposes of being able to report an item out, decide that they think it's in the best interest of the legislation to change their vote so that it can move forward to the full council. That is not unheard of, but again, you can also just allow it to remain, or if no one changes their votes, then it's up to the bill sponsor if they want to seek the president to discharge it. And that's on, I'm sorry, I just want to clarify, that's on 721? 0673. I'm sorry. The exchange place bill that Council Member Carly-Ritchie had. Let me go back to that. What item is it again? Item 21, 0673. 21, okay, got it. And, Chair, I'll just make it quick. I'll vote it down, and that way it fails and it can go to council. Okay, we've got Vice Chair Clark-Murray in the queue, who recognized. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to be a little petty. Why you didn't say that earlier? Didn't I put in the, through the chair to Council Member Peluso, didn't I ask for a motion to reconsider? And were not the wheels turning then? Through the chair to Council Member Clark-Murray, no, they were not. My wheels sometimes need a little grease. Mr. Chair, my understanding was at the time that the initial motion to reconsider was offered, both you and Dr. Salem had indicated you would not be changing your vote. So I don't know that Council Member Peluso changing his would accomplish reporting it out of committee, because it was two to three. Through the chair, yeah. I think as many of us who want to see this bill move forward should vote to kill it, and that way it will go to City Council. So thank you. I still have the floor. Through the chair to Mr. Fopolis, or through the chair to Mr. Peluso. To Mr. Peluso, what you're saying is that you want some other members of this committee to vote it down, so then we can move the bill. Through the chair to Council Member Clark-Murray, I'm afraid you'd say that. It was my understanding you would probably vote no with me, based on the fact that you initially went to reconsider. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to consider the reconsideration right now. Thank you. Okay. Council Member Holder, are you recognized? Thank you. Through the chair, I was just going to confirm that I'd be willing to vote it out as well. I'm sorry, what was that again? I'd be willing to vote it down as well. Oh, okay. And so I guess Council Member Salem, I will vote it up. So are we really going to start the process of doing this? Do we really want to do this, I guess, is the question. Yes. Yes, please. I mean, through the chair, this is not unheard of. Keep in mind that Council President can discharge it. I have no idea how he views this particular bill, and that's what generally happens when you have this type of situation. The city council president just discharges it, and it goes to the floor. If you're concerned about that, and I think that's Council Member Peluso's concern, that he's not going to discharge it, doesn't like the way the bill has come to us, similar to my feelings. I probably wouldn't discharge it. I probably wouldn't discharge it if I was president, because I have a philosophical problem on the way that it's occurring, nothing to do with the organization. But I'm going to vote no. But I'm going to vote no. I'm going to be consistent, and it's up to you to recognize it and go forward. All right. I want to honor my colleagues' wishes here and respect that and previous actions. So, you know, let's go ahead and, okay, well, Council Member Peluso's, okay. So, Mr. Chair, you have a motion to reconsider on the floor, so you need to take a vote on that. And if it passes, you would go back to the very beginning, starting with moving the amendment on the bill. Okay. All those in favor of reconsidering, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. No. Okay. All those in favor, please raise, of reconsidering, please raise your hands. All those opposed, no. I mean, excuse me. Yeah, all those opposed, raise your hand. Okay. So, Mr. Chair, the motion to reconsider has failed, and so the prior action of the committee stands, and it will remain in committee unless discharged by the president, and we'll come back next cycle. Okay. Thank you very much. Now have we concluded? Anything else? All right. We are adjourned. Thank you. What I love about this playground is it was designed to obviously get kids out of the house and play outside, but the way it was designed is to challenge them and for them to take risks on the playground. That's something that we need more of, in my opinion, just for our young generation. District 5, South Bank has three, four, five other projects in the works that are all going to be similar to this style. Like, we are taking our public spaces to the next level in Jacksonville, especially on the South Bank. We're going to have more pickleball. We're going to have a dog park. We're going to have more tennis court. We're going to continue to push that forward. So this is just the start, and this is just the taste of what we're going to see more of. A lot of seniors, a lot of individuals without cars call my office and let me know they can't make it to City Hall. It's in the area where I live at. You know, we can just walk from our house and come here. Coming to greet us and meet us and find out the things that we need in the community instead of going to City Hall and can't get to you or, you know, whatever. But I think it's a great idea, and I think it would motivate the community as well, knowing that you're out there doing the work for us. So I hope that this is just not one thing, and not just for our community, but maybe it's going to be throughout the city of Jacksonville or the other districts and areas are going to do the same thing. Since we've been having these events, we've been averaging anywhere, you know, from 20 to 25 people coming on the office on the block. So, you know, and some people just want to discuss what's going on in their neighborhood. Some people just want to meet me. You know, some people, you know, just want to give us ideas or just find out what's going on. At the end of the day, it's about bridging the gap, meeting the community halfway, and that's why we're here today. I just want to take the load off their plate. You know, if I can make their life a lot easier by coming to their homes, by coming to their backyard, I made a big difference right there. So for me, it's how can I make the constituents and the community's lives a lot easier.