Rules Committee - Oct 19, 2026

Good morning everyone. I call the Monday, October 19th rules meeting to order and we'll start with introductions to my left with Mr. Delaney. Good morning y'all. Bill Delaney at the Mayor's office. Colleen Hampsey, Council Research. Carla Schell, Office of General Counsel. Trista Carraher, Council Auditor's Office. District 10. Ron Salem, Group 2 at large. Hannah Morris, City Council District 1. Mike Gay, District 2. Will Landon, District 3. Good morning, Tyrone Clark-Murray, District 9. Good morning, Michael Boylan, District 6. Welcome everyone. I must announce though we did have an early quorum this morning. Yes, we did. So, do we have any public speaker cards? All right, we do have one speaker card and another one on the way. First, we'll start with Mr. Carna Oliver. Come up, sir. You'll be given two minutes to give your name and address for the record. Thank you, sir. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next, we've got John J. Nooney. Come on up, give your name and address for the record, and be specific. Speak into a bill, sir. Thank you. You've got two minutes. Speak into the microphone, please. All right. You know, this is something that's been going on. Do I get to start over? I mean, I've got this from other meetings through the chair. Do I get an opportunity to start over? We heard you. Please continue. All right. I'll tell you. Attorney General of the State of Florida, call me. I mean, we're getting absolutely crushed. All right. I've only got 50 seconds. But I'll tell you what, 2026-0762, 2026-0763, 20-0764. You know, Blake Bass, you know, right here, Tier 1 System Park on Pottsburg Creek. You know, he's 10 for 10. You know, doesn't even need to be here. But I'm only down to 20 seconds. Here's the greater Arlington CPAC. Our CPACs are absolutely destroyed. Guests, John J. Nooney. You flip over to the minutes. Here's a minute. I'm not even recognizing the minutes. And here's Kids Hope Alliance. You know, two seconds. And I'm making a donation to the Parks Trust Fund. So looking at our next items we'll be going through is our appointments. So we'll go to our first appointment, page 7, item number 11, 2026-0733. Can I get a motion on the bill? I've got a motion second on the bill. Is Gabriel Roberts here? Come on down, sir, and give us a little bit about your desire to serve on the Civil Service Board. Good morning, Chairperson and Councilmembers. I don't have a whole statement prepared here about everything. I think I submitted some written responses to questions. I'd rather use the three minutes I have to address any additional questions that anybody on the committee has for me about my background and experience as it relates to this appointment. All right. Any speakers? Ms. Cartman, are you recognized? Good morning to you. I apologize. I did not see the answers to your questions that you just spoke about. So I'm just going to make an assumption that based upon you being nominated for this particular board that you're, like, not an employee of the city, JEA, any of those, right? That's correct, yes. Okay. And so can you tell us, like, what your understanding is of what the Civil Service Board does? Yes. The Civil Service Board serves to hear appeals on employment disputes between city and city employees. It's comprised of nine members from various appointments. My view of the Civil Service Board is there to ensure that every employee has the opportunity to do process on their appeals, but also that every city and public agency has the chance to make sure the law is upheld correctly when it comes to any decisions they make without interfering in their roles. Fantastic. And what's your educational background? I'm actually a triple gator. Did undergrad, master's, and law school at the University of Florida. Awesome. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. All right. No other speakers in the queue. If you would, give your name and address for the record. Of course, Gabriel Roberts, 4754, Beverly Circle, Jacksonville, Florida, 32210. All right. No other speakers in the queue. I've got a motion and a second. Open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0733. You're welcome to come this coming Tuesday night to City Council. After the vote, we'll announce your name and recognize you and thank you for your service. Thank you all so much. Thank you. Next item, number 21 on page 11. Item number 21, 2026-0770. Can I get a motion on the bill? I've got a motion and a second on the bill. Is Jennifer Peterson here? Come on down and give your name and address for the record and a little bit about your desire to serve on the library trustees. Thank you so much. I'm Jennifer Peterson. My address is 4624 Tanbark Road, Jacksonville, 32210. It is a dream to be able to be here in front of you being considered for the library board. I'm a Jacksonville native, grew up going to the Webb West Connect branch, and it was formative in my life. My highest educational rank is I have a doctorate in education leadership and policy from FSU, and I have experience on boards previously. I am currently the president of the Family Promise Jacksonville Board, a small nonprofit that keeps families together. I do understand the role of a library board member in governance, fiscal stewardship, and those sorts of things in policy. And, yeah, I'm really excited to be here, and I would love to take any questions that you might have. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Clark Murray. It's because I'm the newbie on the committee. Good morning to you. My question actually is for Michelle. Michelle, I was reading in the requirements for those who want to serve on the library board, trustees board. It uses the word patron, and I know in a previous meeting we were talking about whether or not those who are selected to serve on boards in regards to funding, in regards to fundraising. So how is patron defined in – you're looking at me like, Clark Murray, I have no idea, and you just do way too much, which I probably do. I'm an overachiever for sure. Or just do we have, like, a general definition of how it's defined? Because I'm thinking that this is someone who loves, obviously, library, maybe a bibliophile, but yet there's, like, a fundraising aspect of it. That's what I'm thinking, but please clarify my understanding. Through the chair to Councilmember Clark Murray, thank you for that question. I don't believe there's any fundraising aspect to the – and I'm getting a nod from the audience – there's no fundraising aspect to this board. As far as the definition of patron, I would have to review that and look that up and how it's used in this section. I think generally a patron is someone who visits the library, but I don't know if there's any, like, card-holding requirement. No, it's just someone who – I have my library card and my library book – my library book in my back. Oh, today's going to be fun. I'm going to bring fun to this board tonight. Thank you. Thank you. You're great. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. Very good. No other speakers in the queue. I've got a motion and a second. Let's open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you approve 2026-0770, and you're welcome to come Tuesday night. We'll announce your name after the vote, and thank you for your service. The next item is item 22 on page 12, item 22, 2026-0771. I've got a motion and a second. Is Mr. Scott Galliard here? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Scott Galliard. I live at 5375 Ortega Farms Boulevard, and I'm a huge fan of the libraries. I grew up in the system. I visited, I'd say, a majority of the library branches, and I'm still a very active user. So when I heard that they needed someone from my side of town, I jumped at the chance to be a board member. All right. Thank you. No speakers in the queue. I've got a motion and a second. Let's open a ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you approve 2026-0771. And likewise, Tuesday night, we'll announce your name after the vote. It's not mandatory for you to be here, but you're welcome to come, and thank you for your service. Next item, number 25 on page 13, 2026-0774. I've got a motion and a second on the bill. Is Allison Galloway-Gonzalez here? Come on down and give us a little bit about your desire to serve on the Culture Council. Good morning, Council. Allison Galloway-Gonzalez. I reside at 1704 Walnut Street, Jacksonville, Florida, 32206. I'm very excited to serve on the Cultural Council Board. I have been a big supporter of arts and culture since I moved here in 2009. I have a master's in art history. I am currently a consultant for nonprofits and specifically arts organizations around the country. I have been on staff, volunteer, or patron of almost every single one of the 34 grantees of the Cultural Council. I helped write the public art plan for DIA several years ago. And I am really excited to change my service to a volunteer position on the board. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Bowen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the Chair, to Allison, thank you for putting yourself forward. I didn't bother to return your email with your questions because I knew well enough, and I know a great contribution you're going to make to the Cultural Council. Thank you. Thank you. All right. No other speakers in the queue. I've got a motion and a second on the bill. Open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, we're approved, 2026-0774. And as, like the others, you're more than welcome to come Tuesday night, and we'll announce your name after the vote, and thank you for your service. Item number 27, 2026-0776. Got a motion on the bill. I've got a motion and a second on the bill. Is Alicia Batson here? Come on down and give a little bit about your desire to be on the Planning Commission. Good morning. I'm Alicia Batson, 8025 Sierra Oaks Boulevard, and I'm very excited to serve. I am, I've been in Jacksonville since 1995. I have previously worked in the mayor's office and so, and at JTA, so I'm very familiar with the workings of the city, very familiar with the city. I have provided some information to all of you about my background, and I understand that the comprehensive plan is our guiding document, and also the land use and zoning rules. And I do understand about the commission, the work of the commission, and how important it is to the city. And so I am very excited to serve. This is an honor for me. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Ms. Councilmember Pittman. Good morning. First of all, I thank you so much for putting yourself up to serve this community. I have had an opportunity to work with her over several years, and she is truly a star. I will tell you that committee, she will be an asset, and I'm so glad that you will be here, and hopefully my colleagues will vote for you today. Thank you. Very supportive. Thank you. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Morrow. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Alicia, thank you for putting yourself forward to legislative services. Please add my name. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And I, too, want to thank you for coming forward to serve in this position. This is a very important position for my district, especially. And so I always encourage the commission members to please have an open ear to the community, to the residents that zoning changes how they affect. So with that, let's open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you approve 2026-0776, and you're welcome to come Tuesday night. It's not required, but if you want to, we'll read your name out after the vote, and thank you for your service. All right. This takes us back to the beginning of our agenda. Item number one, 2024-0966 is deferred at the request of Councilmember Carrico. Item number two, 2026-0192 is deferred at the request of Council President Howland. Item number three, 2026-0203. Can you have a motion on the bill? I've got a motion in a second on the bill. Before I go to the queue, I want to allow Mr. DeSalvo to come forward and share a couple of minutes of some items he's requested to speak about. We have a name and address for the record, sir. Sure. Hi. Joe DeSalvo. Address is on record. Chairman Gay and members of the Rules Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and for your consideration on my nomination to continue serving on the JEA Board of Directors. I consider serving on the JEA Board both a privilege and a serious responsibility. JEA is one of Jacksonville's most important public institutions, providing essential services to hundreds of thousands of customers. Its success requires sound governance, professional management, financial discipline, and a steadfast commitment to providing safe, reliable, and affordable services. Throughout my service, I have approached my responsibilities with one overriding principle. Do what is right for JEA, its customers, its employees, and its citizens of Jacksonville. That commitment also means exercising independent judgment, asking difficult questions, and speaking candidly when the circumstances warrant. I recognize some of my previous comments regarding the conduct and approach of certain council members have generated disagreement. I respect the city council as an institution, its oversight responsibilities, and individuals who serve on it. But respect does not require an agreement, and constructive oversight should not be confused with political interference. When I believe actions or accusations risk undermining JEA's governance, professional management, or public confidence without sufficient factual foundation, I have an obligation to speak up. I have done so, and will continue to do so when the circumstances warrant. This is not personal. It is not partisan. It's an expression of my responsibility as an independent board member. However, I firmly believe that legitimate oversight and JEA's operational independence are not mutually exclusive. In fact, both are essential to effective public governance. What matters is that our decisions in public discourse remain in grounded facts, fairness, due process, and in the best interests of the community. I am proud of JEA's employees, its leadership, and the progress the organization continues to make. Like any major enterprise, JEA faces challenges, and no organization is beyond criticism or improvement. Our responsibility is to address those challenges thoughtfully, transparently, and professionally. If confirmed to continue serving, I will bring the same independence, integrity, experience, and willingness to make difficult decisions that have guided my service. I will always welcome accountability. I will not confuse accountability with acquiescence. My commitment is to the citizens of Jacksonville and to ensuring JEA remains a strong, professional, managed public utility for generations to come. Thank you for your consideration. All right. Thank you. Let me go to the queue of Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for allowing him to speak. Let me begin by saying I honor the general service in the military. Our interactions after board meetings, before board meetings, have always been cordial. We share a personal issue in our families, and we've discussed that. So, and it is not personal to me, my comments. But I believe that General DeSalvo is ill-sued to remain on this board, and I'm going to tell you why. You can sit down, Mr. DeSalvo. I won't need you. Okay. Does anybody have any other questions? Go ahead and sit down, and if they do, they'll call you up. Thank you, sir. So, I need to go back to the February board meeting to explain my concerns. Rick Morales, a board member, and still a board member, who I appointed, was vice chairman at the time and scheduled to be chairman of the JEA board. And he began meeting with senior leaders in JEA to become familiar with the issues because he anticipated becoming chair at a future meeting. He was informed by some of the senior leaders that he met with of some management-style problems with the CEO at the time, Vicki Cavey. At that board meeting in February, he reported his discussions to the board, and he reported he had asked her to resign. According to him, she had agreed to resign, but called back later within a day or two or a few hours, according to Rick Morales, and asked him to hold off on that decision until she could speak to her pension person. She later called him and said she was not resigning. At that board meeting, the board, when these management issues came up, suggested that employees contact human resources within JEA, the inspector general, et cetera. What I don't think the board understood then is the employees were not going to go to HR because they felt like HR was a direct conduit to Vicki Cavey and anything they said would be communicated to her. So many of the employees did come to the inspector general, and I asked him to attend the meeting today, but he's home, he's ill, but I know he's watching. As I think many of you know, when this discussion occurred, I raised my hand to be recognized twice during that meeting. If I would have been recognized, I think the last several months may have been a lot different. If I would have been recognized, what I would have communicated is we had a similar problem. The city council did, as many of you know, with our leader, our council secretary, and we initiated a survey to the employees, confidential survey that costed us not a great deal of money, to determine confidentially their feelings about the council secretary. That process worked. We ended up changing council secretaries, as we all know here. I wanted to recommend that to the JEA board as a tool to quickly determine if there was a particular problem. I was not recognized. Mr. DeSalvo also had the slate for vice chair secretary pulled from a future agenda so that those names could be changed, and Rick Morales did not become chair of the JEA board. Now, this is me speculating. When a board member sometimes has a difference of opinion, as in JTA, she was removed. We all know about Megan Hayward. Rick Morales was a council appointment. He was not a mayoral appointment. He could not be removed. But instead of being removed, his leadership, move to leadership within the JEA was changed. Mr. DeSalvo also held a press conference with the mayor. Before any of this could be researched or looked into, calling the whole process political. When President Karako set up this meeting, set up this investigative committee, which was on capacity fees, as I think most of you know, as well as the CEO, I went to the inspector general where many of these employees had gone, and I spoke to him. And he indicated to me that these issues of her management need to be looked into. As I said, I wish he was here. He didn't say it had to be looked into through an investigative committee, but that was the decision of the president at the time. So we included that in our investigation. When I look at board members, or what I call the big four authorities, I look for three things. I look for intellect. Clearly, Mr. DeSalvo has the intellect to do this job. I look for the ability to research issues and get to the bottom of things that are coming before the board. Spend the time. I've watched Mr. DeSalvo. I have no doubt that he does that. And probably most of them is to maintain a professional relationship with the CEO and be able to evaluate them and not in a personal way. And this is where I think Mr. DeSalvo has failed. And I think we have other board members within our system that have failed. They've become too close to the CEO and become very defensive when things come up, as is in this case. He shut the whole process down. Ms. Cavy, in her testimony in front of the investigative committee, made a comment. Why are we here when she was tested? We didn't have to be there. If this thing would have been handled by the chair in February, and in my opinion, a much more responsible way, we would not have been there. Instead, the messenger got punished instead of investigating the issue immediately. Now, granted, six weeks later, the board began a process, but it was way too late. In fact, I had calls from board members who told me, we didn't handle that well. We should have paused. We should have looked into it. But the process had already begun, not very much longer. I asked for some discretion here, Mr. Boylan. Yes, he did, so let's keep the cross-talk down, please. I believe that personal relationship interfered with his fiduciary responsibility to the city and to the JEA. As I said, we saw this in JTA. We saw Megan Hayward come forward with some accusations, and we saw what happened to her. The mayor removed her, and now we sit here today examining those issues. So I will not be voting to confirm Mr. DeSalvo, and I urge my council members to do the same. Thank you, Chair. All right, thank you. Let me go through the queue here. Council Member Bowling, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm free to put me on the clock for three minutes. I promise I won't go as long. Although my story with General DeSalvo goes back much further than that of my colleague, Mr. Salem. I served on the Rules Committee when he became a member of the board. We were in the throes rewriting Article 21 and working on the board bylaws, the precepts of Article 21. Even, as I just mentioned to my colleague, we raised the standard, if you could, as best we could, in terms of the qualifications of the board members. And he certainly fit that bill. I served four years as liaison for city council. I saw the transition of leadership, not once but twice, with Mr. General DeSalvo playing a major role in both the transitioning from one executive director to the next. And we're going to go through that process again. So that transition, I think it's critical to have institutional knowledge, which he brings bear to this process. Spoke about Mr. Morales. Rick is a friend, so I don't say this disparagingly, but it was made very clear at that meeting. He was far out of bounds when he reached out to the executive director for her resignation. He had no right or opportunity to do so. And many of his board members called him out on that decision. So I think that impacted their ability and confidence in doing what he did, in his ability to lead at that point in time. He was clearly swimming against the tide as it related to the city council members, I mean the board members of JEA and the role that they're supposed to play. I believe General DeSalvo has put his heart and soul into this work. He deserves the opportunity to continue missteps. We all make missteps. In the heat of the motion, in the moment, that's likely to happen. As a liaison, I understood my role. It was made very clear to me, not by the chair at the time, but someone at the very first meeting, says liaison is there to provide a conduit between the board and the council, which I played that role often. And when asked to speak or provided opportunities to speak, I was able to do so, in most instances, with General DeSalvo. But I understood my place on that board. And for us to try and interject our own personal opinions of how things should be happening simply was not the role of a liaison on that board or any board, for that matter, as my colleague probably knows well. So I will continue. I'm, frankly, kind of surprised. No, I'm not kind of surprised. I am very surprised we're having this conversation. I mean, what we've seen happen has happened behind us. And to compare it to JTA is totally out of bounds. Clear mismanagement situation along with JTA. We're not seeing that with JEA. We're seeing a challenge in the transition from leadership not once but twice during this tenure on the board. And I think we need to continue to allow him the time and opportunity to continue to serve in that capacity. So I will be supporting his nomination or re-nomination today. Thank you. Let me go to Council Member Morrow. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to support the reappointment. As the new liaison to the JEA board, I've had the task of reading Article 21, which defines a very clear line of demarcation between the role of the City Council and the role of the JEA, the Independence Authority. When I look at an individual who puts himself forward for service, I use the Aristotle metric, ethos, pathos, logos. I look at the character of the individual, the passion of their heart, before I listen to what comes out of their mouth. What I just heard a second ago has clearly defined the role of this individual, that he is there to do what is right. And I think that is the approach that we need for governance in our municipal bodies, doing what is right. Not what is expedient, not what is political, not what is popular, but what is right. And for that reason, I'm going to support this reappointment. I think this individual still has the heart to serve this community and do what is right. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Council Member Clark-Murray. Thank you, Chair. As the newest member of this particular standing committee, I'm surprised. I don't think we've had any instances like this before. This is surprising to me. I look, first of all, at what the code says, what our ordinance says. And so, first of all, his reappointment. He has attended 34 out of 36 of the meetings. That's a 94% average. I also look at the elements that are mentioned in regards to someone serving that position. And it's been mentioned before by Council Member Boylan. I'm also thinking about some legal aspects, like hearsay. You just don't say what someone else said, especially on the record, without having that person here to corroborate what is being said. I don't see in the information, through the chair, I'm sorry if I didn't say that earlier. And I don't see in the information about JEA boards as to whether or not Mr. DeSalvo is prohibited from meeting with the mayor, because that was mentioned by Council Member Salem. I also don't see where some of the words mentioned that he allowed the situation at that time to interfere with his fiduciary duty to JEA. And once again, one of the aspects or one of the requirements is that he attends the board meetings, and he's doing that. JEA, it seems to be always kind of a sore spot in regards to our city. And it's always, in my opinion, as a native of Jacksonville, always seeming to be under attack in some shape, form, or method. And I understand why, especially after what happened during the Curry administration. And this big, I heard an amen, like I was in church. Okay, good. So, and whether or not Mr. DeSalvo was prohibited from the press conference, it's not outlined. Maybe it's in the bylaws, something that I can't access right now, that he shouldn't. But we don't know that information right now. And like my other colleagues, I'm going to support his reappointment based on some of the things that he mentioned in regards to his speech to us, and based on the information that's in our, that's codified in regards to what JEA board members should do. And until I find out otherwise, I'm going to support it. Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you. Let me go back to Dr. Salem for a second time. Thank you, Chair. I'll make this quick, just to clarify a couple of points. We're here because the mayor decided to move his reappointment. Mr. DeSalvo could serve until he's replaced. That's why we're sitting here today, as I understand it. He could serve another three or four years until he's replaced. So, we are here because of a reappointment process, is my understanding. Number two, I would freely admit the fact that Rick Morales approached her to resign at that board meeting, and that was reported through off the board to some extent. But the accusations, I should say, the information he obtained from senior leaders within JEA about her management style was still on the table, and I don't think they handled that correctly. Number three, the role of the liaison. There's just a difference of opinion between some of my colleagues and I on the role of the liaison. When I came on the council, the liaison to JEA sat in the audience. I went to a JEA board meeting in the middle of all the hoopla that we had in 2019. I said, why are you sitting out here? Well, that's what they told me to sit. So, we have come a long way with our liaisons, and I think our liaisons need to be involved in board meetings, need to be able to ask questions, particularly at JEA, because we own JEA. The other authority is a little bit different. I was the first person who defended President Howland when the Port Authority wouldn't allow him to speak. I wish he was here today to verify that. So, I believe our liaisons throughout the government ought to be able to participate. Now, they need to be careful that they don't get too involved, and I would be the first one to say that. But they should be recognized and be able to participate, and I was not. I was ignored by Mr. DeSalvo twice. I encourage you to go watch that tape. I was very respectful of that process. In fact, I had a number of calls that asked me why I didn't react. I was not going to play into that. I was not going to play into that. Of course, Mr. DeSalvo can meet with the mayor. I never said that. I said he held a press conference with the mayor and Vicki Cavey, calling the whole process political and all sorts of other words. He can clearly meet with it. My concern was he held that press conference as the board chair. I would not do that without authority from my board if I was in that position, but he did, and I think that was beyond his scope as well. Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you. All right. No other speakers in the queue. I'd like to, Mr. DeSalvo, if you would come back up, I want to ask you one question real quick. Are you the board chair now, currently? No. I had two years of board chairing that, and so I termed out. So as of April, my last month was in April as a board chair. Okay. Thank you. All right. You know, here in the – you can sit down. Thank you. Here in the conversation, which, you know, sometimes they can go lengthy. Mr. DeSalvo wasn't on the agenda to speak, but he asked to speak. So I always will lean toward the opportunity for anybody that is part of the bill, the situation, to have an opportunity to speak. And so some may go long, some may go short, but I'm always going to give everybody the opportunity to speak. I believe that's democracy. I believe that's the fair way it should be. Looking at Mr. DeSalvo and the situations that arose that I wasn't there, I watched it, the videos of it in those board meetings, yes, they were troubling to me. They were disturbing, same as the JAA, the way President Holland was treated. And I went to that meeting out there at JAA, witnessed it, and was pretty appalled at what took place, as well as some of the other council members that attended it as well. Since then, JAA has a different approach, which I'm appreciative to now. I believe Mr. DeSalvo, in hearing him and his presentation this morning to us, that there's things he probably would have done differently. And life is about lessons, and we learn lessons. And it's not all about what we do wrong, it's about what we do to correct what we did wrong. And so I believe he's learned a pretty big lesson from this. And, you know, I always like to live life by the 2-2-1. I've got two ears, two eyes, and one mouth, and I try to keep it in proportion. And I always look at every situation that way, to where it's not all about me being heard. So that's why Councilman Landon always talks about how much I talk. But I believe there's just, you know, with liaisons, with the council up here, these committees, there's wisdom in a multitude of council. And we all should always be a sponge to that, to bring it in, to listen. And that way it makes us all a better city, makes us all a better JAA, makes us all a better JEA. So with that, I'll stop real quick and go to Ms. Pittman. Governor, if you would please come forward. I totally agree with everything you said. And, of course, I've had an opportunity to be involved with the investigation on the committee and all of that. What I would like to say to you, you came prepared this morning to basically say that maybe everything didn't go right, but you're still willing to serve this community. Your experience, your foundation is amazing. And the fact that you are here and you still want to serve, I've got to say, and we all have had an opportunity to say something, that I'm going to support you. You know, I have heard from the employees, I've heard from the staff, but we all make mistakes. And when we can stand up and say that the lesson learns when you know better, you do better. And so I just wanted to say that to you because it was very disturbing to me, especially hearing the employees, what they had to say. But I like to keep it straight and fair that you are a person that want to continue to serve. And I would hate for us to miss an opportunity for your talents, your institutional knowledge, to not continue to serve. Thank you. All right. Thank you. There's no other speakers in the queue. And I just want to also to Councilman Salem, I totally feel and understand what you went through. And definitely do not downgrade or dismiss that whatsoever. And my desire is to see a different approach that the JEA board does. And I think this will probably be significant as a lesson learned of what not to do and to let's do better. So with that, let's open a vote to open a ballot and record your vote. Six yays, one nay. All right. By your action, you approve 2026-0203. And thank you, Mr. DeSalvo, for being here this morning. Next item, number four, 2026-0227 is deferred at request of Councilmember Diamond. Item number five, 2026-0320 is deferred at request of Councilmember White. Item number three, 2026-0517 is deferred. And just a little update on that. I received more information that this item is still not resolved for the property owner. And just for everybody's, you know, just for everybody's information, we will, I will be taking action on this next meeting. I believe it's gone too long to sit here and have a homeowner with AC issues this long. So we'll be taking those, taking that up in our next, next meeting. Item number seven, 2026-0672. I've got a motion and a second on the withdrawal. No speakers in the queue. Open the ballot and record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you've withdrawn 2026-0672. Item number eight, 2026-0677 is deferred at request of Councilmember Matt Carlucci. Item number nine, 2026-0687. Can I get a motion on amendment? I've got a motion and a second on amendment. Ms. Carraher. Through the chair to the committee, the amendment will correct some warehouse clause language to clarify that the city did not intend to include city college incentive pay, shift differential pay, and upgrade pay within the definition of earnable compensation within the corrections employee's defined contribution plan. We'll also correct some formatting within a code reference in the bill and correct some scrivener's errors. Right. No speakers in the queue on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, say aye. Aye. All right. With that, the amendment carries. Do I get a motion and a second on the bill as amended? I've got a motion and a second on the bill as amended. Councilmember Clark Murray, you're recognized. To Ms. Schell, in reading this bill, those who participated in this plan and who have retired or who are separated from the city, will they be reimbursed? How is that going to work? If there's someone else who can answer the question, they can come forward, too. Through the chair, I would recommend that you direct that question to Mr. Granite, who is the author of this bill. Thank you. Yes, sir. Give your name and address for the record. Good morning. Sean Granite, Office of General Counsel, through the chair. Do you need me to, through the chair, do you need me to restate the question? No. So what this does is correct in the code what's already been done. So money's already been contributed by employees and the city. So no additional money by the employees or the city will need to be paid. This just catches the code up with what's been done for the past nine years. Thank you for that. So no money is owed to anyone. So the money has been collected. And let's just say between the time that the money was collected and now, someone who's separated from the city or a corrections officer who's no longer employed, will they receive funds? Will they be reimbursed? Or how is that going to work? They already have. They already have. Okay. For the past nine years, this additional money has been contributed towards the corrections officers' retirement accounts. So if they've left, they've received that money. Okay. Thank you. That was my concern. Thank you. That was my concern, Chair. Just how those who were separated and they did not, weren't aware of this money being collected, how they would receive their funds. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gannon. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Council Member Lannan. Thank you, Chair. And through, Chair, first off to the committee, this is a very complicated bill, so I want to make sure we at least discuss it a little. But through the Chair to Mr. Gannon, thank you for walking me through it. I think you reached out to a number of both finance and rules members. At the end of the day, I don't think I'm understating it to say that we are essentially codifying what our practice has been for the past couple of years, and that is really the most material substance of this is just codifying the practice we've been doing, correct? Through the Chair, that's absolutely correct. Thank you. And I will be supporting this and voting yes. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Council Member Morrow. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Lehman, for making that clear in plain English. They've been doing this for a while, and now they're making it legal, plain English. All right. Let me go to Dr. Salem. Through the Chair, I believe, can you come back up for a second? This goes back nine, ten years, does it not, as I recall? It does. It goes back to the start of the defined contribution plan in 2017. 17, so it's ten years. So we're just codifying something that's gone on for ten years, not two years. Thank you. Right. No other speakers in the queue. I've got a motion and a second on the bill as amended. Let's open a ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you approve, 2026-0687. Next item, number 10, 2026-077-0722. Can I get a motion on the amendment? I've got a motion and a second on the amendment. Ms. Carraher. Through the Chair to the committee, the amendment will strike the proposed change to Code Section 23802, which are the qualifications for the Environmental Quality Division Chief. As proposed, this would strike the requirement to have a college degree. It would allow for training and experience in lieu of that degree. After discussing this with employee services, there's another requirement that this position be a professional engineer, which does require a college degree. So that proposed change will be removed from this bill. And we'll correct some scrivener's errors and attach a revised Exhibit 1, which is the org chart, to remove the Jacksonville Sports Foundation. All right, thank you. Dr. Salem, on the amendment. The amendment includes the language of using training, I'm sorry, and leaves training and experience in lieu of a bachelor's degree, does it not, for Office of Administrative Services? Or is that a separate part of this? I'm just trying to determine, should I speak now or should I wait until after the amendment passes? Through the Chair to Council Member Salem, I believe you want to wait until after the technical amendment passes. Thank you. Right, so, Councilman Morrow, are you on the bill? Okay, go ahead, sir. Just very quickly, through the Chair, I'm going to support the amendment for the simple reason that, in the private sector, it's been a known practice that, if someone is woefully, or does not meet the academic qualifications for a position, life experience, work experience, can be considered commensurate to what the value of that education is. So, it just seems like it's a practice that should have been part of for a very long time, and now it's been done. Am I correct? Through the Chair, too. I think what you're getting at, Councilman Morrow, would be not the technical amendments, but it's going to be on the bill, and I believe, Dr. Salem, we'll be having an amendment that we'll probably have some discussion on about that same. Correct, correct. So, that's not what the amendment contains in that. So, but we'll be coming back to discuss those issues. Go ahead, Councilman Morrow, if you... Right now, there's just one amendment right now on the floor, one technical amendment. All right, so, no other speakers on the amendment on the floor. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Likewise, none. The amendment carries. Now, Dr. Salem, I've got a motion second on the bill as amended. Dr. Salem, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. I have very strong feelings about this issue and expressed them three years ago when I was president and this issue came up. I believe our cabinet, which is the mayor's cabinet, ought to require a college degree. In fact, if they wanted to make them masters or something in addition to that, as large as this government is, a consolidated government where you've got 10 or 12 people as cabinet members, I think you could make that argument. They're managing sometimes hundreds of people in budgets of tens of millions of dollars, and I think a college degree, to me, is a minimal requirement for that. I am in favor of this office becoming a department, which is also a part of this bill. I'm fine with that. If there was a candidate that the administration felt was appropriate to, had some long-term experience and did not have a college degree, they could move a waiver on that particular person, and we could have that discussion. But I think to, I have seen where things like this can get abused, and my concern would be if we let this occur, it will then become commonplace to make other departments not require a college degree, and I think we're down a slippery slope. So I would make an amendment to strike any language about training experience in lieu of a bachelor's degree in this bill, and just have a pure bill that makes the Office of Administrative Services a director, and then if the administration wants to come back after this and move a candidate with a waiver, I think that's an appropriate discussion to have. We are not Hooterville. We are Jacksonville, and to have people without a college degree just off the bat, I think is a big mistake for this government. We're the envy of most places in the country by our form of government. Let's don't make a change like this. Thank you, and I appreciate the second. Thank you. Let me go to Michelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair to Dr. Salem, I'd like to clarify what your amendment is. Are you wanting to remove the commensurate training and experience in lieu of a bachelor's degree throughout the bill for every chief, because it's in several places? Yes, because I have voted for, and let me clarify something here. We have had chiefs come to us with waivers in the past, and I have supported them. I don't have a problem at the chief level. As most of you know, a director has many chiefs that report to him. I think our housing person came to us a few years ago, did not have a college degree. I think he was working on one at the time, if I recall correctly, and I supported that. But I think a director is different, personally. I think they should have a college degree. However, if the administration wanted to come forward with a waiver, and I should also mention, and I've researched this, outside of the fire department, which I think is unique for not having a college degree, the last director in this government that did not have a college degree that was a director was 1987. It was Al Kennard. I know I'm looking at Mike Weinstein. He knew Al Kennard. I knew Al Kennard. He was very, very close to Jake Godbolt. He knew Al Kennard. He was the public works director and did not have a college degree. Think about that for a second. But that's what Jake Godbolt wanted. So this is unprecedented, and I think we should leave it the same and use the process. Yes, so to answer your question, for the other chiefs in this area, that experience part would be removed as well. Okay, so now we're on the Salem Amendment here. They go through the queue. Ms. Murray, are you on the Salem Amendment? Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to Ms. Leary. If you would come forward, Ms. Leary. This bill was deferred, and so in our last meeting, our rules meeting, I was under the impression, or my understanding was that this is not necessarily a motivation or being the catalyst for the change. It's not coming from the administration, but it's coming from statute. So I want some clarification on that, and then if it's not coming from statute, then I will say the rest of what I need to say this morning. So, okay, Mr. Weinstein, if you're going to speak, that's fine. Whomever. If I could, Mr. Chairman. Yes, go ahead, Mr. Weinstein. Mike Weinstein, Mayor's Office. The way the process is supposed to work is there's an eligibility list, and the eligibility has the requirements, and you've got to get through that to get to be considered. If we have an eligibility requirement and you don't meet it, you could be the best qualified person in the world, but you don't move to the next step is the way it typically works throughout city government. You can debate the importance of life experiences and what have you. The goal of this, as Councilman Salem said, is to get this aligned with the other department. This should have been a department from day one. It wasn't set up that way. I can't say why. I don't know why. And then you have confirmation. You didn't have confirmation the way it is today. Putting it as a department, you'd have confirmation. And whether a person comes to you with life experiences or degrees, it's still your decision. What we would like to do is go through the entire roles of all of our positions and where a college degree is required, but it doesn't have anything to do with the job. If you're a civil engineer, you've got to have certain degrees. If you want to be an assistant general counsel, you've got to have certain degrees. But many of our positions throughout government, including directors, don't have a required certification or education to do the job. Life experience is very, very important, maybe more so than a social science degree. So we are very strongly looking at all the positions, and we're going to come back to you with a bill with many positions to strike the education requirement. Keep it for all the ones that require it to do the job, but put life experiences and training in, in lieu of, so they at least make it to the next step and be considered. And again, you make final decision. So we're not trying – no one will sneak someone through that isn't necessarily prepared that you don't have an opportunity to speak to. Thank you for that, Mr. Weinstein. And basically, we're trying to get this office, like the other departments, to get it in the code the same way. Thank you for that. So through the chair to Mr. Weinstein and Ms. Lurie, so this is not – this is not a requirement that's coming from Florida statute. On the record, please. Through the chair to Councilman Clark-Marie, no, it's not required. It encourages. And so that is the Expanding Public Sector Careers Opportunity Act. Okay, thank you so much for that. So in reference to this particular position, I read the language in our ordinance code, and it does not require a degree. It does not. What the person – the position, what the person is required to do in this position, a degree is not required. So I don't think that not changing the information in regards to the language to include in lieu of a bachelor's degree will diminish the power of the person who's selected for this particular position. And so I understand Councilmember Salem's concerns in regards to a person holding a high position and being able to manage and not only manage and have the intellect and the leadership style to direct others. But in this case, if they want to use in lieu of a bachelor's degree with the experience, it's appropriate for this type of position. And once again, what this person is doing, it's an administrative service department. That's what they're changing the title from director to administrative service department. So I want to make sure I may have that a little backwards. But I don't think changing the language from requiring someone to have a bachelor's degree or the equivalent experience is inappropriate for the position. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let me go through the queue here. Let's go to Councilmember Landon. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. To Ms. O'Leary, if you don't mind coming up. When we met, you had shown me the new state law, and I guess what I'm trying to get to with what you've heard on Councilmember Salem's amendment, and Ms. Shelby, this is a question for you. Is his amendment allowable based on the language that we discussed in the new state law? Through the chair to Councilmember Landon, yes, it is allowed. Because it's not required, it encourages. So through the chair to Ms. O'Leary, the state law is actually encouraging, not mandating local governments to do this. That's correct. Okay. And through the chair to Dr. Salem, just one more time, your amendment is going to put the degree requirement, but will there also be language on or equivalent, or will that just be dropped essentially? Through the chair to Councilmember Landon, the language that I want is the existing language, which is a college degree for all of our chiefs and all of our directors. I think a college degree indicates someone who has dedicated themselves for some period of time to become studious, research, all those types of things. I think it gives a level of gravitas to that particular candidate. However, as I said, we have waived that for chiefs. We have never since 1987 waived that for a director. And I just think it's a mistake personally. Through the chair to Ms. Schell. So what that would mean is if someone was nominated or if someone was appointed and it comes to us for approval, a waiver requires two-thirds instead of simple majority to approve. Is that correct? Through the chair to Councilmember Landon. And that would be specific to each position. It would have to be written specifically in the code. I'm not aware of one that requires two-thirds to waive the education requirement. But if you have a question about a specific one, I can research it. Through the chair to Dr. Salem, please. Thank you. My understanding is a waiver requires two-thirds. So that I think you are correct if they wanted to nominate, as I said, I'm all for making it a director's position. Let me make that very clear. But if they had someone without a college degree, as I understand it from people I've talked to, it would require two-thirds of the council. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Amaro. Thank you, Mr. Chair. During my tenure here on city council, I voted against two waivers out of principle because I thought that if the job position required a college degree, the waiver was not, should not have been encouraged. In the process, I discovered that the problem with a waiver is that it leaves it open to the political process. So you come to this body, you find a good candidate, and you're asking for a waiver to the academic requirements, and you get ten votes from individuals who don't like the person for whatever reason. They did not consider his qualifications or anything of that nature. So I believe that this is an effort to come up with a fair and equitable approach to hiring the best of the best. If someone has been, and this is an oversimplification, but if someone has been making widgets for 20 years and they don't have a college degree, but you want a director of making widgets, I would think that he is eminently qualified for his 20 years of experience, even though he doesn't have a college degree. And so I find this approach just very pragmatic. It is used in a private sector where individuals apply for jobs and somehow their educational background may not quite fit, but their work experience, their life experience makes up for that difference. And I think that's all it's asking here. And I don't have a problem with that same application being used in government. If it's good for the private sector, it should be good for government. Thank you. Let's go to Council Member Bowen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I always shudder going after Council Member Romero in his comments. I think we heard from Mr. Weinstein by putting, and I certainly respect Councilman Salem's interest and commitment in this. We've got obviously a state statute now that encouraged us to say, let's take a look at the practical application of the individual and the experience that they have in this process. Mr. Weinstein mentioned it would actually limit their ability in terms of a pool of candidates by having this barrier of a degree in the middle of it. If we don't approve this amendment, which I don't believe we should, we will have the opportunity as a Council Member to take a look at whether or not that person is qualified, whether we agree or disagree that their life experience warrants them to have this position without a college degree. I don't want to limit our ability to, as Council Member Romero and others said, to disqualify people automatically because of that situation, the lack of a degree. Let's leave that opportunity to them, for them to bring back to us candidates who they believe are qualified and for us to approve. So this amendment limits that ability in terms of identifying the best candidates out there. So while I appreciate the intent, I can't support the amendment. Right. Let me go to Council Member Pittman for the first time. Thank you. I'm really glad that you said that, Council Member Borland. You know, I think about a lot of people who wish that they can apply for a certain job. And that's almost like running for council. You know, you don't run for council because you don't have a degree. You run because you believe that you can get the job done. Right. And in this market these days, you might have someone that has a degree, but they don't have the workforce experience. So with how the workforce is changing, we want the best and the brightest. Right. I'd like to have options, you know, not just having a degree because I've hired people who had degrees but didn't have the experience. But I also hired people who have the experience and not the degree. And I'm going to be honest with you, my person that doesn't have the degree tend to be the better person because that means when they come in, they have a degree, they come in on a job and you're learning as you go. So with our city being the way it is, I think we should have representation of both. Since the statute only encourages, it doesn't mandate, I think we should take a look at it. You know, I've noticed, well, I would say in the past years I've been on five mayor's advisory lists and they've changed the operational chart over and over again. It's not, it wasn't consistent, you know, but I think with this opportunity that we have at this point in time that we really need to look at it and give the person and in the future persons that are interested in applying for jobs with the city. And, and, and councilman said, I do understand what you're saying. I would say, you know, old school and new school right now, right? But I, I don't have a problem with it at this point in time because I'm an example of that. I worked at a company. I didn't have my degree at the time. And unfortunately, well, fortunately for me, I did go to school because I had, I had a child early and I didn't have the opportunity to go to school right after high school, right? So I worked and someone was willing to give me a chance and also allowed me to get my degree while I was working. Not everybody does that, but I'm an, an example of a person and who had the experience, but I just did not have the educational degrees at the time. So, um, don't count those individuals out. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Michelle first and then I'll, to Dr. Salem and then the councilman tomorrow. Thank you. Through the chair to the committee. So Ms. Carraher and Ms. Hamsey and I have looked through some of the code and I cannot locate any position that requires two thirds vote to waive the education requirements. So absent that it's a simple majority. That's what's currently required. Um, the other thing I would like to clarify, um, is the statute that we're referencing, the 112 to 19 Florida statutes. Um, just reading the text in the law, it authorizes you to consider related work experience in lieu of a college degree. I don't see any language encouraging you to do so. Although, um, the administration may know of some intent or something else written about this law, but the actual law just authorizes you to do that. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Dr. Salem. Thank you, chair. Let me, let me make a few points. Um, number one, I've, I think I've worked on three different transitions where a new mayor came in and to think that there aren't a stack of resumes about this high for any of these director positions, countless numbers with college degrees. There's no issue of getting people with a college degree into these positions. So I, I don't know where that's coming from. Number two, I've worked in the private sector for 40 some odd years. I've never seen, in my experience, the watering down of experience versus a college degree. If anything, in the companies I've worked with, it's, it's become more stringent. Um, number three, um, I realize people are looking at college degrees differently than when I was growing up. Um, people are looking at electricians and, uh, uh, uh, workforce development and those types of things in lieu of a college degree. That's not what we're looking at in this government as directors. These people are, are managing frequently four or five chiefs, many employees underneath those chiefs, uh, profit loss statements monthly, making sure they're staying within budget. Those are skillful people. They should be skillful people if they're going to accomplish those types of things effectively. Um, I, I'm pleased to, I, I, I thought some of the resistance of the administration of, with the waiver process that I have suggested was the two thirds vote. If it's truly a simple majority, that makes it even easier if they've got a good candidate, which removes some of this, uh, um, political stuff someone mentioned. It would just require 10 votes for a waiver for a particular person if we felt like their experience, uh, in lieu of a college degree. Now, it looks like I'm getting beat up here again, which I understand. I have no problem with that. I have strong feelings and I'm going to vote my feelings, uh, here and on Tuesday night if, if, if, if that's the case. And I'll speak again because this is only in rules, so I have a, an opportunity to educate another, uh, a dozen of my colleagues. But, uh, I just feel there is a process if they have a candidate. Let's let them use that process and, uh, uh, uh, instead of changing the requirements. Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you. Let me, let me go to, uh, Councilman Lennon for the first time. Oh, yeah. Thank you, Chair. It is not my first time, though. I think it's my second time. Yeah. Uh, so, so with the new information through the Chair, Dr. Salem, I'm fine supporting the amendment now. Because one big key piece of information we just got, it's a simple majority. And this means that the administration, now, future, whatever, they can still submit someone to us at their discretion. And it's the same threshold. So, really, it's, it's going to have it in the code as a requirement. But it doesn't change the voting threshold to approve a mayoral appointment to be a director. So, for that reason, I'll support it. Now, let me go to Councilman Amaro. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair, through, uh, the Chair to Mr. Lehman. And you, you are correct. However, all appointments are approved by the body. Correct? Through the Chair to Mr. Maher, yes. But about 10 minutes ago, I thought this was going to change it to a two-thirds majority required. And it's gotten clarified that it's a simple majority. My point in saying that is that whether it's the waiver process or there isn't, the final say still comes back here. Um, you know, these are executive positions. They're not elected. Therefore, uh, uh, the, the threshold of the standard of, of eligibility is, is not the same. Uh, you and I know getting elected is, is a popularity contest. And, and so, but finding someone for the job, the right person for the job, is a whole different threshold. Um, if I heard Mr. Weinstein correctly, they will still maintain academic college requirement for those positions that demand it. For example, the city would not hire a medical examiner without an M.D. degree and replace him with an EMT with 20 years of experience. It requires an M.D. degree. So, I, I think that there has to be that, that flexibility as they pursue the best of the best, that, um, it is fair and equitable to consider the individuals for the executive position, for these executive positions, their life experience, their work experience, when they don't have the academic qualification. And, again, just based on what I've seen here, when we use the waiver process, it opens it up to the political process where people are denied waivers because they just don't like the person. Or they got a phone call that says, hey, you need to vote that person down because, and then, in the end, we still have the authority to approve or disapprove. Thank you. Thank you. Let me go to Council Member Bolin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Council Member Pittman's comments really struck a chord with me. The average cost of a college education these days is about $40,000 a year. That's $160,000. That's a threshold that many people never can realize. Yet, who aspire or have the wherewithal to the experience to lead, to, to manage, uh, to put that barrier in front of people who would love to have the opportunity to work in the city in a leadership position, I think it's unfortunate. And it will discourage, granted, there are probably many qualified candidates coming to bear some of these positions. But to preclude somebody because they can't afford that price tag to get a college degree is just, just unfair. And I appreciate, again, I appreciate Council Member Salem's position on this. I just think we need to make sure we provide everyone the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to serve and lead in our city. All right. Thank you. So now we're on the, we're still on the Salem Amendment. Um, Mr. Delaney, I, you just popped up in the queue. Yeah. Uh, if it pleases the Chair, uh, Mr. Weinstein, uh, has, uh, another comment he'd like to make. Yes. Come on, Mr. Weinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you going ahead with your comment about you letting people speak. I think, uh, I think, uh, it's appropriate 30 seconds, two things to Councilman, uh, light line and through the chair. We still have to, when we submit the ordinance put in that, we're looking to waive the code into Councilman Amaro's position. That just raises the, the idea of it. It's a problem. It's, it's unique. It's, it's one thing that we really would not have to overcome whatever the vote is. And also, Councilman Dr. Salem is correct. It's all about management, but you don't learn how to manage in college. You learn how to manage when you're dealing with people through life. Um, these are management positions. They're not required to have certain education levels. They need to be able to deal with people, personnel issues, and you get that through life. You don't get that through college. All right. Thank you. Um, so, I guess some of my, my concerns is it would be taking the, uh, requirement of, in lieu of, that gives a specific work, life experience out of it, and just having a, having it, uh, as a waiver. Uh, my concern is not having those guardrails to say what the waiver is to be inclusive of, and so that's, that, that's my concern on, on, uh, pulling, pulling it in lieu out of, out of it. So that, that, that's where, uh, I think we need to have some kind of guardrail direction of what the parameters are that, that we will, uh, allow in lieu of, or a waiver. Uh, so that, that's where I'm concerned of taking it all completely out. Um, maybe we can look at how we can, uh, differently come in and make it all inclusive, but still have the, um, the process of, of a waiver. But, you know, it's, it's going to come back to us for 10 votes, and it, it's really, now that I'm looking at it more, there's really not much difference with the, um, the college and then the, the waiver in lieu of, uh, still being 10 votes. So, uh, with that, we'll go ahead and, uh, take this vote by hand. So, all in favor of the Salem Amendment, uh, raise your hand. We've got two in favor. Any opposed, likewise, raise your hand. So, the Salem Amendment, uh, fails. So, so now we're back to the bill as originally amended. Right, right. Yeah, give me a, a motion and a second on the bill as amended. Dr. Salem, you're recognized. As that stated previously, I was supportive of the position becoming the director, but I will be voting against the bill because of the changes. Thank you. All right, thank you. Um, Ms. Clark-Murray, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. So, simply, the language states that a bachelor's degree or higher from an accredited college or university, it says, and, at least five years of progressively responsible executive level experience. What happens now is that you, that and is replaced with in lieu of. And so, that means it, once again, it, it does, it opens up the pool of candidates, in my opinion. It also gives those who have been with the city and maybe in any of these departments that are mentioned in Chapter 23, an opportunity to move up within the city without having to go and acquire a degree. And, once again, it's the experience that matters. And, I like what was said earlier, I think about the 70s, I think about that time in which, which is very similar to the time that we're living in now, in which people, college was very expensive. And so, people still needed to make a good living, and they could do so without a college degree because there was, the, the work experience was commensurate to having a college degree. So, I see the, in lieu of, as opening up the higher level positions that are higher paying to those who are already within these particular departments and giving them hope and opportunity to move up. And so, I will support this bill today. Thank you. So, we have no other, other speakers in the queue. So, just a little more tidbit from me. You know, I, I'm not college educated. So, I, you know, Andrew Jackson's it for me. And, you know, so, and North, North Florida Builders apprenticeship four-year program. You know, I graduated from there and then went on to my life experiences to where I am now. I, I just see, looking at this now, seeing that it's not a two-thirds vote, it's, it's the same whether we do a waiver, we do in lieu of, that, that what I'm, what I'm seeing now. So, if things, I see things differently or find out something differently, by the time we go to vote, I was, always reserve my right to change my vote. So, let's open a ballot and record your vote. Six yays, one nay. By your action, you approve 2026-0722. Thank you all for the discussions. All right, item number 11, we've taken action. Item number 12, 2026-0752, get a motion on amendment. I've got a motion and a second on amendment. Ms. Carraher. Through the chair to the committee, the amendment will correct the extension language in the bill to sync it up with what was in the agreement to allow an extension of up to 12 months. And, we'll also place a revised agreement on file to correct some scrivener's errors. All right, no speakers on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, likewise, none. The amendment carries. We can get a motion and a second on the bill as amended. I've got a motion and a second on the bill as amended. Council Member Lannan, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair, and to the committee, bear with me because a lot of these facts we have shared greatly in finance. If you go back to budget night and really all throughout the budget process, one of my big things I kept on reiterating is the conversation made it seem like we were deciding between zero and $4.9 million of affordable housing. And I tried to make sure everybody understood the facts that on budget night it was really, do we want to spend $39 million or $44 million on affordable housing? And I'll get to the bill here in a second, but just to remind everyone, even before we approved this year's budget, we had already appropriated about $15 million, primarily in grants, for fiscal year 26-27. Second, and this ties to the auditor's handout, the financial commitments tracking, which is unfunded financial commitments. Through three separate pieces of legislation, we have approved $15 million from the general fund, which I believe all are unfunded at this time. And the timing based on that $15 million payout is based on the construction timelines. Additionally, I mentioned that we had $9 million in items that were already on our agenda for affordable housing. This is the first one, item number eight, of which I believe Council Member Matt Carlucci is the bill's sponsor on. That one's actually for $6 million. It includes a $3 million loan and a $3 million completion grant. So that's what gets you up to the $39 million, and we're at $44 million now because we did approve an additional $5 million for spending on affordable housing initiatives. That is in the budget, but as placeholder only for now. Going to the financial commitments tracking, and again, Amendment 3 has no bearing on this. This is still the total amount. If you look at the bottom right, the amount of unfunded commitments we've made through approving things for Downtown Investment Authority, which is the big one, Office of Economic Development, and then Housing and Community Development Division, most of which is the items that I just mentioned on that as well. We made good progress last year. We were able to reduce this by about $34 million. But again, if you look to the bottom right, assuming the publics and this item are approved, we're back up to about $100 million total of financial commitments we have made without having an identified funding source for that. And one other thing I want to point out, whether it's a loan or a completion grant, it still is cashed out the door well before we receive it back. So if you look at the Housing and Community Development Division, all three of those are loans. All that cash outflow is in the next couple of years and is well beyond the time series of this spreadsheet in front of us on when we actually get that money back, especially the principal part of that. So with that, to get me to a yes, an amendment I wanted to propose of that $4.9 million, I mentioned that we did not have specific items, especially for the capital stack and the, I believe it was the utility tap-in. I forget the exact amount, but I do know that there would be enough within those two line items to cover $2.8 million. So my amendment would be to use a portion of that $4.9 million to fund the $2.8 million for this development loan so we can keep it within the budget rather than having to add an additional item that we have now unfunded. And Ms. Schell, if you need me to clarify that, let me know. Or Ms. Carraher. Through the chair to Council Member Lane in. If you could just clarify exactly how much you want to pull from those accounts, there's $1.4 million in the capital stack allocation and $1.5 million in the housing utility tap-in fees. This bill would approve a loan of $2.8 million. So we would just need to know how you want to fund that. Through the chair, Ms. Carraher, $1.4 million in the capital stack and then $1.4 million in the utility tie-in. And I would need a second. Do we have a second? All right, second. We've got a motion in a second. Ms. Schell, did you want to? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair, so my recommendation to you, Mr. Landon, is that you move this as a substitute. It's a substantial change to this bill, adding this appropriation where there was not one before. That's my suggestion. And it would need to be re-referred. If this is approved, move to approve the substitute as re-referred would be the ultimate. Through the chair to Ms. Schell, so what should my motion be at this point in time for discussion? Through the chair to Council Member Landon, I'm just clarifying, I guess. You moved it as an amendment, so I just want to clarify that it would be a substitute is the better option. So if you want to rephrase it as the Landon substitute, you can, or I can do that. Through the chair, I moved the Landon substitute, taking the $1.4 million from the capital stack and the $1.4 million for utility tie-in that was created under 2026-504. We can get a second. I've got a motion and a second on the Landon substitute. All right. Ms. Council Member Clark-Murray on the Landon substitute. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to Mr. Delaney. I know the 4.9, and I don't have all of those different categories in front of me, but what is your thought or the administration's thought in regards to this particular project? I'm going to talk to him first. Thank you, though. Thank you. Through the chair to Council Member Clark-Murray. So part of my concern is I'm not exactly sure which district this particular bill is going to be in. I want to say five, but I'm not, Council District five, but I'm not sure I may be thinking about another bill. If I could bring up Josh Hicks, our housing director, I think he could answer your questions almost thoroughly. Good morning. Good morning. Through the chair to Councilwoman Clark-Murray, Joshua Hicks, Affordable Housing Administrator for the city. Torrey Meadows is in Council District, I think, five, which is Councilman Joe Carlucci's district. So it would be solely for that district. So what is the, at this point, I don't think the administration had any plans for that 4.9. So would this fit into what the administration's thoughts are in regards to a more affordable housing? Does it fit within the vision for this year, this budget year? So through the chair to Councilwoman Clark-Murray. So as the council authorized on budget night, the 4.9 million was assigned to different buckets. You had the 2 million for down payment assistance, et cetera, et cetera. A lot of that money, the tap-in program and the capital stack was going to actually be used for also single family home ownership opportunities at an affordable level. If this amendment passes, that goes away. We won't have those dollars to RFP to be able to build more single family affordable homes. The money would go towards this rental project. But I will note, this rental project is upon substantial completion. It's not scheduled to be completed until at the very earliest, late 27-28 or early 28-29. So you're basically putting $2.8 million aside for two years, and we're not then able to spend it into the community on single family home ownership opportunities as the council, by a majority vote, authorized on budget night to actually allow us to not only spend the money on the rental side for multifamily, but also for home ownership opportunities, for down payment assistance, for tap-in, for new home builds. Thank you so much for that, Mr. Hicks. Mr. Jeffries, if you would come forward, what was the, through the chair, what was the funding, what was, upon this particular bill, what was the thought that the funding source would be? General revenue, what was the thought of the funding source? Travis Jeffries, Chief of Housing and Community Development Division, through the chair. So again, like Josh just spoke about, it's at substantial completion. So we're actually just going to, you know, set the money aside or identify that we're going to, today, and then the funding source would probably have to come out of the budget in 27-28. So it would be a line item in the budget. Okay. All right. I think I'm, I'm okay. Thank you. Thank you in regards to the amendment, though. Thank you, Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Chair. I'm good for now. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Council Member Morrow. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With all due respect to Council Member Layman, who I have tremendous respect for and his ability to crunch the numbers, I think it's, this is somewhat unfair to the action that was taken in creating the 4.9 million. I supported it because of the big chunk of the money was going into down payment assistance. It's helping folks fulfill their dreams. But I also realize that some of those tap dollars are also necessary to keep down the cost of home construction and, again, give opportunities for home ownership. I think gutting it is, is exactly what this amendment would do. And I just, I know how we are as a city council. We give it, then we take it. I get that. But when we give, when we give our word, we should hold our word. And so I, I will not be supporting the Lane-in amendment. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. I second this for the purpose of discussion. One of the things that I said on budget night was I had learned a great deal from my friends at JEA about utility assistance, that, that, that can be a several thousand dollar cost. Once they have the house, then they can't get into the house because of, of this particular issue. I'm a huge proponent of down payment assistance, and I was able to get more money towards that. Um, so I, I, I just can't support the, I can't support the amendment because of those reasons. Understand what, what Councilman Lane is trying to do. Uh, I, I just will not support the amendment. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Landon. Uh, thank you, Chair. And, uh, it's clearly not going to pass, but I do want to point out a couple of things. Uh, first, my priority, my almost four years on Council is that we know how we're going to pay for something before we approve it. This is about to be another example of something we are approving. In fact, Michelle, what you said should be impactful to all of us. You said I should change it to a substitute because it makes it an appropriation. Uh, right now it's not an appropriation. We are committing to another almost $3 million. And, uh, Mr. Jeffrey, you pointed out that it'd be a line on within the 28, 29 million dollar budget. This will make the financial commitment of unbudgeted grants and loans $38 million. Now, that is a sizable piece of our relatively small discretionary budget right now. If Amendment 3 passes, no idea how we're going to pay for $38 million of grants and loans that are coming due in the year, uh, 28, 29. So, so again, I mean, I'm going to keep on pointing these out. I'll, I'll be a no on the final bill because, uh, we, we don't know how we're paying for it. And it's not like this is five years away. This is two years away. Uh, and we just got to start looking at this number, which went down a little, but it's about to go over a hundred million again with how much uncommitted commit, I'm sorry, unbudgeted commitments we have made between DIA, OED, and now, which is a growing number there, the Housing and Community Development Division. Thank you. Speaker's in the queue. Dr. Salem had to step out. So we're on the Lannan substitute. All in favor of the Lannan substitute. Yes, Ms. Schell. Through the chair to the committee. So Councilmember Lannan had moved his amendment as a substitute per my request because it's a substantial change to the legislation, which was to add an appropriation of $2.8 million to fund this, um, 1.4 million coming from the capital stack and 1.4 million coming from the housing utility tax fees. And that's a voice vote on that. Right. And so if it, if the substitute passes, then it will be re-referred or will it move forward? Well, if the substitute passes, we, the council auditors have a recommended amendment we would need to deal with next. So there are a few more steps, um, but ultimately I would ask that you re-refer it. Yes. I remember you saying something about re-referring that. So we are on the Lannan substitute currently. So this is a voice vote, but we're going to, I'm going to do it by a raise of hands. So all in favor of the Lannan substitute, raise your hand. Any opposed likewise? All right. So the Lannan substitute fails. So we are back on the bill as amended. Ms. Carraher. Yes. Thank you. Through the chair to the committee, we have an auditor recommended amendment on this bill. If you'd like, I would explain it. So I get a motion on the, I've got a motion, a second on the auditor's recommended amendment. Ms. Carraher, take it away. Through the chair to the committee. So the agreement as filed includes a provision that limits the amount that can be distributed each year to the general partner or affiliates of the general partner to $500,000. In previous agreements, we've seen a limit of the same language, but a limit that is an amount equal to 10% of the amount of the loan that the general partner is putting into the project. So in order to make this agreement consistent with the other agreements that council has approved for affordable housing development loans, we would recommend that you reduce that $500,000 to a $280,000 annual limit. I have a motion and a second on the auditor's, yes, Mr. Diebenau. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Steve Diebenau, one independent drive, suite 1200 here on behalf of developer. I just wanted to say for the record that we support the auditor's amendment. Thank you. All right. No other speakers on the auditor's recommended amendments. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Likewise, none. The auditor's recommended amendment is moved forward so we can roll them up together and so get a motion and a second on the bill as amended. So I've got a motion and a second on the bill as amended. No speakers in the queue. Open the ballot and record your vote. Four yays, three nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0752. Okay, all right, so the next item, number 13, 2026-0756, is going to be deferred, and Council Member Boylan, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to note for the record, the rationale for this being deferred is not an issue with the bill. By an oversight, it was not included in the neighborhoods in the last cycle, so we're deferring it in rules and finance so that it can be heard in neighborhoods, but fully expected to move forward. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Item number 16, 2026-0760. Get a motion on the bill. I've got a motion and a second on the bill. Open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you approve 2026-0760. Next item, number 17, 2026-0761. Get a motion on the bill. I've got a motion and a second on the bill. No speakers in the queue. Open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action and approve 2026-0761. Next item, number 18, 2026-0762. Got a motion on the bill. I've got a motion a second on the bill. No speakers in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. 7 yeas, 0 nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0762. Next item, number 19, 2026-0763. Got a motion on the bill. I've got a motion a second on the bill. No speakers in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. 7 yays, 0 nays. by your action you approve 20 26 0 7 6 3 next item number 20 20 26 0 7 6 4 and a motion on the bill i've got a motion second on the bill no speakers in the queue open a ballot record your vote seven yays zero nays by your action you approve 20 26 0 7 6 4 next item 21 we've taken action 22 we've taken action that takes us to item number 23 20 26 0 7 7 2 can get a motion on the bill i've got a motion second on the bill no speakers in the queue open a ballot record your vote seven yays zero nays by your action you approve 20 26 0 7 7 2 takes us to item number 24 20 26 0 7 7 3 can get a motion on the withdrawal i've got a motion second on the withdrawal no speakers in the queue open a ballot and record your vote seven yays zero nays by your action you approve 20 26 0 7 7 5 and a motion on the bill i've got a motion second on the bill no speakers in the queue open a ballot and record your vote seven yays zero nays by your action you approve 20 26 0 7 7 5 item 27 we've taken action on item number 28 20 26 0 7 7 8 and a motion on the bill i've got a motion second on the bill and councilman tomorrow you're in the queue thank you mr chair uh the sponsor's not here but i'm just curious if um someone explain why we need to extend the deadline there anyone administration through the chair to council member amaro on 16 september at the last hic meeting the um contracted consultant advised hic that the draft of the five-year plan would be submitted mid-october that actually came through 14 october um 21 october this wednesday will be the next hic meeting it is hic's um recommendation that hic hold at least two notice workshops on this draft so that the public and the providers can weigh in before it is transmitted to the neighborhood standing committee and it's also taking a little look at the fact of the holiday schedule as well coming up the prior requests to extend were basically guesses we now have the draft in hand and can get it done by by one february right uh council member pitman you're recognized i just wanted to let you know i will sustain abstain from this this bill because i work with the homeless and my staff may apply thank you all right thank you no other speakers in the queue let's open a ballot and record your vote six yays zero nays one abstention by your action you approve 2260778 that takes us to item number 29 2026 0779 is deferred due to planning commission and the next items are on second 2026 0803 item number 31 2026 0804 item number 32 2026 0805 it's on second it's on all right so that item number 32 is on on second so that takes us to item number 33 2026 080 0806 is on second and then we go to item number 34 2026 0807 is on second and i just want to pause here a second and to the the bill introduces on this i'm getting a lot of emails and uh concerns about this here i know it's got to go to the planning commission it's probably uh a little bit longer processes but i just encourage to help get with these the the all these constituents to get these issues uh rectified before we actually have to take it take it up in here so with that that takes us item number 35 2026 0809 is on second item 36 2026 0810 is on second yes sir go ahead dr salem thank you uh chair on items 35 and 36 we're going into the reserves to fund these things did these come up during the budget process uh and were not funded i'm just trying to understand here we are mid-october and we're dipping into the reserves for for these things council member layman maybe you could help me through the chair to council members uh dr sam i want to make it clear i'm not the bill sponsor i understand my understanding is that there is still some research i know i talked uh because i had some questions at first that some of these may meet the county-wide community benefit agreement obligation that we have so that that's really all i can say for now but no these were not items that were brought up uh the where works one i think potentially i'd have to go through my notes but no they were not budgeted items of that regard through the chair they still could have come could have come up during the budget process and gone towards the cba as well through the chair through the chair to dr salem yes as you know anything can happen and is possible throughout the budget process thank you i just was confused uh council member clark murray thank you chair i once again i'm the newbie on the on the committee so i'm going to ask this question i i did second um 0825 because it doesn't have a second next to it so for consistent for consistency to legislative services shouldn't the second be right next to it or it is it is seconded on yours but it's it's not seconded on mine there isn't a second next to it on mine that's why it's in my list so is it on second so we had mentioned it earlier 8025 you have it on second 805 okay no mistake okay thank you okay all right so we are now on item number 37 2026 0812 is on second and and that takes us to item number 38 2026 0813 is on second item number 39 2026 0815 is on second item number 40 2026 0816 is on second and then item number 41 2026 0817 is on second and these following item bill numbers are on on second uh 2026 0818 0819 0820 0821 0822 0823 0 next page 0824 and then that takes us to item number 49 2026 0825 i've got a motion in a second on the bill those speakers in the queue open the ballot record oh i'm sorry oh i'm sorry go ahead council councilman clark murray all right thank you chair i just want to be a co-sponsor miss pitt all right we gotta just yeah council council amendment all right so no speakers in the queue open the ballot and record your vote seven yays zero nays by your action you're approved 2026 0825 the next item number 50 2026 0826 is on second that takes us to item number 51 2026 0827 okay i got a motion in a second on the bill ms clark murray you recognize simply add me as a co-sponsor thank you and we got all the me too's all right so no speakers in the queue open the ballot and record your vote seven yays zero nays by your action you're approved 2026 0827 takes us to item number 52 2026 0828 and a motion on the bill i got a motion a second on the bill council councilman bull are you recognized thank you mr chair i just want to be added as a co-sponsor carol's a dear friend for a long time she used to refer to me with some contention as her older brother from another mother we all have them councilman tomorrow you're recognized thank you mr chair please add me as well all right no other speakers in the queue open the ballot and record your vote seven yays zero nays by your action approved 2026 0828 next item number 53 2026 0829 i've got a motion second on the bill no speakers in the queue open the ballot record your vote seven yays zero nays by your action approved 2026 0829 next item number 54 2026 0830 i've got a motion a second on the bill council member clark murray you recognized thank you legislative services please add me as a co-sponsor right no other speakers in the queue open the ballot record your vote seven yays zero nays by your action approved 2026 0830 next items on second 2026 0832 and that takes us to the end of our agenda and mr bolin you're recognized thank you mr i i asked my colleague or my eca to pass out to you a list of the balances for discretionary funds this is from the safe streets initiative it wasn't being taken up in this in this committee but it's on three other committees just want to make sure all of you are aware what funds are available what 755 does essentially allows at the discretion of the city council members to use your traffic calming funding for the purposes of buying and or the purchase of an installation of speed limit signs for e-bikes on sidewalks it was an issue that as you recall jso had some concern with and this provides the council members the latitude of utilizing those funds for that purpose other speakers in the queue as i said no other speakers in the queue we are adjourned