Rules Committee - Sep 14, 2026

Good morning everyone. Welcome to Monday, September 14th rules meeting. I call the meeting to order and we'll start with introductions to my left with Mr. Garrett Dennis. Good morning, Garrett Dennis, Administration. Colleen Hampsey, Council Research. Carla Schell, Office of General Counsel. Krista Carraher, Council Auditor's Office. Pittman, District 10. Ron Salem, Group 2 at Large. Mike Gay, District 2. Will Lainon, District 3. Good morning, Tyrone Clark-Murray, District 9. Good morning, Michael. Boylan, District 6. And Eric, my microphone's not working. Good morning. Rockman Johnson, just visiting. Welcome, Dr. Johnson. We'll go ahead and move to public comment. I've got one speaker card. Mr. Carnell Oliver, come on down. You'll be given three minutes to speak directly to a bill on the agenda and give your name and address or say it's on file for the record. Thank you. Yes, my name is Carnell Oliver. I'm speaking to addresses on file. I'm speaking to 0672. I'm dealing with affordable housing in District 10. I'm for affordable housing, but my biggest concern is American Freedmen. Underneath the 1866 Civil Rights Act, any federal, state, local money that comes through this city has obligation to build wealth and opportunity for American Freedmen. Now, if this project moves forward, I want those conditions because underneath your oath of office, your job is to protect the Constitution of the United States, the state, and also the city charter. The city has not been in compliance with certain laws on the books. And it raises questions to me. Maybe there needs to be a class action lawsuit underneath the 1866 Civil Rights Act, one that goes all the way to the Supreme Court. And it makes all states, where there are American Freedmen at, make all of you fall in compliance with the laws on the books. When Trump talks about, when he talks about enforcing the laws on the books, this is a perfect example of enforcing the laws on the books. And with this project, as critically as affordable housing is, I want to apply the 1866 Civil Rights Act to its fullest capacity in this project and in any project that moves forward in this city. Because American Freedmen are America's first. And if it's one thing, I know, the 1864 Civil Rights Act was for the immigrants. Because in 1865, that's when they led a bunch of immigrants into this country, and they've been stealing our generational wealth. Now, I want my house back. I have the land rights, you have the sea rights. All right. Thank you. No other speakers, speaker cards. So we'll go ahead to our agenda. We'll start with the handout to go through our appointments first. So with that, let's go to page 14, item number 19, 2026-0679. Get a motion on the bill. I've got a motion and a second on the bill. Is Ms. Becky Morgan here? Come on down, Ms. Morgan. Please give us a little bit about your desire to serve on the downtown development review board and state your name and address for the record. Sure. Thank you. Becky, Rebecca Morgan, 5403 Floral Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, 322-11. I am a longtime Jacksonville resident and a licensed designer and have worked in development and specifically downtown Springfield, Riverside, Historic Preservation, and have been an active participant and observant of everything going on downtown and would appreciate the opportunity to be a part of it and to take some of my experience and help move the city forward. I've got Ms. Clark-Maria on the queue. Yeah, you're fine. Good morning. Good morning, Ms. Morgan. How are you doing this morning? Doing well. Thank you. Good, good, good. So, in reviewing the legislation, it's saying that there's a requirement for being an urban planner. Yes, ma'am. But you are not an urban planner. No, ma'am. But you do work with urban planners. What's your relationship to other urban planners? Sure. It is a little tricky, so I'd be happy to provide an explanation there. I started my design career as an interior designer over 20 years ago. And through that, I worked at many design firms with engineers, architects, and urban planners. And as my career progressed, I went less from, you know, doing actual design to managing bigger projects, working directly with developers. And my last role, I was actually the director for the entire commercial market for a worldwide architecture firm in which we did lots of planning projects from New York City to Bogota, Columbia, including some here in Jacksonville, Florida. So, my planning is really experience and leadership through planning versus the traditional education and certification. Thank you so much for that. Yes, ma'am. Is there anyone else from the Downtown Development Review Board here? Yes, I know. But I want to know if there's someone else here, because my question is for someone. Through the chair, too, Mr. Lehman. My next question is for someone who's actually on the board, but that's fine. Thank you, Ms. Morgan. Thank you, Chair. All right. No other speakers in the queue. I've got a motion and a second. Open the ballot and record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you're approved. 2026-0679. And Ms. Morgan, you can be at the City Council meeting next week. It'll be voted on, and after the vote, you'll be recognized. You don't have to be here, but you're more than welcome to be here. Thank you. Thank you. All right. The next item number is on page 15, item number 20, 2026-0680. Get a motion on the bill. Move the bill. Second. I've got a motion and a second on the bill. Ms. Lasikia Hodges, come on down and tell us your desire to serve on the Jackson Journey Forward Board. Good morning. Good morning. Council members, it's so good to be here. Lasikia Hodges with the Office of Smith, Gambrell, and Russell. As many of you know, I served the City of Jacksonville for 17 years in its Office of General Counsel. And I was very involved in Journey the first go-round and even more involved the second go-round with the resurrection of Jacksonville Journey Forward. And so this is very exciting for me to be on the other side of the owl, not really with the legal mind, although I can never get rid of my legal mind, but really just all the experience that I had, thankfully, to the City of Jacksonville working with your nonprofits and your Public Service Grant Council and your other nonprofits and being able to serve in this way. My general mentality is more of the mentality of ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. And so here I take that seriously at the local level, ask not what your community can do for you, but ask what you can do for your community. And so this is one perfect way that enables me to serve the City of Jacksonville directly. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to Ms. Hodges, we spent a half hour or so talking, kind of catching up. I have great admiration for Ms. Hodges, particularly as Mr. Boylan will remember, she worked with us very closely after the JEA failed sale and rewriting the charter of JEA. And she worked with many of us for countless hours getting that done. I did spend some time speaking to her about my concerns about KHA, my concerns about Journey and the dollars that we're putting into those budgets and made sure she understood one person's perspective on that. And she listened. I'm not sure that she completely agreed, but she listened. And that's what was important to me. So I highly support her appointment. She's got a great mind. It will be a great addition to the board. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Council Member Clark-Murray. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Ms. Hodges. Good morning. We would never ask you to get rid of your legal mind. That's one of the things we love about you the most. And of course, I co-sponsored this legislation and just, I'll be, I think you'll be a welcomed addition to the board. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Council Member Pittman. Good morning, Ms. Hodges. Good morning. First of all, I am glad that you're offering yourself up. And two, I believe in you. I believe in your experience because we've had a lot of projects that we've worked on and work with. And we had a conversation as well on the phone. But I wanted to just make sure that with all of your experience, I know you've always known you to always be a fair person. And so I want to make sure with the projects that are coming through the department that will look out for the small and emerging organizations that will be working with youth because a lot of times they may not have the wherewithal, you know, with insurance and auditors, but to make sure we can align them with bigger organizations because those are the organizations that are really diving deep and doing the work. But a lot of times they may not have the capacity. So I just want to make sure I met you when I served on KHA. And that was one of my main concerns. And you stood on the sideline and legally talked about, you know, what we could do with that organization. So I'm happy and excited to see you bring your knowledge and institutional knowledge, I should say, because you've had an opportunity to work with every department within the city. So thank you so much. And I really appreciate and look forward to working with you. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Bolin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair, Ms. Hodges. You know, I wasn't going to say anything because you know how I feel about you and the work we did together. But when Mr. Councilman Salem said you spoke for a half an hour, I knew what that meant. It's but it's emblematic of your your passion, your enthusiasm for what you do. And I'm so excited to see you continue your service to this city through the KHA. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. No other speakers, MDQ. I would just like to add that I'm glad to see you going on this board. I think you'll be an asset to it. As early on when I came into office, Ms. Hodges worked with me on several bills right off the bat with the procurement and also definitely high knowledgeable aspect to fill this position. So with that, let's open the ballot and record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you're approved. 2026-0680. And Ms. Hodges, you can come Tuesday night. You'll be recognized after the vote if you so desire. Thank you for your service. Next appointment, the item number 21, 2026-0682. Can I get a motion? I've got a motion and second on the bill. Mr. Stephen Campbell, come on down and give us, you'll get three minutes to give us your desire to be on the member of the Building Codes Adjustment Board. You name and address for the record, sir. Good morning, everyone. Stephen Campbell, 8771 Marley Road, Jacksonville, 32244, District 14. Just a little bit about your desire to be on the board. Okay. I worked four years for the city of Jacksonville as a code enforcement officer in the mid to late 90s. So I had an opportunity to interact with a lot of the building codes and how they impacted the city, the citizens, and those that were left to resolve the issues. So that instilled a desire to help, to want to help that issue of resolution. Building codes are very important, and they're often issues that present some conflicts that need resolving by the city representatives and the citizens. And I'd like the opportunity to help resolve those issues. I have a lot of experience in the building trades, electrical specifically, but generally in the building trades. And I'd like those, the opportunity to help in that situation. All right. Thank you, sir. So I have no speakers in the queue. I would just like to add, Mr. Campbell is quite knowledgeable in the electrical industry, and I think he'd be a great asset to this board. I'd like to be added as a co-speakers. With that, I mean, a co-sponsor. With that, let's open the ballot and record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you're approved. 2026-0682. Mr. Campbell, you can come Tuesday night, and at the final vote, you'll be recognized for your service. Thank you, sir. All right. The next item I was going to do was for Councilman Member Johnson. Dr. Johnson will come back to that if he, when he comes back in. So we'll go back to the start of our agenda. Item number one, 20-24-0966 is deferred at the request of Council President, former Council President Carrico. Item number two, 20-26-0192 is deferred at the request of Council President Howland. Item three, 20-26-0203 is deferred at the request of Council President Howland. Item four, 20-26-0227 is deferred at the request of Council Member Diamond. Item number five, 20-26-06320 is deferred at the request of Council Member White. Item number six, 20-26-0517 is deferred at item number seven. Back on item number six, I am having a notice meeting on this bill. It'll be Friday at 10, 10 o'clock a.m. this week. If you can, please attend and we want to get into a little bit of the details about that. And so, Mr. Dennis, I see you're on the queue. No, through the chair. Not, I tried to catch you before you moved off of item one. I just want to point to your attention on item one, 20-24-0966. The, as you all know, the trio has been foreclosed on new owner, new players. So, this bill here, again, I want to bring to your attention this bill here if you want to clean up the agenda. This bill here is pretty much doesn't, it's really kind of non-existing because there are new players, new owners, and things like that. So, I just want to bring to your attention and to the committee's attention. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Michelle. Is this something that the introducer would need to address? To the chair, you all can take it up if you so choose. You have that ability and discretion to do that. That's up to you. All right. At this time, I don't want to take any action on it until the introducer can give us a little bit of his mindset on it out of respect. So, we'll keep that as deferred at the moment. Ms. Clark-Murray, you were in the queue. All right. Thank you. All right. So, back to item number six, 20-26-0517 is deferred, and I will be having a notice meeting this Friday at 10 a.m. on this bill. The next item number seven, let me go ahead and pause right here. Let's go to item page 30, or page 20, item number 30 for Dr. Johnson, and we'll go ahead and get his bill taken care of. That's on page 20. Item number 30, 20-26-07-19, making a motion on emergency. I've got a motion and a second on emergency. Ms. Carraher. Through the chair to the committee, the nature of the emergency is that the funds that are being appropriated through this bill will lapse on September 30, 2026. Speakers, all in favor of emergency, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Likewise. None. Emergency carries. I've got a motion and a second on the bill as an emergency. Council Member Lanning. Thank you, chair, and I believe Dr. Johnson's who I'll have my questions for. So, through the chair to Dr. Johnson, just going through the accounting here, it looks like you're rolling over a portion, but then adding some additional from current year debt savings. And my question is, is this something that we have funded before? Because as you recall, during finance, one of the big themes this year was let's not start doing anything new. Have we funded the Rich Chamber Music Society before? Yes. Through the chair, yes. Through the chair to Council Member Johnson. Thank you. My second question, I think I just heard it murmured, have we ever given PSGs or CSG grants to this? In other words, are we giving them more money than they've received previously because they also got a public service grant or a cultural council grant this year? Yes, they have gotten the CSG before. It is not this amount. So, no, we are not augmenting it. And I don't, right now, the CSG process is in force. They're going through it. So, I can't tell you whether they will get money from the CSG or not. But we also know that right now, a good portion, even though we change those numbers, of the CSG grantees won't even get the grants because the dollars aren't there because of the actions that we're doing in committee. Am I making sense to you? Through the chair to Dr. Johnson. I think so. I guess my concern is I just don't want to put ourselves in a position to where CSG gives them what they got last year, plus they're getting this. And before you know it, we've given the Rich Chamber Music Society more than we've ever given them before. So, that's my concern because you've heard me say it enough, like, hey, this is the year to keep things flat. So, I'll probably talk to the auditors in between now and finance. I'll support it today. But that was really my big concern when we see potentially new non-profits spend to at least keep it flat year over year. So, I'll ask my questions in between today and finance committee tomorrow. Thank you. Let me go to Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to Dr. Johnson or anyone else, I have a little different concern than Chair Miller when using these. Oh, I'm sorry. Pardon me. Chair Layden said that. Then Chair Layden. I'm concerned about using these debt savings for reoccurring appropriations that we're going to see in next year or other years. I would prefer this debt savings, if we're going to use it, go to one-time expenses because there's another one, I don't know if it's in rules, but will be coming up that is, in my mind, will be reoccurring. And I'm very concerned about that. Is this a one-time expense? Do you anticipate coming back in future years for these type of appropriations, Dr. Johnson, through the chair? Mr. Chair, thank you. Through the chair to Dr. Salem, thank you for that. This is a one-time expense. If the majority of the funds or a good portion of the funds came, there were some organizations, as we go through the vetting process, that were not able to receive those small non-profits, that were not able to receive the funds because, for whatever reasons, whether it would be accounting or whatever, they couldn't. And so, this is a combination of pulling those funds together, but this is a one-time appropriation, so they will not be back. And we're not a line item like they're going to come to the city every year. And they do do a good deal. Like, this is a small amount based on what they raise in the community. I know the Florida Blue is one of their sponsors, ViStar, some of the other major organizations in our community. And so, this is just to augment that and hopefully do something that allows our community to have this cultural experience. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. If that's the case, I'll be supporting it. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Council Member Boland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I do appreciate these organizations. I'm a little surprised Councilman Sandlin landed and didn't jump on this. The habit, and we've been challenged before, is that these efforts to sweep unspent dollars for projects, I thought we were trying to get away from this. And this is yet another example, and we see a couple others coming up. People are coming in at the 11th hour. And with all due respect, Councilman Johnson, and I think they're, I love the rich chamber players who do get CSG grant money or have in the past, and I suspect they will in the future as well, because they certainly deserve it. But I can't support the practice of sweeping savings for direct contracts, however important that the organizations may be and how vital they are. We have processes through the CSG, through the PSG, through KHA. And I'm kind of trying to be a stickler to say, you know, let's look to do what we can to minimize the direct contracts and direct these organizations to those places where they can be properly vetted and determine whether or not they warrant support. Thank you. All right, I'm going to go to Dr. Johnson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And while I certainly appreciate Mr. Boylan's remarks, this is not an 11th hour sweep of a savings. I have been supportive of all of my colleagues' strategic initiative funds. I think it is important. These are from the strategic initiative funds that were realized when they were unable. And I've worked with the organizations. I'm probably a little even more anal by going into specific line items of those things before they're submitted to the auditor's office and to the general counsel's office before we get to this. So it's not just a, for lack of a better term, willy-nilly last-minute ditch effort to try to spend some money. It is a very strategic process. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm going to do the research. I'm going to have a rationale as to why I believe this is important. And I also believe, just like with the Community Benefits Agreement funds, those council members who are doing things in the community, in their districts, or things that are a priority, that's the beauty of this wonderful body, this council, because all of us come from different areas, from different perspectives, from different opportunities that we've experienced in our lives. And so I may not have the same vantage as a Councilman Gay or a Councilman Layton or Clark Murray. It's a different vantage. And so that's the beauty of it. If they see something that I don't know about, I'm able to say, let's celebrate this. Let's help this. Let's build a community through this. And that's what this initiative is and does. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Council Member Lannan. Thank you, Chair. Through, Chair, to Dr. Johnson. You said something that gave cause to another question. So of the $30,000, making up the $50,000, that is rolled over unspent council strategic contention dollars. I just want to make sure you're not going to then come back and ask for that $30,000, which was divided between three separate $10,000 items. So you're giving up what it was originally intended for, correct? And it's all going for this now. So just want to make sure there's not a bill out there asking for the $30,000 to go towards the original things. It's not. There will be a bill, not to cloud the issue. There's a rollover bill I have coming up in finance tomorrow that I was asked to carry. The Stanton, remember Stanton College prepared, the Stanton, old Stanton building, the general counsel's office, they've been going, trying to get the contract right. So the only reason for this carryover dollars is because it took time for them to get that contract right. But for this, no, there's no other bill. And remember, Dr. Salem's bill that limited the amount that we could give to direct contracts of $25,000 or greater. And so that's why when those, when it came back, it made sense. And so that's why I did the research and came up with this initiative. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. All right. Thank you. No other speakers in the queue. I would just like to add, I'm going to be supporting this in this committee, and I reserve the right to change my vote as it moves forward. So with that, let's open the ballots and record your vote. Five yays, one nay. By your action, we approve 2026-0719. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. All right. Back to our agenda. I believe we left off on item number seven. Okay. Mr. Boland, you were in the queue. Did you want to speak? Mr. Chair, if I may, we do have, as you recall last time at the meeting, we were looking at a substitute. We're going to reintroduce the substitute with some additional amendments. I'm going to take a few minutes to go through that, if I might, sir. First of all, let me just start by saying that, you know, to think it's okay for a child whose only qualification is that their feet can reach the pedals of an e-bike, can go 28 miles an hour on a sidewalk or a shared pathway, in my mind, is flawed thinking. I really don't know that, you know, that's what we want to communicate to our constituents out there that we're okay with that. Of all the bills and efforts I've done, CQLI probably, for the exception of that, this one I've heard from more constituents in support and encouragement of this, who consistently have said, we've got to do something about these e-bikes. This is not a perfect bill by any stretch of the imagination, but it's a start in that process. And I want to take a couple of minutes, if I can, and walk through some of the amendments. And you've got a handout, looks like this, that details the, I believe it's nine amendments. And I'm going to walk through those very quickly so that you have an appreciation. Before I do that, just a couple of comments. One, I want to thank Corey Milo and the Office of General Counsel, Chief Stronko and JSO for their work with us. Matt Fall, who's going to be here. Chris Ledoux is also here to speak to some of these concerns. As we walk through them, I want to make sure that you understand what we are trying to do in addressing specifically the concerns that were raised both by JSO and by colleagues at the last meeting. And let's go from there. So the first thing, very quickly, if I go through the amendments, number one, shared youth pass is being defined, and what it is, one and two, that we do extend the sidewalk requirement. I should note, and I'll get ahead of myself, I'll do number four next. In doing the work, we learned that while the state statute, the governor vetoed the Senate bill that spoke to e-bikes, his concern really was more administrative than it was enforcement or the idea of having it. It required a registry to happen across statewide, and he thought that was a little onerous to have to manage and secure. But there is a separate statute in the state that says in the event that, and we talked about this last time, I believe, that a local ordinance is adopted, that the speed limit on sidewalks and sidewalk areas, quote unquote, from the statutes, can be no more than 15 miles per hour. As you know, when we initially introduced this bill, you introduce it as 10 miles per hour. So we are raising it to 15. Quite honestly, in my view, and I think that of OGC, and Michelle can speak to this, if we do pass an ordinance, it's embedded into this process. So essentially, we're going to have to vote up or down on this ordinance as to whether or not we want to see it move forward. This is one I wanted to speak to next, is item number five. And there's language in here now that addresses the concern that JSO raised, and saying we're not in the capacity to be able to monitor, or if you will, speed limits on sidewalks. So we've embedded some language in here, and I talked to Chief Stronko about this. Well, we understand 15 miles an hour is a reasonable speed, I suspect. Certainly 28 and 30 isn't. So if we put a 15 in there, I shared with him the example, I'm driving down Scott Mill the other day, it's 30 miles an hour. I'm doing 35, 36, just following the flow of traffic and notice that. But if the speed limit were 20 miles an hour, I would only be probably maybe doing a couple miles over that, or under that, hopefully. I should probably say I would be under that. But nonetheless, the point is this, by putting a 15 mile an hour limit to sidewalks, I think is really important for us to, and we put in this situation, shared pathways. But what we've done to address the concern in terms of the flexibility in giving JSO, we've implicitly incorporated into this bill language that says that it won't be required for them to use speed limit as a definition for unsafe operation. If they see, if we put 15 in place, you see a young man or young woman going down on a sidewalk at 20 miles an hour, 25 miles an hour, appreciably different than 15, you can tell by eyesight, the police officer has every right to stop that person and hold them accountable for the fact that they're unsafely operating that e-bike on a sidewalk. So the definition is there, and we want to make sure they have the opportunity to use as they talk about their judgment and making a determination whether or not it's a safe operation. Item number six, we did, although against concerns of many expressed, we did eliminate the age limit provision, putting that into the hands of their parents and guardians to make a determination. A question that was raised by Councilman Lane last time is with respect to what it's going to cost us to put speed limit signs up. And I'm going to invite Chris Ledoux to come forward to speak a little bit to that. Stated simply, there's nothing in the state statutes that requires where and how many speed limit signs are installed in a municipality. The only guidance we have to work from, I'm going to let Chris Ledoux to explain to us what that is. Okay. I'm Chris Ledoux, I'm the chief of traffic engineering. And through the chair, through the chair to Councilman Boylan, basically, that is correct. There is, in the Florida statutes, there is nothing that specifies how many signs are placed for speed limits. However, in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which is a federal document that guides traffic control throughout the country, there is guidance that allows you to place signs at the borders of a jurisdiction. So at the city limits or as you enter into a business area or a neighborhood. And basically, you can put up a sign and say, area wide, this is the speed limit, this is the law. And the only requirement is that there is a ordinance for that jurisdiction that allows that placement of signs. So the concern of having to put multiple signs multiple places doesn't exist. So we basically, the main arteries leading into Duval County, Jacksonville, is where those signs would have to be. And we have a guesstimate yet as to how many signs that may require yet, Chris? Well, I don't have an exact number, but my guess is that it'll be several dozen signs, and the cost would be between $5,000 and $10,000. So I think that's a very small expense for us to assure people have an understanding of the speed limitations on sidewalks and sidewalk carries. Chris, thank you for your time. Next item number nine, we didn't bring this into the conversation before, but education is a big part of this process. We handed out last time a couple of the handouts, and Matthew, are you here? Come on up to the podium. So we've had some conversations about this, and so we've incorporated into the bill some language that, to the best of their abilities, that we're going to look for local retailers, brick-and-mortar retailers, to post some signage and inviting people to understand where they have access to information regarding the safety limits and a safe operation of e-bikes. And so Matt from the program planning department has agreed to talk a little bit about their efforts, what's already in place in terms of available materials, and what can be done to modify that material so that it speaks to the 15-mile-an-hour speed limit should we choose to adopt it. So through the chair, Matt, could you please share some thoughts? Absolutely. Morning, Council. Yeah, I'm Matt Fallon with the Transportation Planning Division. And as Council Member Boylan stated, it's really common for other cities to provide safety information to e-bike, the people who purchase e-bikes through retailers. Sometimes there's signage at the point of sale at the cash register or in the area where e-bikes are sold. And I wanted to say that the Transportation Planning Division is happy to develop and provide all of that signage. We're happy to maintain the educational material and the web page as proposed in the ordinance. We're happy to provide retailers with a standardized printable sign with a QR code that directs them, directs our e-bike customers to current information regarding local and state e-bike laws, operating requirements outlined in the ordinance, and safe riding practices in general. We're accustomed to working with bike retailers and we often distribute materials to them so we can do this as needed. I should also note that the printable signage will be available on our web page. So they could either come in and we'll print a sign for them that they can put at the point of sale or they could just download it from the website, the Transportation Planning Division Bicycle Pedestrian section of the website. Thank you, Matt. Thank you. In the context of that, we also, in terms of the expectations of this, the bill states that within 60 days of execution, this component of this will go into play. So we have an opportunity to let retailers know the opportunity to do this. Why 60 days? Well, that takes us to November. What's happening after November? You can rest assured, e-bikes at Christmas will be a big, big deal. And we're going to see a huge infusion of these e-bikes in our communities. As I said, as I started, this is a start. It's not a perfect bill, but it's, you know, when people are asking us, and I'm sure asking many of you, what are we going to do about e-bikes? This is the first step in that process. I do appreciate Chief Stranko and JSO's concern. We've tried to address this as best we can. We eliminated the age limit, although I'd like to see it in there personally, but we've also given them the latitude to say, recognize if someone's going clearly past that speed limit of 15 miles per hour, they can be signed for an unsafe operation without being able to, having to document the speed limit as part of that process. So, with that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to offer, and thank you for the time and the opportunity, offer you the substitute with these amendments or these changes built into it. All right. I've got a motion and a second on the substitute, 420-26-0570. Council Member Landon, you're in the queue on the substitute. Thank you, Chair, and I thank you, Council Member Boylan. I wrote down at the time, two weeks ago, my three biggest questions were, what are the potential costs of the signs? How practical was it to enforce this? And then, was it going to water down the traffic enforcement assets in my district at the expense of going other places where e-bikes may be a higher priority? On the signs of Mr. Ledoux, or through the Chair of Mr. Ledoux, if you could come back up, I guess my thought is, if we're going to have these sidewalk speed limit signs on the major arteries of Jacksonville, I guess I'm just picturing, I'm picturing parents or adults 18 years and older seeing these signs, and then the kids that are going to be riding the e-bikes, they're never going to see those at those major arteries. So, is that just a traffic engineering requirement, or is that the requirement to also be allowed to enforce that? And maybe that's a question for JSO in the back. I guess my concern is, are we really covered for actually enforcing this ordinance by having a couple dozen signs at the entryways into our city? Okay, thank you. Through the Chair, I believe that it is the minimum requirement to have the signs up on the borders, and it does provide some visibility, but internally in the city, in the neighborhoods, it's quite possible, like you're suggesting, that people will not see the signs. And through Chair, Mr. Ledoux, that's my concern, that again, major arteries, the people that are going to be paying attention while driving at a high speed in their vehicles on the major arteries are not going to be the ones then riding the e-bikes. And I know JSO is there in the back and through the Chair, if they have anything to say on that as far as the enforcement aspect of that, because again, the whole point of this is we're now adding items to our ordinance code to be able to enforce it, and I'm just not sure if that would cover it by just a couple dozen signs. All right, thank you. Let me go to Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. And I recognize the amount of work that Council Member Boylan has put into this bill, but I have some concerns that I want to lay out. Similar to Council Member Layman's, what I heard, where's JSO? Can somebody come up? What I heard either at the notice meeting that he had that I attended or in a previous committee meeting that this thing could not be enforced without regular signs along all the paths that e-bikes would be ridden on, not just at the borders of Duval County. Is that your position? Good morning, sir. Yes, J.D. Strunko, Chief Patrol Support, and I'm here to relay the Sheriff's position. He still has concerns with just the border signage that, and I'll put it into a nuts and bolts perspective of what the actual enforcement would look like. You're going to have a child who's going to ride out of his garage, most likely, into a neighborhood and never pass these signs. You know, maybe not for weeks. He won't have seen these signs. Their parents won't have seen these signs. So that would be the Sheriff's concern with the actual enforcement, is the knowledge of it. And doubly so now that I've heard Traffic Engineering's opinion that, you know, that while it may meet the bare minimum requirement, that it's probably not sufficient for these people to have the appropriate amount of knowledge, both in parenting and the kids themselves. So it is the Sheriff's position, or your department's position that, through the Chair, that these signs should be located just like speed limit signs there are for cars. Is that correct? For our enforcement of the proposed municipal ordinance, yes, sir. Okay. Number two, you know, from my perspective, the last thing I want to do is pass an ordinance that can't be enforced. I don't think that's good for any of us. And I have, I see the ages removed. I know that was a big issue for JSO. But the sign component, to me, is a significant problem. And it would be an enormous expense to put these signs up all over the county along sidewalks. I think we all agree with that. But just to suggest that a police officer could pull somebody over because they were a little reckless on the vehicle, but not knowing how fast they were going, I think puts JSO in a difficult position. And I just, I don't see how I can support the bill the way that it is today. Thank you. All right. Let me go to Council Member Pittman. To the chair and to JSO, I asked you the questions last time about, excuse me, reinforcement. And I want to thank my colleague for doing all the research on this because when I agreed to help sponsor it, I had seen some things in my neighborhood where an incident almost happened. And so immediately, it was on the top of my mind of what do we do. But now that I've had an opportunity to read and actually hear from you, the other thing, not only just enforcement that I'm concerned about now, then it becomes a marketing campaign. How do you enforce and make sure this happens? Because I'm sure that your community officers are not going to be in all these neighborhoods, right? But I feel like something needs to be done. And I appreciate the conversations that we are having about it. But I think it has to be the right one and not cost us additional money to do it. And most of the folks that are riding the e-bikes are teenagers and kids. And they're not going to be paying attention to these signs. They're going to be trying to get to where they're trying to go. Because the incident that I saw was simply that. Someone riding, somebody was walking on the sidewalk, and they almost hit them. So, you know, I do support the effort of amending it of what we need, but also looking at the costs to get the information out in the community. I don't know if it's something that we can work with the school board with as well, you know, to have a little bit more conversation and not just have city council. But just like they say no to drugs, you know, there might be an opportunity to work with a campaign regarding the e-bikes or with the library. I'm just trying to think of things that kids participate in that may not cost us a whole lot, but maybe into partnership with these agencies. Thank you. Thank you. Let me go to Michelle. Thank you for recognizing me. Through the chair to the committee, I just would like to articulate that it is the position of the Office of General Counsel that the signage as articulated by Council Member Boylan and Chief Ledoux is sufficient to render this an enforceable ordinance. I appreciate what the officer is saying that someone might not know, and that could be true, but it doesn't render this unenforceable. All right. Thank you. Now, let me go to Council Member Clark-Murray. Thank you, Chair. So, to my colleagues, I don't know whether or not you're paying attention to the news, the fact that children and adults are losing their lives using these bikes. And we, and we being Duval County, we don't have any legislation regarding regulation of them. And we need something. I feel towards this, and I don't like using the word feel because I'm a female, and then people are like, oh, touchy-feely. Nope. It's about common sense. And I understand that you all are looking at the enforcement piece, and I understand JSO's perspective as well. And even signs. That's not important. That's the minutia. The most important part is to put some legislation in to regulate so that kids aren't dying. And how they know, it'll be word of mouth. Do we need JSO sitting by the side of a sidewalk watching kids on their e-bikes? Absolutely not. Come on, y'all. Let's get real. We don't need that. But we do need some legislation and some regulation to help students know, to help kids know, to help parents know that we're aware of the situation, and we're willing to do something about it. Council Member Boylan has stated several times, this bill isn't perfect. There isn't any bill that anybody presents that's perfect. But we're doing something. And I feel towards e-bikes the same way I feel towards retention ponds. When are we going to do something? When? If not now, when? And I can't believe some of the comments that I've heard up here. You're worried about signs. Signs? Yes. Kids probably won't pay attention to the signs. But if they understand that there is some type of rule, some type of limit, then they may try to adhere to that limit. And how much is a sign? How much is a life? Remember, some kids have lost their lives on these e-bikes. How much is a life? And I'm going to go here for a minute. Maybe it's because you all are males. I don't know. But to my council colleague, Ms. Pittman, it's hard bringing a life into this world. And it seems real easy to take them out. So don't do this to this bill. We can change it. We can amend it later. It needs to be passed. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Bolin. Well, I'm not sure I could say much more than that. But I do want to reinforce a couple of things. Number one, and to Councilmember Clark Murray's point, I handed out the Wolfson sheet with respect to that and the projections of 194 as to compare to 23 just three or four years ago that they're projecting in terms of injuries. I had a conversation with a young lady over at UF Health who's responsible for helping people, keeping people out of the hospitals. And she actually chairs a national committee that speaks to the e-bike issue, Ms. Melvin. I don't know that she made it this morning. But she was very supportive of this bill. The education component that we've incorporated in the bill, I hope, and I appreciate Councilmember Pittman's comments, and certainly I'm sure DCPS and others are very much interested in educating their students about this speed limit situation. I open my conversation and say, are we okay with the fact that the only qualification of a child needs in order to get on an e-bike and drive it on a street almost 30 miles per hour is that their feet can reach the pedal? That doesn't make sense to me. This is a common sense bill. And, you know, enforcement, I get, and I appreciate JSO's situation. An interesting conversation when I talk to Chief Strunko, and I'm not going to go down this path very long, but they have, what, 60 officers who are a traffic division? And the number of tickets on an average daily basis, what, a speeding ticket is about 115, 120? All right. And how many millions of trips are happening on our streets? The challenge of enforcement is very real already as it relates to automobiles. To say, well, we shouldn't put it in place here because we're adding a little more challenge to that enforcement simply doesn't make sense to me. And so I appreciate the concerns. We shouldn't put a price tag on this. I think our effort to address the education component through the retail component of this thing, to get the necessary signage up. And trust me, I know there are going to be HOAs and others who've come talk to me about this, who are going to put signs in their developments, letting people know about this. There's going to be an active effort on the part of the community to say, I want a sign in my neighborhood, you know? And maybe we can do something like we do with the traffic calming devices to set aside some funds and allow neighborhoods to say, hey, we'd like to have a sign in our neighborhood reminding our kids about the ability or the speed limit of 15 miles an hour so, you know, a pedestrian doesn't get, you know, hit by a kid and the kid doesn't get hurt through that process. So it's a common sense bill that speaks to an issue that I think it's long overdue for us to address. And I appreciate the time and the extra effort and the part of my colleagues to speak to it. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Landon. Thank you, Chair. And through, Chair, to Councilmember Boylan. I hope you can also appreciate our concern because, again, this bill requires enforcement and we're hearing that the enforcers are uncomfortable with parts of it. But if I understand item number five here on what you passed out, that allows for basically visual enforcement and judgment of a police officer to determine what they believe is careless, unsafe, or reckless, correct? And so through the Chair to Mr. Boylan, from everything I've gathered now the past couple of meetings on this, I mean, I think the major sticking point was having the speed enforcement there. So have you talked to JSO? If it was not for the speed enforcement portion, are they good with everything else on that sheet of paper? I'll let Chief Stronk will speak to that. But I think my understanding of that was at this point, they're only singular concern. And what we did, as I said, put language in there that they can make a judgment. If it's 15 mile an hour is put into place, an officer happens to see someone going 20 to 25 miles an hour in their opinion, they can cite them without noting as a speed limit as the issue. But Chief, I'll let you speak to the question that Councilmember Landon asked. So in reference to that, yes, because it's essentially would mirror minus the education component at point of sale. It would mirror the Florida State statute that already exists for the most part, which allows us to cite for unsafe and reckless operation on sidewalks. That statute currently exists, 804.901, Section B. Essentially what we did is we tried to, at their suggestion, incorporate that into our bill. So that's what we've done. So through, am I still good to speak, Chair? You're still... So through the chair to Councilmember Boylan, I mean, we have, Councilmember Clark Murray said it's not a perfect bill, but I think this would get something passed if we have eight new things instead of nine new things on that sheet. So, I mean, that's what I think would get something out there, because I think that alleviates the concerns of the enforcers and would probably get us to a point to where we would get something out there for now. And we could always come back and amend something later. So that's kind of where I'm at, as far as how I see success for us to do something that'll get a majority council to approve something for e-bike safety. Well, to the chair, if I may, to Mr. Councilman Landon, I assume you're talking about the speed limit per se, number four. Well, the fact of the matter is, state statute does not allow us to pass an ordinance on e-bikes without that in it. They're very explicit in the state statute. So either it's up or down on this bill with a speed limit of 15 or not. And that was determined by the state. I didn't pick that number. They did. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate OGC believing that this is enforceable, but I rely on JSO to determine if it's enforceable. I mean, I just think that, you know, the lawyers are not going to tell JSO how to monitor these things. Number two, we do have a problem with e-bikes. I think we all recognize that. The assumption is this bill is going to change all that or change it in some way. We don't know that. We don't know that. Just like a lot of things we try to pass, we're not sure if it's going to work or not. And number three, we have learned that if someone's driving an e-bike recklessly, JSO can stop them today, citation or take them to their parents or whatever it may be. I just, I'm really torn on this, and I'll continue listening to the debate. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Council Member Pittman. To the Chair and Council Member Boylan, I just wanted to ask a question in terms of getting any input from retailers, right? If there is a way that we can work with retailers, especially ones that we know that sell a lot of these e-bikes, to see if we can, if a parent purchase or if an individual purchase e-bikes, if we can give them information in terms of, again, I go back to a marketing campaign of some that are easy fix and then maybe come back, and even maybe looking at a demonstration project with some of these businesses that sell large amounts of e-bikes to see if we can, because it's going to take more than one solution to this, but a lot of people are visual, you know, before, or unfortunately, we don't want it to take a life, right? So we want to get as many people on board in the beginning rather than waiting to after something happens. Through the Chair, Ms. Pittman, I encourage you to take a minute, and Matt Fahl spoke to this, to read item number nine on the sheet. It speaks to the cooperation we're going to be seeking, active cooperation we're going to be seeking from local brick-and-mortar retailers. We're going to be giving them signs to post in their e-bike areas that gives information to parents when they come in and buy that Christmas present for their kid. They're going to give them an e-bike, that 12-year-old kid, that 10-year-old kid, and say, but before you do, you need to make sure your child understands and appreciates the speed limits and the safe operation of that e-bike. So absolutely. And to your earlier point, I know for a fact DCPS would be welcoming this opportunity as others in terms of making sure the education piece of this moves forward. And I think providing that cooperation with the retailers, I think that's going to be, it is doable. Educate them first, and I appreciate the concerns of enforcement. We put language in here now that allows the discretion for JSO to do what they want to do with their lower speed limit in place. And they can certainly, you know, cite folks now if they see someone going anything faster than 15 or 20 or 25. Now they can say, look, I can tell by looking at that, it's an unsafe operation of that e-bike on a sidewalk. There are pedestrians walking in the other direction. There's a state statute right now that requires that they slow down to 10 miles per hour when they see somebody on the sidewalk. That's a pie in the sky. We've got to start someplace. And so it's real. I think this is the opportunity to educate parents and guardians about their responsibility of making sure their children know what the rules are, the rules of the road are. And I think that's where we need to start in this process. Thank you, through the chair. Thank you for summarizing that. I appreciate it. All right. No other speakers in the queue. I would just like to ask Mr. Bowling to explain to me once again the portion about that it's that JSO's option to enforce. Thanks, through the chair. To the chair, as Chief Sronka mentioned, that what we've tried to do is to replicate already what the state statute allows for JSO at its discretion to make a determination of its own accord whether or not an e-bike is being operated safely. We have vetted this into the document now so they know that they have the wherewithal to be able to do that. The only sticking point is, are we talking about enforcing a speed limit? No. We are about enforcing a safe operation of the e-bike. Okay? That's pure and simple, all we're doing. And we're giving them the discretion to make a determination. If someone is going, clearly in their mind, faster than 15 miles an hour on an e-bike on a sidewalk, they can determine that to be an unsafe operation of the bicycle and can cite them accordingly. In the discretion of JSO to do. All right. My concern is making sure we've got the parameters outlined because I don't want to get into, well, in this area, the kids are getting hit harder than this area and it becomes a potential problem. So that's my only concern. So no other speakers in the queue on the substitute. So does this need to be a voice or, okay. So all in favor of the substitute, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Likewise. Two nays. So the substitute carries. Can I get a motion and second on the bill as substituted? I've got a motion and second on the bill as substituted. No speakers in the queue. Let's open a ballot and record your vote. Five yays, two nays. By your action, you approve 2026-0570 as substituted. Next item, number eight, 2026-0588. Can I get a motion on amendment? Move the amendment. Second. I've got a motion and second on amendment. Ms. Carriher. Through the chair to the committee, the amendment will correct the project address, correct the name of the entity that completed the project, correct the reason for the public investment policy waiver, and place a revised economic development agreement on file to correct the project address, correct the base year, and lastly, correct some scrivener's errors. All right. Councilman Amaro on this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair, I want to make a floor amendment to the amendment. Am I in the proper posture? Through the chair to Councilman Amaro. It might be easier and cleaner if you allow this amendment to go through and then move your amendment if you're amenable to that. Thank you. All right. Let me go to Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. I'm just going to voice my support for this bill and this amendment as it stands right now. If you've lived in Arlington and you've driven the Arlington Expressway, you have seen these buildings. They have been an eyesore for probably 20 or 25 years. I have toured them. I've been out there. I have seen the one that's developing under construction. And if we can turn that area around, we need to do that for this particular area. So I wholeheartedly support this amendment and I look forward to hearing the amendment from Councilmember Amaro. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Clark Murray, did you want to speak on this amendment? Okay. Thank you. All right. No other speakers on the amendment? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed likewise? None. Amendment carries. Councilmember Amaro, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to move an amendment to the amendment to change the terms of the REV grant from 10 years, 1 million, to 11 years, 1.5. And the reason for being that are some of the reasons stated by Councilmember Salem a second ago. So this project has been in the works for a while. The work that has been done thus far has been transformative. They've taken the old FBI building, turned it into a very beautiful apartment complex. They are now working on the amenity center. And what's left are the two remaining office park buildings that unfortunately have now become kind of an eyesore because of vandalism and graffiti. But I do feel that increasing the REV grant at this time for the work that has been performed is really fair and appropriate. And it's a REV grant. If this was a cash grant or a completion grant, we would not be having this conversation. So my amendment is very simple to increase the terms of the REV grant from 10 years to 11, and the dollar amount to 1.5 million, if I can get a second. All right, I've got a motion and a second on the Morrow REV grant amendment. So let me go to Councilmember Clark Murray. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Diebenau, if you would come forward and through the chair, well, to the committee, Mr. Diebenau can just expound a little bit more. And I completely concur with Councilmember Salem's comments earlier about those buildings. Every time I pass by them, I say to myself, Councilmember Morrow needs to do something about that. So he's doing something about it. Go ahead, Mr. Diebenau. Well, thank you, Councilman. Through the chair, Steve Diebenau, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. One of the owners and the manager of the project, Mark Cosman, is here as well if you have questions. This one is a little unusual. It had a REV grant originally, a super difficult site to develop. I won't bore you with all the details in this forum of all the challenges they had developing the site. But that original REV grant expired while they were in the middle of construction. And so we asked to renew the REV grant with the administration. And what they had proposed was the original bill, which was 10 years for $1 million, assuming that the building cost about $20 million. The building actually cost almost $28.5 million. The price has almost doubled. The construction cost has almost doubled since this project was originally developed in 2020. And as a result, the increase that Mr. Romero has proposed keeps the proportion the same. So the REV grant amount increases in proportion to what the cost of the project has increased. That maintains the return on investment to be about the same level. And that's the rationale, I believe, for Mr. Romero's amendment. And we certainly appreciate the support of this amendment and this legislation. Very last thing I'll add is that several of you asked me previously what the occupancy rate is. The building right now is at 70% occupied, which is obviously very good at moving in the right direction. But again, this location has issues. The owner is trying to address those issues and really turn this entire part of the community around. And this is one small piece of that. And thank you for the question. Thank you for that, Mr. Devennail. Thank you, Chair. That's all. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Bolin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think you just answered one of my questions, I believe. Ms. Kerher, could you confirm that the ROI of 2.01 is maintained by the increase to 1.5 on the REV grant? Through the Chair to Councilmember Bolin, we do not have an updated ROI calculation that reflects that perhaps someone from OED can speak to that. Mr. Randolph? Mr. Randolph, does this impact the ROI? And Randolph, OED, through the Chair to Councilmember Bolin. And per our quick math here, based on the amendment this morning, you're looking at more of a 1.34 to 1 ROI as it relates to the increase in overall cost for the project. I think some of those, the $28 million is in soft costs and some other things. So collectively, you're definitely above 1, but we're, our projection would be closer to 1.34 to 1 as opposed to 2.2 to 1. And is the information on the agenda correct? I left my book at home, but I have notes. But these are all market rate units, correct? So there's no affordable housing or discounted rates on any of these units? Through the Chair to Councilmember Bolin. That's correct. I mean, they, the, I mean, I think the developer would argue that market rate for their product in that the neighborhood they're in is closer to an affordable price point. But for the most part, there is no definitive request or requirement to have affordable units per state or federal. I see, this is an OED project, so I do appreciate that. And I, I struggle with this a little bit. It seems like, and maybe for Mr. Diebenow through the Chair, is it, is the ask or the increase, is it because we can? Or, I mean, could you expound a little bit more as to the rationale for it? I, I appreciate the costs have gone up and the expectation of that should have been in place when this bill was originally introduced. I'm concerned about, you know, dramatically increasing the REV grant just because. Yes, right. The, the REV grant ratio that Mr. Randolph described, 1.34, is the, is about what a 75% REV grant is. That's the yield on an, the ROI for a REV grant for 75%, if you, if you do the math. And in this case, what's unusual about this one is that you have a developer, frankly, who has invested and continues to invest a ton of money on their own, of their own accord, but obviously has hit a point at which they, they, they needed, they needed help. And they've continued to invest. It's almost like an economic deal, development deal in reverse. I mean, they've invested well over $35 million in the project. They had a REV grant that was in place that expired. And so all we're really asking to do is to reinstate the REV grant that existed prior to the project being completed. And the ratio for a REV grant of this type is, is very similar. I think the 2.01 number that you're remembering on the ROI from the agenda, I believe is from the original REV grant from 2021. And what we're saying here is that the REV grant at 1.34 passes the 1.0 test. Not only has a developer invested this amount of money to get this particular building going, but they have continued to invest in the amenity center, which is about a $5 million cost. That amenity center will serve eventually that entire property. And we're not here talking about future phases. We're not here talking about future development. But at this point, we're just asking to reinstate the REV grant that existed prior that happened to expire during construction. Chair, in appreciation, you did attempt to reach out to me to have a conversation about this on Friday or Saturday. But I did want to have these questions answered before I looked to support the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. Let's go to Councilmember Landon. Thank you, Chair. And through the chair to the committee as the OED liaison, I'm good with this. I mean, I always think about would we approve this in the beginning? And we probably would have. And again, the developer has now put over $8 million more than what we originally thought he was going to invest. And we're also going to get higher property taxes now because the assessed value is going to be higher. And there were no new specific waivers needed as a result of the new legislation versus what was originally approved. So I am good with it. All right. Let me go to Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair, just a couple of points. This goes way back, well before Councilmember Romero came on the council. This goes back to Joyce Morgan. I've been out there more than once back when Councilmember Morgan. So this is, yeah, this is a long-term effort. Number two, I hear the point about affordable housing. If you know this area like I do and Councilmember Romero does, the people they're going to attract are going to be lower-income people to get in there. I'm really excited about the amenities that they're developing. And they're developing that, hopefully, for the other two buildings as well down the road. So I just think this is a no-brainer for me because I see it all the time, and I hope you'll support it. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Romero. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair, for clarification, I'm going to ask Michelle to step in. My understanding is that, Mr. Debenau, that this would also require an increase in the minimum capital investment to 28.5. Michelle, can you tell me the proper language to be added to this amendment? Through the chair to Councilmember Romero, you can amend your amendment if you like, or we could vote on, you all could vote on this amendment, and you could offer that as an additional amendment, however you see fit. But, yes, the minimum capital investment needs to be increased from 20 million to 28.5 million. Can I get a, I'd like to amend the amendment to include that language. Oh, my God. All right. I've got a motion and a second on the Romero amendment to the amendment. No speakers in the queue. Just one more thought before we vote to Mr. Debenau and perhaps Mark. The community is concerned about the timeline on the existing, two existing buildings that have now been vandalized and covered in graffiti as to what is the, what's the timeline to take action, whether to demolish or begin renovating. Can, can you share that with us this morning so we can have on the record what's going on with those two buildings? Again, we, we've been working on this, I have been working on this project since Councilwoman Morgan was in office. And, um, I will say that it's something that the owners have been struggling with since the very first day. They have today, just so you know, they have security around the clock. They have a great relationship with JSO. They know the officers and the sergeant that come and, and visit the site routinely. Um, and yet they, they just are unable, despite 24 hour surveillance, unable to keep the vandals from coming into that property. They're doing everything they can and they know how to do it. In fact, I will share, I don't think Mark will mind, but Mark moved from his home in Arlington to actually move into the property to manage it. I mean, so the commitment of the ownership to this, uh, development is unlike any I've ever seen in my career. Um, but the plans for developing the next two buildings is frankly is very difficult. And the headwinds economic, the macroeconomic headwinds are extremely tough. Um, debt is more expensive, steel is more expensive, every building material possible is more expensive. And, um, and it's a, and it's, and it's a, again, it's not, not being disparaging of anybody, but it's a working class neighborhood. It's not a, a neighborhood where you can push rents, um, in order to make up for the costs that are in the macroeconomic environment. So I, I don't think we can commit to a timeline other than to say that we're very good stewards of the property. You have committed ownership that's not going anywhere. And, um, their continued investment in the amenity center is proof that they're continuing, uh, to care for the property. And I will say that the moment that there is an opportunity to redevelop the property, that they will be doing that. Um, the follow-up question, let me just anticipate it. Will there need to be city support? We don't know. We certainly hope not. We certainly hope that there is a way to, again, once this building is leased up and it's stabilized, we'll be able to figure out what the value is. We'll be able to figure out what a bank would lend on the next two buildings. We're not there yet. We're getting close. We need to get up closer to 90% occupancy before we can go back to the lenders and talk about the next two buildings. And it's a really long answer to your question, but those are all the factors that we're dealing with. And at this, at this moment, we just, we don't have a timeframe or a commitment other than to say the property owners are great stewards. And the moment they can, they can develop the property, they, they certainly will. Thank you, Mr. Demon. And through the chair, I, I, I had to ask because I, I get the questions regarding the status of those buildings. And, and they're re, they're, what they've done thus far is commendable. Since I came into office, I met with Mark and his partner and, and what they've done thus far is commendable. They've transformed the, uh, former FBI building into, uh, an outstanding living space, if you will, um, the amenity centers and the work. So what they've done thus far is commendable. The reason for my ass is very clear that, uh, the community wants to know what's the timeline, if there is one, for the simple reason that the longer those buildings stay like that, they become a community. I saw, and, and code enforcement gets involved, um, also from the owner operator of the property, uh, if I'm renting in this new building, do I really have to look at those buildings? And, and so the, it's, it's a very pragmatic question and I wish we could get it nailed down to, uh, something concrete, but I get it, I get it and, uh, that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. So no other speakers in the queue. Michelle. Thank you. So when you're ready, you can take a voice vote on the amendment to the Amaro amendment. If that passes, move the Amaro amendment as amended. All right. No other speakers in the queue on the Amaro amendment to the Amaro amendment. All in favor? Say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Likewise. None. The Amaro amendment carries. The Amaro amendment as amended. The Amaro amendment as amended. The Amaro amendment as amended. I've got a motion and a second on the Amaro amendment as amended. No speakers in the queue. All in favor? Say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Likewise. None. The Amaro amendment carries. The miss, let me wrap, wrap, wrap these up and move. I've got a motion and a second on the amendment as twice amended. To the chair, it's your option. If you want to roll them up, the proper motion would be just to move the bill as amended. If you want to keep them separate, then it would be move the bill as twice amended. All right. Can 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. Let's open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you're approved 2026-0588. And I'd like to thank Mr. Demondow for being here this morning and my condolences to your passing of your mother. All right. Next item, number nine, 2026-0624. Can I get a motion on the bill? Move the bill. Move the bill. I've got a motion and a second on the bill. Ms. Carriher on the auditor's concerns. Thank you. Through the chair to the committee, we do have an auditor concern listed for this bill on the agenda. So as filed, the bill includes a code waiver to allow 100% of the grant funds to be distributed in advance to the grant recipients for the micro-grant program. This would be prior to the performance of any services under the grant agreements. The code limits advance funds to 10%, so the waiver is necessary. We just have a concern consistent with past legislation that's advanced funds. So if the grant recipients do not comply with the terms of the grant, the city would have to pursue the clawback of grant funds, so the city would have to work with the grant recipient to return those dollars. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Bolin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair, I might invite Ms. Figueroa to come up and speak to the concern. We talked about this. As she works her way down, as you know, the micro-grant program is something the PSG has been working diligently for the past year and a half. A lot of due diligence has gone into putting forward the program and the requirements to be participating in it. We held off in the introduction of this bill until today just to make sure our house was in order. And I made Ms. Figueroa aware of the concern that auditors raised here, and I thought it would be good for her to explain her confidence level in making certain these grants are honored. Through the chair. Through the chair, Maribel Figueroa, grants and contract compliance chief. This has been something that the PSG council has been working on for the past two years. In 2024, there was a UNF study related to public service grants, and one of the areas of focus was understanding why the public service grants was not reaching the smaller nonprofits. And as part of that study, UNF actually reached out to small nonprofits to understand that. There were various factors, most of which, if not all, are being addressed through this program. One of the significant elements was that the reimbursement basis of the public service grants is not something that small nonprofits can work with because they don't have the cash flow. It could be up to 75 days before they are reimbursed. And small nonprofits, unfortunately, don't have that type of cash flow. So this for public service grants is a deal breaker for them. They just simply cannot do that. We also have done several surveys on our own, some of which are required through legislation, through Councilwoman Pittman's items that she put in the legislation to require surveys for those that attend information workshops. And in those information workshops, the feedback we consistently get from small nonprofits is that they simply cannot participate because they cannot float that for 75 days, and it could be even more depending on when that expense is made versus when it's invoiced, and then they have 45 days to pay. We do recognize that there are very valid concerns based on past arrangements, including advanced funding that you all have done and including safety and crime reduction. There are some very important lessons learned from that. We have definitely tightened our controls. We definitely will be much more detailed in terms of our orientation, which is required when they receive these grants, and we'll be stressed very heavily what the consequences will be. I don't know that that part of that was really stressed before, so that they understand what the consequences are. And we'll be basically holding their hands. We understand that these are smaller nonprofits, but it's really working towards helping them to grow and filling the pipeline for organizations that can service the most vulnerable in the community. Ms. Clark Murray. Thank you, Vice Chair. Good morning. Good morning. I understood what you said in regards to the reimbursement. Why are you asking for this particular aspect that the auditors are concerned about? When there is a—okay, so if a nonprofit spends some money and then they receive this grant, they must give the receipts of what they spent in order to get the funding. That's the previous model. So what you're asking now is that they don't need to spend anything. They're going to get maybe $3,000. What is the typical amount that a nonprofit receives? What's the typical amount or average amount? Through the Chair, if I may, to Councilwoman Clark Murray, for this particular micro-grant program, the minimum is $10,000. The maximum is $20,000 for their grant. So if this passes as it is written, they would get those funds up front. But one thing that is also different from past ones is that we're not going to wait until the end of their period to ask for all those receipts back. They have receipts due on the 15th of each month for the previous month. And so we will know timely if they're not submitting receipts, as they should. We'll know timely if they're not spending those funds where we're not going to wait until the end. So we'll be able to mitigate that as well. And that's another one of the controls that we're putting in place is they have to submit receipts by the 15th of the following month that they use that. Even if they are not using it, you know, the whole pot, they still have to submit those receipts. All right. Thank you so much for that through the chair. So previously, when would they have to submit receipts after like when the audit is due? Or what was the previous procedure? Through the chair to Councilwoman Clark-Murray, there is no previous procedure because this is a new program. There have been other programs where there are other appropriations through the City Council where there have been advanced funding. So those all vary. The safety and crime reduction was about $8,000 or $9,000. And they were giving that money up front. And then they had to submit it, you know, before the end of the term. The only other micro-grant program that has been executed is not this one. It's not a public service grant council per se, their program. On those particular ones, we only oversaw the first year of those. It was a four or five year process arrangement that was done. And the first year that we oversaw it, they only had to attend, they had to attend like two classes a month, helping them learn skills on how to handle grants or manage grants with the city. And as long as they attended those classes and submitted their certificate that they attended, they got $2,000 or $3,000 a month. So that was that process. This is a completely different program and this will be the first year for this program as it is written. Thank you so much for that. Through the chair to Ms. Carraher. Does that help to satisfy the auditor's concerns in regards to this will no longer be reporting after a particular term, but it's going to be a monthly reporting and Ms. Barabelle and her group are going to, in a sense, handhold the nonprofits through the process. Does that somewhat quell your concerns or it's still a concern because of the fact that they're going to receive all of the funding up front? Through the chair to Councilmember Clark Murray, we still have the concern, the controls that Ms. Figueroa has identified, sound like they will help in the process to identify issues early rather than waiting at the end of the term. But we still have that concern because with the advancement of funds, there is still a chance that the city would have to recoup dollars that were spent inappropriately or if something happened and the grantee didn't comply with the contract, it would still be after the fact. Okay. Thank you for that, Chair. Just one last question. Does your office coordinate with our auditor's office in regards to previously or do you plan to coordinate with them when you receive information, like the receipts from these nonprofits in this particular instance? I know this is new, so what I'm asking is how will they know that those receipts are being turned in and is it required for you to tell them? And them being the auditors. Through the chair to Councilwoman Clark Murray, when we receive invoices, so we monitor to make sure that on the 15th of the month they're submitting prior invoices. When we receive those invoices with the proper receipts, we process those. So unless something out of the norm or they're not submitting invoices, if they're not submitting invoices, then we do contact Mr. Linsky, we notify him. So through the monthly process of invoicing, we do not, unless an issue arises or they submitted a receipt that we're saying, we're not sure about this one, we may consult and say, you know, how are you seeing this, right? So there may be consultation if there's something out of the norm, but if it's a normal invoicing and they're submitting receipts and they're proper and everything's going through, then the time that we coordinate most closely is when their annual report is due. In this case, they will have the check-in reports, programmatic reports as well. All right, so if they're surveying people but they're not submitting receipts, that's a red flag as well. But normally till the end when they have to submit their annual reports on November 15th, if they get less than $100,000, then those, we review those, those get submitted to the Council Auditor's Office with our comments, whether we agree or disagree, and then we do more coordination there if there's anything that is of concern to the Council Auditor's Office. All right, thank you for that. Thank you, Chair. All right, thank you. Let me go to Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair to Ms. Figueroa, how many of these grants do we plan to have? Five, ten? Through the Chair to Council in Salem, if the budget goes through as it is being proposed, it'll be about $216,000. Of course, it depends. If only 65% of that remains above the line, then that would be the maximum that we would award. So I would say between 10 and 20. 10 and 20. And you're telling me you have the staff presently to monitor these things, as you've indicated. Yes, sir. We had to revise the schedule, but we are confident that we will be able to stay within that timeline and execute this effectively. The reason I ask that, I specifically remember some dialogue between Council Member Freeman and Mr. Weinstein, where I thought Council Member Freeman was going to go over the dais when he's—and I'm paraphrasing here. I don't want to put words in people's mouth, but basically these are hard to do, and we're not going to put efforts into this program. I see a bunch of people nodding. Did I capture that correctly? Yes. Okay. So, I know you've got your finger up, but let me finish. Yes. So, has there been a revolution in philosophy on this? I don't see Mr. Weinstein out here, but I assume that he's aware of all this, probably watching and throwing darts at my picture in his office. So, please respond to that. Through the Chair of the Council in Salem, there has been a revolution, but it is not a revolution in terms of a position on this. The PSG Council and staff and administration have always been supportive of the micro-grant program that the PSG Council developed. The reason that this was placed on pause, and that may be what you are referring to, sir, is because the City Council imposed the oversight of the CBA Eastside Community Grants Program to our division. And at the time, we had to make some difficult decisions. And the same resource that was going to oversee the micro-grant program, a decision was made to pull those to oversee the Eastside Community Grants Program so that that can remain on schedule per the legislation that you approved. The revolution is that the two positions that you authorized, that came before you, have been hired, they're in place, they're doing the job. So, the great thing is that now that frees up the resources that will be working the micro-grant program. I'm very confident that we will be able to proceed with both with no problems. Last question, Chair, if I may. Why not use a model here versus giving the full $10,000 out at the beginning, giving a third out? Let them show receipts for that $3,000. Okay. Then we're going to give you a second $3,000, and then you show those receipts. So, if the entity is not capable or is, for lack of a better term, bad, we're out $3,000 versus $10,000. Through the Chair, Councilman Salem, we are using a model. The Public Service Grants Council has two or three of its council members that also served or assisted the safety and crime reduction effort. And that was the model that was used. And Dr. Garrett is here in case you have any specific questions since I was not overseeing that at the time. My understanding is that there were two years of safety and crime reduction commission's grants. The first year one was set up as we give you 50%, and then when you return those receipts, we give you the other 50%. I can't speak to, I don't know if Dr. Garrett recalls why that was not working or why that did not work. But for year two, the legislation that was passed was to give 100% of it up front, because for whatever reason, how the arrangement in year one just did not work. But I can't answer to the specifics on that. I would sure like to understand, Chair, why we have to give $10,000 out at the beginning versus some incremental, which I'm sure would make the auditors a lot more comfortable, make me a lot more comfortable, versus giving the whole dollar amount at the beginning. Whoever can address that, why that, and I'm not solid on $3,000, it could be $2,000, it could be $4,000, I don't care, but I would prefer not to give somebody $10,000 at the very beginning. Can somebody address that? I'm sorry, I don't mean to take up a bunch of time, but I think this is an important point. Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if Dr. Garrett has the answer as to why that did not work first year, but if anyone does in this room, it would be Dr. Garrett, if you would allow us. Good morning, Nikoa Garrett, Grants and Contract Compliance. Through the Chair to Dr. Salem, for the second disbursement that went out, it was a short window, so that contract term went from June to September. So that's why the Safety and Crime Reduction Commission voted to advance those particular funds. Outside of that, I can't address behind the scenes, but that is why that was an initial contract funding to the upfront funding. Okay. Through the Chair to Ms. Figueroa, then, why can't we modify this and incrementally pass these dollars amount at a rate that I would let you be comfortable with? I just don't want to put $10,000 at risk. I'd rather put something significantly less than that at risk. Through the Chair to Councilman Salem, this particular year one of the micro-grant program that's being proposed, that is before you, is a very similar situation. It is a short window, because by the time we get to the point where they are receiving the funds, they will have six months, basically, to spend it. It would be March 1st, and the funding would expire September 30th. So unless you built in a carry-forward of some sort, they basically are going to have a six-month window. So it would be a very similar situation. But you haven't answered my question. Yes. Even with a six-month window, you can't incrementally put it out? Through the Chair to Councilman Salem, the concern that I would have with that is the amount of time that it takes us to process payments. We'd have to receive their receipts. We're on holding these. These are small organizations. They're going to get some things that are not going to be correct, so we're going to have to work through them with those expenses. We would not be able to disperse additional funds until those are fully reconciled. By the time we do that and then submit a receipt to get a check reimbursed, then they probably will not have sufficient time to utilize those funds. What if we allow the grants to go beyond six months and put a waiver in so that you're not wedded to the six months? I'm not trying to be difficult here. Mr. Chair, I will defer to Councilman Boylan since this is his bill. Go ahead to Councilman Boylan. I didn't have a conversation with Ms. Figueroa about this, but I agree. I think we need some comfort level. The concern of making it too small of an increment is that the processing is going to be repetitive. I like the idea of maybe 50%. I'm fine with that. We do 50% up front. That way there's only a one-time processing or reprocessing a second time. I appreciate the concern and the challenge in turning these things around. We'll go ahead and offer an amendment that we... Can I offer that amendment? Please. Okay. I would offer an amendment to 5,000 be provided at the beginning and the second allotment would be... Councilman Salerno, just a correction. 50% because they're... Oh, I'm sorry. ...grants larger than 10. Some of them might be up to 20 grand. Correct. 50% would be provided at the beginning and the second 50% would be provided once the appropriate receipts, et cetera, were submitted. Correct. Now, do we need to extend the six months as a part of this amendment through the Chair to Ms. Figueroa? Through the Chair to Councilman Salem, in order for that to work, we would want to be able to give them a full year contract. And so that would require carry forward into the following fiscal year. I'm looking through the Chair over to the attorneys and auditors. Can we include that in the amendment? Through the Chair to Councilman Salem, the bill as filed already authorizes carryover through fiscal year 27-28, so I believe that would be covered already. Perfect. Then I'll just put 50% as the only part... And I second it. Okay. I've got a motion and a second on the Salem amendment. All right. I've got Councilman Lanning on the amendment. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair, first of all, to Ms. Figueroa, happy birthday. I hope your birthday gets better from here. Second thing, through the Chair to Councilmember Boylan, and I will speak to the amendment. This has the full consensus of the actual PSG Council, correct? You're carrying it forward as their liaison? Absolutely, Ms. Figueroa. I can tell you the diligence that's gone into this program in setting up the program. And the requirements really are meant by their participation. Although the receipts are necessary, the active involvement of the PSG grantees is really critical to this process. And that's what the contract's all about, is getting them educated so they can effectively take advantage of the PSG in the future. Through the Chair, thank you, Mr. Boylan, because you took over for me, I think, two years ago, and they were working on it then, so I'm glad to see this finally come to fruition. And I'm fine with the amendment. I was going to be fine with just giving it all up front anyways, because I remember the micro grants, a lot of them are going to be for kind of one-and-done type programs. But if this gives the auditors and us more comfort, I'm fine with that, too. Mr. Chair, the Vice Chair, Daniel Henry of the PSG Council is here. If you need any assurances from him or comments from him, he is present. All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Councilmember Pittman on the amendment. To the Chair and to Ms. Bill, thank you so much. We've been working on this, I think, since you came in, and to Councilman Boylan. I hear from, and I think I shared with you, along with Councilman Lane, when he first started, was a representative. It's music to my ears, number one, to have some of the discussions that we had. And I think it will help some of the small and emerging organizations having a month-to-month, rather than waiting until the end. Because some of the conversations that I had with the small organizations felt like the time span to spend the money was short. So, being able to get 50% up, up front, as Councilman Salem said, I've heard it firsthand, up close and personal. And you all have, and knowing the issues that have been brought up, to kind of come to a solution. This is the first time that you're doing it. And listen, if it don't work, then we'll do something else. But I think, for me, a lot of the smaller organizations who are digging deeper than the bigger or mid-sized organization at least get an opportunity to show that they can handle a certain amount of money with some hand-holding. You know, the larger organizations, as I say, the big fish don't really get an opportunity for the small fish to kind of get in to grow into being a big fish. This opportunity gives them that. I concur with changing rather than, I had a little heartburn with giving 10,000 or 20,000 up front. But if you all have the capacity to do it, I'd like to see it at least worked on and see if we can do this and then it'll allow us to grow almost having tier levels. You know, maybe they handle the $5,000 or the $10,000 that you give them, they will be able to maybe apply for $20,000, you know, the following year. There are so many issues and there's a lot of things that are going on in our country right now. And it's usually the smaller organizations that are doing the work but may not have someone holding their hand or the capacity. But if they had the resources to do it, they could do the work. So I really would like to see that done. Not only that, I see the training that is being done because you all send us information to make sure that the organizations are there because there's infrastructure. I think before it was, the infrastructure was a loosey-goosey kind of thing. But since you all have been working on it and you've been listening to some of the things that we've had to say over the years, because it's been about four years or so with all of, even when Councilman, I would say Councilman Garrett was on council, that was also an issue. So I'm glad to say I'm giving you a compliment and hoping with these new amendments that we can put in place that this program will be successful. Thank you. All right, thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Morrow. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just rise to support the Salem Amendment for a number of reasons. It protects the taxpayers' money. It gives the auditors a little bit of comfort and it shows that we're doing our due diligence in fulfilling our fiscal responsibility. And to say to Ms. Figueroa, Feliz Complianos. Yes. All right. No other speakers in the queue on the amendment? All in favor of the amendment, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Likewise. None. The amendment carries. Get a motion to second on the bill as amended. I've got a motion to second on the bill as amended. No other speakers in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By your action, you approve 2026-0624 as amended. Next item, we'll go to get recognized. Council Vice President Joe Carlucci has joined us and we'll go ahead and go to his bills next. Let's go to page 10, item 14. I've got a motion and a second on 2026-0668. No speakers in the queue. So open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By your action, you approve 2026-0668. Next item will be on page 12, item number 16, 2026-0673. Can I get a motion on the amendment? Can I get a second? Can I get a second? I will apologize. Let me... That is an M, Carlucci. Let me... Let me go... I apologize. Let me go to page 17, item number 24. Let me get there for a minute. 2026-0699. I've got a motion on the emergency. No speakers in the queue. All in favor of the emergency, say aye. Through the chair. Can someone explain the emergency? Yeah. Ms. Kerher, can you explain the emergency? Through the chair to the committee. The nature of the emergency is to ensure the code amendments being proposed in this bill are effective in advance of the upcoming special assessment process for the hospital assessments. Okay. Councilman Amaro, you're recognized. Okay. So let me go ahead and... I've got no speakers in the queue on the emergency. All in favor of the emergency, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Likewise, none. Move the bill 2026-0699 as an emergency. Move the bill as an emergency. Second. So I've got a motion and a second. Ms. Clark-Murray, you're recognized. Thank you. I don't know if the bill's introducer or if someone from the auditors or OGC wants to speak to this, but there's language that's being added in regards to assessed properties. Can you just expound on the language that's being added? Okay. Thank you, Chair. He's coming forward. Good afternoon. I'm David Elliott with Atalanto Healthcare. I represent the private hospitals here in the city of Jacksonville, and we've been helping to operate alongside the city, this local provider participation fund for the last six years of its existence. To your question, the change here is that there is a petition in front of CMS right now that they are making a decision to exclude certain types of hospitals from these assessments going forward, specifically as it applies here. Certain psychiatric hospitals, rehab hospitals, and cancer hospitals would not be subject to this tax going forward and this assessment going forward should CMS pass and agree to that decision. What this ordinance update does is allow that CMS decision to be implemented and for those hospitals to be removed from the assessment going forward pending CMS's approval. So this is not necessarily a decision that the city is being forced to make. It's a decision that CMS will make, and this ordinance just allows that to flow through and impact the assessment properly. Thank you for that. And through the Chair, when you say assessment, you mean property assessment, is that what you referring to? That's correct. This is an assessment paid by the hospitals using their own dollars, so it has no impact to the taxpayer or to the city. All right. Thank you for that. Thank you, Chair. All right. No other speakers on the queue. I've got a motion and a second on the bill as an emergency. Let's open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By your action, you're approved. 2026-0699. The next item we'll go to is on page 19. Item number 29. Reviewers. 2026-0714. 2026-0714. I've got a motion and a second on the emergency. Ms. Carraher. Through the Chair to the committee, the nature of the emergency is that the funds being appropriated by this bill will lapse on September 30th, 2026. All right. No speakers in the queue on the emergency. All in favor of the emergency, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Likewise. None. The emergency carries. The motion and a second on the bill as an emergency. Amendment. Move the amendment. Oh. Move the amendment. I've got a motion and a second on the amendment. Ms. Carraher. Through the Chair to the committee. The amendment will revise the funding source for this appropriation to the general fund debt service savings, the interest specifically. As filed, this was pulling dollars from a contingency account that the funding was used as part of the budget process, the finance committee's actions, so that was no longer available. We'll attach a revised Exhibit 1, which is the BT, to reflect the revised funding source. And we'll attach a revised Exhibit 2, which is the services agreement with DVI. To clarify the payment terms, update some insurance language based on risk management's review, and correct some Scrivener's errors within the agreement. All right. Thank you. I've got Dr. Salem on the amendment. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair to Councilmember Carlucci. Were these dollars originally appropriated and got used for something else? Can you enlighten me, please? Yeah, sure. No problem. Through the Chair to Councilmember Salem. So, if you remember on the downtown special committee, we were working through some of the things that we were going to, I guess, repurpose the dollars of the JRA contract because they didn't get started at the time. So, there was a lot of leftover funding throughout the process of the financial or the finance committee's budget hearings, they moved those dollars to another pot of money, so to speak. And, therefore, I had to change my funding source from the extra JRA dollars, so to speak, to debt savings. So, that's sort of how it kind of evolved on the funding side. Did you have another question besides that? Well, I was going to, I don't recall finance moving those dollars. Councilmember Laning, through the Chair, can you enlighten me on that? Sure. Through the Chair to Councilmember Salem and the Vice President. So, there were a lot of moving parts on this one. You may recall that there was a Riverfront Parks Alliance item built into the budget. When we discussed that, it turned out they had about a million they did not use that was appropriated last year. We used that million-ish as part of what we put into our special council consensus, I believe it was, without knowing that Councilmember Carlucci was also working on something to use that money for. It's in his district, so I think he knew before we knew that there was going to be some money that was not going to be used that prior year. Long story short, our Council Vice President found an additional funding source to where we did not need to budget for this. So, I think we are all on the same page now that what you are working on is getting funded by this, and it is a non-budgetary impact, but will still be funded for next year. Through the chair to Councilmember Lane, was this the, now it comes back to me, this was the discussion where a member of the council got a little concerned that we were taking that million dollars because he knew a bill was coming through on that. Is this the one? Through the chair to Dr. Salem. I believe it was actually Mr. Joseph that said that another council member was working on something, and I think that's all the information we had at the time, so we put in that special contingency at the time, and I think if not for the alternative funding source, we probably would have had further conversation about using some of that contingency on this. Okay. I'm fine. Okay. Yeah, and just to add, when I came on wrap-up day, we rehashed all of this and I said, I'll just find a new funding source and we'll be good to go. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Carlucci. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair to the finance committee chair, since this is obviously funding full-time employees position, I'm just curious about next year, does this become an FTE position? What's the, how are you going to keep paying for the guy to be in a job? Through the chair to Councilmember Amaro, I'll direct that to the vice president because I believe most of this is a one-time spend, not included to be funded forever with some specific downtime items. Yep. So, through the chair to Councilmember Amaro, the upcoming budget, it is that one time and I believe, I don't know if Mr. Joseph is here or not, but he had a vacancy in his department that he was going to allocate towards this position. So, it doesn't add any new positions, it doesn't add any new quote-unquote allocation of dollars for payroll or anything like that. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Landon, you're in the queue. Oh. Okay. Good. All right. So, I have no other speakers in the queue on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Likewise. None. The amendment carries. Get a motion and second on the bill as an emergency as amended. Move the bill as an emergency as amended. Second. I've got a motion and a second on the bill as an emergency as amended. No speakers in the queue. Open the ballot and record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action approved, 2026-0714 as an emergency and amended. All right. I just want to say thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you taking those up. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. All right. So, let's go back to our agenda. I believe we're on item number 10 on page 8. 2026-0646. 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 just clarify the appropriation language within the bill title and will attach a revised Exhibit 1, which is the BT, to include some information that was missing on the page, first page. All right. Dr. Salem, you're recognized on the amendment, on the bill. Okay. Okay. But I have no speakers on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, likewise. None. The amendment carries. I've got a motion and a second on the bill as amended. I've got a motion and a second. Motion to move and a second. Second. I've got a motion and a second on the bill as amended. And I've got Dr. Salem in the queue. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to whoever can answer this, I've run into a few of the East Side representatives, I guess, that are on this board. And they have expressed an interest in using these dollars more towards CIP type things versus operational issues. And as I recall, the bill itself did not address CIP. And they, and I said that to them and they indicated they may be coming back to modify the bill itself that allocated these dollars. Can someone verify that? Is that true that these dollars cannot be used for CIP project, CIP? Through the chair to Councilman Salem, I'll ask Ms. Figaro to come up, but, but you are absolutely correct. From my understanding, the council set the priorities on how the dollars would be spent. And so in order to make a change or modification, it would have to come through this body. But I'll defer to Ms. Figaro. Ms. Figaro, have you heard through the chair that they are interested in modifying how the dollars are spent and using some of it towards projects? Through the chair to Councilman Salem, I have not heard that directly. The legislation itself, and I'm not sure if you mean CIP as in a formal city CIP program or just capital. The legislation allows for capital expenses. We have of the 34 applications that were received, 28 are being scored. And there were two or three that included capital expenses in there. So it does allow for operational and capital. It does. In the legislation, yes. Why only two or three chose to apply for that, I could not answer that. But we will be having a survey after the application period is over. The Eastside Grants Committee has a rules committee and their intent, one of their items of charges, is that after this grant cycle, they're going to be reevaluating the entire legislation to recommend some adjustments. So perhaps they're waiting to do that through rules committee. Through the chair, who monitors those capital projects that they're approved by the committee? Is that the committee itself or does public works or someone like that get engaged? Through the chair to Councilman Salem, I'm referring to what is in the legislation. And what is in the legislation is that those grants overall are monitored by the Grants and Contract Compliance Division. And Dr. Garrett is the grant administrator. So she will be monitoring those. I don't believe there's any wording with respect to any other entity of the city. However, with respect to operational, it will be the same as the other grants, right? They have to submit expenses and get reimbursed with capital. Right. Depending on what the capital item is, we may need a certification of occupancy before anything is reimbursed. So we are going to the letter of the law of what is in the legislation. And when there is any vagueness or things that need to be interpreted, we will go to OGC. We have gone to OGC. And in some cases, we also have been consulting with Council Auditor's Office. Both entities have been helpful in trying to help us navigate through the things that are not clearly explained in the legislation. Through the chair, I assume that if they needed help on a capital project, they could reach out. And we would find the appropriate people to assist them. Is that a fair statement? Through the chair to Councilman Salem, while there's nothing in the legislation on that, we will certainly do everything we can to help them be successful. And if it takes connecting them to another part of the city that can help them within the ability to do so, we will certainly help them be successful. Well, you know, that legislation was kind of a beginning, I think. We wanted to get them started. We worked very hard through that CBA committee to get it done. If we need to modify it, please come back to us. Through the chair to Councilman Salem, I am 99.9% sure that they will be coming back to you with a request for some adjustments to provide further clarity. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Council Member Landon. Thank you. Through the chair, to my colleagues, to hopefully speed up conversation here. This is essentially just a budget bill. What it does, it's combining what was appropriated last year with what was in the budget this year to run concurrently with the budget night bills. I'm not sure why this one made it into rules and none of the other budget bills did, but again, this is simply the appropriation CBA bill for this year's budget. There's no change to anything else behind it. It's just the appropriation bill. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, notwithstanding Council Member Landon's comments. Just a couple things. Number one, with respect to Council Member Salem's concerns, obviously, if it's a public works project, public works will get involved. My experience has been that they'll pull a different department in if it requires a capital project permitting and that sort of thing, but maybe Dr. Garrett wants to speak to this. I'm just curious, and it sounds like through the comments by Ms. Figueroa that the board is working and moving forward. There was a lot of angst in the part of making sure these dollars get put into play and into action. I'm hearing through her comments, and I want to get some reassurance from you that you're feeling very comfortable about the pace of work of the committee and trying to dispel or distribute these dollars. Could you speak to that for me just briefly through the chair? Sure. Through the chair to Councilman Boylan, the committee is diligently working. We are having our third committee meeting on this Thursday, September 16th, over at KHA, and they voted to have the monthly meetings at KHA so that the community, the Eastside community, that place is more accessible. The kids hope alliance in the parking is free. The subcommittees, which are the rules committee, the budget committee, and the category and outreach subcommittees are already on the calendar to meet. The category and outreach subcommittee, they're working on their second meeting. So they're working on an outreach plan within a community. So they are on board. All of their conflict of interest documents have been certified through ethics. So they're on board. They're ready to go. That's great news. Thank you. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Morrow. Thank you, Mr. Che. I'll be very quick. And I heard Councilmember Lainon describe what the bill is before us, but the idea of capitals has been introduced. And I'm a little bit concerned because when CBA was created, it was very emphatic as to what the main categories would be, affordable workforce housing, homelessness, and economic development. And I guess I need to see what's being talked about before I would even embrace drifting from what the main categories of this initiative is all about. Just want to put that on the record. All right. Thank you. I have no other speakers in the queue. I've got a motion and a second on the bill as amended. Open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you approve 2026-0646 as amended. Item number 11 is deferred due to notice and requirements. Item number 12, 2026-0665. I've got a motion and a second on the withdrawal. No speakers in the queue. Ms. Carrier on the withdrawal. Through the chair to the committee, in working with OGC and reviewing this bill after it was filed, this is amending a very old section of our code, which has not been revised since it was created back in the late 90s. There's a number of other things that need to be updated within that code section. So rather than identifying those changes and substituting, re-referring this bill, it was decided it would be cleaner to just withdraw this and reintroduce a separate bill that addresses all those updates that may be necessary by the, you know, identified by the department in this code section. I've got a motion and a second on the withdrawal. Open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you approve the withdrawal of 2026-0665. Next item number 13, 2026-0666. Second. I've got a motion and a second on the withdrawal. Councilman Landon. Thank you, Chair. I'll speak to the reason for the withdrawal. First of all, it's a very bad luck number. And then second of all, this made it into the budget that was sent from Finance Committee to the full Council. So it was a duplicative request. So that is why Councilmember Matt Carlucci is withdrawing this. All right. No other speakers in the queue on this. So open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved the withdrawal of 2026-0666. Next item 14, we've done taken action. Item number 15, 2026-0672 is deferred. I request to Councilmember Pittman. Item number 16, 2026-0673. 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 correct the legal name of the entity. We'll attach a revised Exhibit 1, which is the BT, to correct the oversight department and include carryover language. And we'll attach a revised Exhibit 2 and 3, which are the term sheets and affidavits to correct the entity's legal name. All right. Thank you. Dr. Salem on the amendment. All right. I've got no other speakers in the queue on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed likewise? None. Amendment carries. Got a motion second on the bill as amended. With the bill as amended. I've got a motion second on the bill as amended. Dr. Salem, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. I have several concerns about this bill. Number one, can someone tell me why this wasn't debated through the budget process? And this appears to me to be funding provided to an organization that's going to become reoccurring. And that's the second issue that I have with this. Mr. Dennis, through the chair. Mr. Dennis, can you address those? Yes. Through the chair to Councilman Salem. For one, the Exchange Club is here. They can really kind of get into the nuts and bolts as this is Councilman Carlucci, Matt Carlucci's bill. You know, this is a priority for him. You know, they serve a very, you know, niche function in the child abuse, you know, family support arena. I'm not exactly sure why Councilman Carlucci decided to go this route. However, the administration, we support it. You know, we think that this is the best and most appropriate way to fund this organization. Well, through the chair, it appears to be a request of the mayor versus a request of Matt Carlucci. And Matt Carlucci is just the council sponsor of this. Councilman Carlucci is the sponsor of this, but we support. It's something that the mayor as well as Councilman Carlucci is working together on and supporting this funding. And so we hope that, you know, this body, this committee supports it. And I think before we go down, you know, the road of not supporting it. I would like the, if it's okay through the chair and Councilman Salen, have the executive director, Watson, and she brought some members of our board here and how the genesis of this particular bill. If I can. Yeah, you got the floor. Because I'm sure, I just have a philosophical problem in the way this bill is coming forward. It's got nothing to do with your organization. We just went through a three-week budget process. And if this thing was going to be funded, it should have gone through there. I have a great concern of using this debt funding for reoccurring expenses. So I have one question for you. With this funding, do you anticipate this program continuing beyond whatever date it is here? Sue Watson, executive director of the Exchange Club Family Center, 4161 Carmichael Avenue, Suite 154. Yes, we would love, we would continue to ask for funding. We continue to go through the PSG. And when the small grants do come out, we will definitely be looking at those because we are one of those smaller agencies with a budget just this year, just over a million dollars. So it's a struggle for us getting the PSG funding and being able to keep some of that funding like they had spoken about. So, yes. Okay. You should be going through PSG. We provide $7 million for PSG. I can't support this for the fact that it's going to be reoccurring and you should be going to PSG. And number three, it should have gone through the budget process where it could have been debated and compared to other priorities that the Finance Committee thought should be there. So, I'm sure it's a worthwhile effort, but there are other ways for you to get those dollars versus using these dollars. And then it will become reoccurring. And once it's in the budget, as I've said many times, it's very hard to get it out. And that's the problem we have. Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Landon. Thank you, Chair. And through the chair to my colleagues and first off to the organization, my comments have nothing to do with you. But along the same lines, Councilmember Salem was saying, we just wrapped up a couple months of debating a lot of direct contracts. And I wish Councilmember Matt Carlucci was here, because if you recall, a lot of you were here on a wrap-up day where we essentially went through the entire dais, what else is out there. And part of that conversation was helping to find alternative funding sources, which a lot of the members that did have enhancement requests, we were able to do that. And so, that's just my concern. I mean, there's always the nonprofit concern, right? The hardest grant to ever get is your first. And then it's very hard for us to ever say no to future grants, which has been a concern of mine, especially when we're looking at $140 million in nonprofit spend now, which is a very large portion of our budget. So, I'm going to vote no on this. I mean, I welcome to learn more about it. But, Mr. Dennis, I'm confirming through the chair, Mr. Dennis, I don't think anyone reached out to me about this specific item. Especially, like I said, I would have liked Councilmember Matt Carlucci to be here, because I looked at it as a mayor's request that he just happened to co-introduce. You're kind of saying it's the other way around. And if that's so, he needs to come here and be the bill's sponsor and speak to us for that. But, again, I do think when we went through the budget process, we had a lot of debate, but we approved millions of dollars of direct contracts. Again, I think we were fair to the mayor and her priorities as well. I think we fully funded medical. We fully funded a lot of other areas. We're going to talk about a $4.9 million piece a lot next Tuesday night, but there were very few things that we did not prioritize at a high level from that initial budget proposal. So that's why I wish this would have been part of the budget proposal had we known about it. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Clark Murray. Thank you, Chair. Good morning to you. While you heard the sentiments of my colleagues, just a couple of questions. So in regards to your particular program, did you approach the mayor for funding, or what was the exchange so that you're here today? So we've been trying to gain city funding for a number of years. We've worked with Kids Hope Alliance for years and gone to them, but it's out of their statutes. So our program focuses on parents and parenting education and support to make sure that families and children have a nurturing home to be in. So our goal is to put out the fires at home and provide those safe environments so that children are not getting into trouble and that type of thing. So we've also gone through PSG for years, and we're always just below that line and never get there. So we were supported to work with the mayor's office and with council to get into the budget. Thank you so much for that. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Morrow. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to support the amendment and the bill as well. And I understand some of the members' frustration about the process that the path that was taken to get to where we are today. But as Ms. Watson just stated that they have tried the conventional methods and whatever the scoring factors were, they just didn't meet that threshold. I think given the work of this organization, the low recidivism rate that they produce, the fact that they're saving homes and saving families, I think this is what we're all about. This is what government is about. And so I'm ready to support the work that they're doing. Now, come next year, if this should be approved, they have to go through the same process. And just like anyone else, if they don't meet the muster at that point, then they won't get approved. But today, as we sit here and speak, I think that what they're doing is worthwhile. So I'm supporting the amendment and the legislation as well. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Councilmember Bowling. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the Chair, Ms. Lane, can you give me a sense of what is your annual operating budget and what does this $204,000 represent of that? Yeah. So we don't have in our operating budget the $204,000 currently. We're just over a million dollars this year. So this funding would help to support the work that's being done here in Duval County. The majority of my referrals, over 53%, come from Duval County. So your operating budget, as we speak, is about a million dollars. Yes, sir. And what you're looking for is $200,000. Obviously, that is 20% of your operating budget. That's a pretty high threshold. Ms. Figueroa, what is, I think we have a percentage limit as to what contributions can be made through the PSGs to an organization in terms of the limitations. Is that the issue why she, well, let me speak to that, as to why, through the Chair, as to why her request for PSG funding is low? The question is, again, the percentage. Through the Chair to Councilman Boylan, the threshold for public service grants is 24% of their average three-year revenue in the aggregate. Got it. So I'm... So she would qualify for... But the max is $125,000. Yeah. So she would qualify for the $204,000 if she went, if she, by going through the PSG process. The concern to this point, however, you've not made it to the level of securing any of those funds. Is that what I'm hearing? And through the Chair to Councilman Boylan, the maximum for public service grants is $125,000. Oh, there you go. So regardless of what their 24% is, that would still be the max. I see. All the more reason. I share the same concerns. Great program, and I appreciate the work that you do. But, you know, I talked about this earlier on with Councilmember Johnson's bill. You know, trying to get away from these direct contracts, trying to maintain the process. Since the PSG does have the wherewithal to support this program at a level of $120,000, I continue to suggest they do that. And I would hold off on supporting this bill and maybe even deferring until Councilmember Carlucci can be here to speak to it. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Mr. Dennis. Through the Chair to the Committee, specifically to Councilman Lane. Councilman Lane, there was a notice meeting. Councilman Carlucci had a notice meeting yesterday. And since this was his bill, it was an opportunity for him to meet with council members about it. And just like any bill, you know, if a council member comes to the administration and wants support, you know, we support, you know, a lot of your projects and things like that. You know, I think one council member said that, you know, you all support our initiatives and we do the same. And so we were doing the same for Councilman Carlucci. And I think, you know, deferring this or putting this off runs up to the end of the budget year. There's not another committee meeting. I see the auditors shaking their head. And that was the reason for trying to get this bill through. So, you know, I would ask on behalf of Councilman Carlucci, you know, to move forward and hopefully he's back before the council meeting on next Tuesday to iron out any issues that you all may have. But that was the reason for for moving forward and Councilman Carlucci not being here. So hopefully you take that into consideration and not penalize your colleague for not being here today. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Dr. Salem. Thank you, chair. Everyone, please look at the bill. It's a request of the mayor. That's what the bill says. OK, so let's be very clear here. Number two, my feelings have got nothing to do with if Councilmember Matt Carlucci was here or not. The purpose of the funds that we provide, the public service grants and the cultural council is so we don't get into this position. We should not be here debating this. Every organization that did not get funding then could come just like this. And that's not what we should have. We would be inundated with people that didn't get funding through PSG or the cultural council. It's got nothing to do with this organization. They should not be here. This is not the process. They need to keep working through the process that's there. And if they get it, great. But we provide, in order to try to control this process, a fixed amount of funding. And if you get it, you get it. If you don't, you don't. And this will, if this passes, and I'll get up Tuesday night and say this again, it will be in the budget. We've got things in this budget we just approved that were pushed in at the last minute last year that never should have been funded. And they're back again, and they were all approved by the finance committee. And I would have loved to have been a part of that debate and stopped it. And I'm going to, you know, this needs to be rejected purely on the principle of how we handle these grants. And I urge my colleagues, if we start doing this, then we've busted through the whole process. And it's just not right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So, Michelle, we're on the amendment still. We're on the bill. To the chair, it's been moved as amended. Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure I was in the right posture. All right. So, I've got a motion and a second on the bill as amended. Let's open the ballot and record your vote. Three yays, four nays. By your action, you did not approve 2026-0673. Next item, number 17, 2026-0676, and a motion on the amendment. I've got a motion and a second on the amendment. Ms. Karaher on the amendment. Through the chair to the committee, the amendment will attach to revised Exhibits 3 and 4, which is the donation agreement and the quick claim deed to include the legal description of the four parcels that are being donated. Speakers in the queue on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Likewise, none. The amendment carries. I've got a motion and a second on the bill as amended. I've got a motion and a second on the bill as amended. No speakers in the queue. Open the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you're approved 2026-0676. Item number 18, 2026-0677 is deferred at the request of Council Member Matt Carlucci. Item 19, we've done taken action. 20, we've taken action. 21, we've taken action. Item number 22, 2026-0687 is deferred at the request of Council Member White. The next items are on second. Item 23, 2026-0698. 24, we've already taken action. Item number 25, 2026-07-02 is on second. Item 26, 2026-07-04, 07-05, 07-09 are on seconds. Item 29, we've taken action. Item 30, we've taken action. Item number 31, 2026-07-01, get a motion on emergency. Emergency. I've got a motion and a second on the emergency. Ms. Carriher. Through the chair to the committee, the nature of the emergency is to make the funds available in the current fiscal year. Right. No speakers on the emergency. All in favor of the emergency, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Likewise, none. The emergency carries. Can you get a motion and a second on the amendment? I've got a motion and a second on the amendment, Mr. Carriher. Through the chair to the committee, the amendment will clarify the account information within the explanation of appropriation and correct some scrivener's errors within the bill. All right. Thank you. Ms. Clark Murray on the amendment. Thank you, chair. Is there anyone here from the Jacksonville Yacht Club? Yes, please come forward. I'm curious about this. It's the amendment. Hello, I'm Leslie from Jack's Yacht Charter. Hello, Leslie from Jack's Yacht Charter. This is, I'm curious about this. So, it says in the amendment that we are looking at 24 events annually on the vessel that are going to be open to the public. So, what kind of events do you anticipate? I mean, it's 24. So, I'm curious about. Oh, well, we've been operating now for one full year. We had our ribbon cutting last September. And as part of our arrangement with the city of Jacksonville, we want to make Royal Princess available for the public. So, we do ticketed cruises. We had a very successful summer series. We had themes like 70s night, Motown martinis on the water. Last Saturday, we did cigar, whiskey, soul cruise. We have brunch cruises. We encourage children to come during the day. All kinds of events. We're working with, we're doing a taste of Jacksonville where I'm encouraging restaurants and chefs in the area to come on board. And we work with entertainers to get a lot of opportunities for local businesses to thrive. Okay. So, thank you so much for that. So, it might be just my understanding. So, give me one moment. Through the chair to Michelle. So, it says public. And I'm asking you because you're OGC. So, it says public. So, we're not necessarily talking about free. We're just talking about it being available to the public. I'm curious about what are we getting for our $70,000. I just, this was, just piqued my curiosity. So, go ahead. Through the chair to Councilmember Clark-Marie. That's my understanding that they're open to the public, but it doesn't necessarily mean free. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much for that. Thank you. All right. You're on the amendment bill. Dr. Salem on the amendment. Yes, I'm on the amendment. All right. So, I've got a motion, a second on the amendment. No other speakers in the queue. All in favor of the amendment, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, likewise. None. The amendment carries. Got a motion on the second, on the bill as emergency as amended. The bill as emergency as amended. I've got a motion and a second. Councilmember Landon, you're recognized. All right. Thank you, Chair. A lot of questions and concerns on this one. I'm not going to put Mr. Randolph on the spot. So, through the chair to Mr. Dennis, why is this an OED matter and not DIA? Because it is on the South Bank, if I follow correctly. Through the chair to Councilmember Landon, thank you for your question. This is an economic development, as we see it, development. Yes, it's $70,000, and I'll be remiss not to let Mr. Randolph speak on it because he's our director of economic development, but we thought that it's best for it to come through his department. He has the funds, and he negotiates the return on all the dollars we put out for economic development. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Dennis. Let me get my other questions out of the way then, and then Mr. Randolph can potentially answer them all. In the memorandum write-up you sent us, there are a couple of words that scared me. Mr. or Dr. Salem mentioned how once you make it into the budget, it's very hard to get out of the budget. It mentions the words yearly, and then it mentions the phrase, inspections and repairs are unsustainable for the business. So, my current concern, this is another item that we do it once, and now it becomes a part of our annual budget. Also, it's 2004-274, the RAMCO Rev Grant is the funding source. Usually, Rev Grants aren't surpluses, it's more just a timing, I believe. So, if you could also speak to that, Mr. Randolph, or maybe it's the auditors, because I don't think this is extra money we had available. I think it was simply timing of a Rev Grant that we'll still be committed to paying out, maybe just not this year, but it'll be whatever we committed to. All of that money is committed through that. So, let's start with those questions. I know that was a lot. Sure. Good morning again. Ed Randolph, OED. Through the Chair to Councilman Landon. So, as it relates to, I'll just do the Rev Grant, knock that one out first. So, basically, Rev Grants, we forecast out whether it's 5, 8, 10, 15, 20 years. For the most part, it's always a forecast going into the legislative process as to what that final Rev Grant amount may be. There'll be a cap. So, as it relates to the amount to be paid out as well as that term. So, truly, when we do a Rev Grant deal, at the end of the day, sometimes those recipients don't end up getting all of the money that we allot. So, each year, the Rev Grant, again, it's always a forecasted amount. So, we will be looking to apply some of the Rev Grant funds that were going to be unused this fiscal year to apply towards a $70,000 grant. So, Ramco truly may never realize the amount that the cap amount in their grant contract, if you will, their agreement. So, truly, it's not something that we may not end up having to pay to Ramco. So, but we would like to apply those dollars from this fiscal year to this particular grant. I will say, just collectively, you know, we looked at the DIA did not entertain this grant request in that they do not have a brick-and-mortar, you know, that basically their programs relate to brick-and-mortar locations for businesses downtown, whether it's a restaurant or retail establishment. Similar to what we do, we looked at it as if we were underwriting any other small business request around town. Obviously, they're in a CRA, so we do focus more on trying to help businesses more in the facade grant front or getting, you know, keeping their business open and thriving. And we truly looked at this entity as being kind of a downtown pioneer. As Leslie stated, they've been in business a little over a year now downtown. They made their way to Jacksonville through her husband who had a major transplant at Mayo Clinic. So, they fell in love with Jacksonville and St. Augustine. They put over a million dollars into this vessel. And now that they've come upon this, you know, again, they're hoping the downtown grows. We just envisioned them. We're putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the downtown parks and the riverfront. They approached this biannual Coast Guard inspection process. And locally, some of the boat yards were going to charge them almost twice as much as they're being charged in Savannah. So, they actually just got back. So, they had to drive the boat all the way, 14 hours, I believe, to Savannah to get the work done to, you know, not exceed those costs. But that they would be paying here at a local establishment. But with all that being said, this is truly a company and, you know, a small business operation that's looking to leave downtown Jacksonville to go to Savannah or some other small, you know, downtown that has more foot traffic. So, we looked it upon as being losing some, you know, a business that we believe in the long term will be self-sufficient. This is truly just a request, a one-time request to handle this in that as they invest in the community, they work with dozens of small businesses, caterers, bartenders, florists, musicians, laundry services, as Leslie mentioned as well. So, they are trying to become part of the community with, again, with all of our energy and, you know, foot traffic starting to grow downtown. We truly would like to see them remain here and not give up on downtown. So, that's really why we're before you today for this grant request. Chair, thank you, Mr. Randolph. And, again, I always appreciate a small business owner choosing to do business here. But I'm concerned of the precedent we're setting here. Like, I'm thinking about District 2, District 3, District 13. There's a lot of fishing boats, shrimping boats, tour boats. And I just get concerned, will this just become a new scope of things that we look at to offer incentives through? And, like I said, in the memorandum write-up that your department sent us, it's certainly, to me, when I read this, it sounds like this is the first of many future requests to keep the operation running. So, that is a concern of mine. Do you maybe want to respond to that? Because, again, just looking at how it's written, it kind of implies this is the first of multiple requests. Sure. Through the Chair to Councilman Landon. No, this will be a one-time expenditure. Again, just knowing that they're just getting, you know, into the market. They've talked about their crowds growing a little bit more each week and month. But, at this point, we are not envisioning us stepping in and helping them financially at any point in the future. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Randolph. All right. Thank you. Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair, Mr. Randolph. Do we not have another vessel out there that moves people from the South Bank to the North Bank, like for Jaguar games and other things? Is this the same vessel or is this a different vessel? Through the Chair to Councilman Salem. No, this is a totally different vessel and they offer a totally different service. There is a taxi service that's available. This is a cruise ship in that, again, getting back to, I think, would be, you know, a couple years from now. They're going to be thriving to the point where we're going to be happy to have them. So, as folks, we try to get more folks downtown, especially from out of town. They attract folks from outside of downtown. So, there's definitely a heads and beds element to this. But this is a dinner cruise, a theme cruise type offering. So, it's totally different. I mean, any major downtown you see across the country has at least one of these. So, we're trying to just help them stay solvent and stay in the market because we know in a couple years from now when our downtown, you know, is crowded every single weekend, every single night with, you know, everything else going on. But to your question, this is not a taxi. This is a dinner cruise. This is a entertainment vessel. They even work with the local Coast Guard here in training exercises. So, they're very involved in the community, but it is not a taxi service. Okay. And this boat, for lack of a better term, is presently operating now? Through the chair to council? Correct. Yes. They've signed a 10-year lease with the city. They're docked over on the south bank. No, I'm sorry. They are operating, have been operating for several months or years, or is this a new boat? Through the chair to Councilman Salem, no. They've been in operation about a year here in downtown Jacksonville, offering these dinner cruises and other various cruise events. Do you know how many dinner cruises they have conducted over the last year? Through the last year. I'll have to defer to the co-owner, but I believe it's at least 24. Thank you for the questions. We came from New York City, and we only did private yacht charters in New York. And we, in Jacksonville, we just started this public cruise ticketed thing as part of your requirements, which at first, quite honestly, I was nervous about, but I'm loving it now, because I'm able to give people an opportunity here that they've never had. So we're more than a boat, we're an experience, and we're showcasing downtown Jacksonville and all of the renovations that are happening. In addition, we're reaching out to private companies that are coming in and trying to assess what to do in downtown. So if they're staying at the Hyatt, we are able to go across the river. We're certified for 180 people. Our average guest count is between 75 and 150. I appreciate all that, but you didn't answer my question. How many people? No. I asked you how many cruises you've conducted like this over the last month, two months, three months, something? Absolutely. Okay. For public cruises, we've exceeded the 24 minimum. We've probably done about 30 in the last year, from September 8th. And we've done another, we've probably operated close to 60 or 70 events so far in downtown Jacksonville. Okay. Thank you for answering that. Mr. Randolph, you're telling me this is a one-time expense and you will not be coming back for any further dollars for this entity? Through the chair to Council of Salem, that's correct. Right now, again, it's just getting them through to the point to where there's enough foot traffic, so to where they're not contemplating leaving the market. That's correct. I have grave concerns about this. But anyway, thank you. All right. Thank you. Let me go to Council Member Boylan. Thanks, Chair. Mr. Randolph, it speaks to $70,000 for improvements. Could you speak to the total expenditure they're making? What percentage is the $70,000 represent? Through the chair to Council Member Boylan. They originally got an estimate, again, when they go through this type of biannual inspection through the Coast Guard, which they require the U.S. Coast Guard. They don't know what they're going to spend in that they could take the boat out of the water and find all these things that need to be addressed to meet safety requirements, et cetera, based on the U.S. Coast Guard standards. So I know that they, again, they traveled to Savannah because I think they got closer to $100,000-ish estimate, whereas locally it was much higher. So with that, right now I think they're still working with the boatyard on the final estimates, but I think it's probably close to about $100,000 total. So we're looking to pay 70% of the improvements to the boat? That seems awfully high participation on the part of the city. Through the chair to Council Member Boylan. Yeah, and part of that was the inspection process. Again, this was something they approached us with and based on, you know, they spend over $100,000 a year on overhead. They just spent about over a million dollars renovating the boat. So they're looking at Jacksonville, the amount of tickets they're selling. It's just not, I mean, the revenue. They have five employees. This is another thing. They need to keep their five employees. All the small businesses they go ahead and employ and work with. So collectively, from an ROI perspective, the only thing that's different here than our typical project is that this doesn't have a bricks-and-mortar location. But at the end of the day, we looked at underwriting this as one being worth, again, the hundreds of millions of dollars we're investing in the waterfront downtown. And they truly are contemplating leaving the market because they don't know a year from now if they're going to have enough foot traffic and folks, you know, paying customers to keep it as a viable option based on all the expenses they've incurred with renovating the boat and then just their overhead each year. Through the chair, I certainly appreciate the enterprise and the effort to do so. But very specifically, this grant is a completion grant for the improvements. And you're telling me the improvements are $100,000. So I guess my concern is that our share in this process seems higher than it needs to be. And I get your point. They're trying to save all other dollars for the operation, et cetera, et cetera. But that's not what the bill speaks to. It speaks to improvements. So I have a hard time with the number of $70,000, quite honestly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Clark Murray, you recognize. Thank you, Chair. I'll be brief. One thing in regards to funding from the city, I look at, you know, it's like contracts one. What's the benefit of the bargain? And I just really do fail to see the benefit of the bargain in this particular case. So I'm going to be a no on this. Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you. No other speakers in the queue. Mr. Randolph, I want to make sure I'm clear on some of the things that was said. You said they're going to take the boat to Savannah for repairs? To the Chair, actually. And they just, I think you just got back, right? Yeah. So they're working with the boat yard on, so they did take it to Savannah. They just returned. If you don't mind, if I defer to the, if you, specific, I don't have this. Yes, yes. I need clarity on this. Sure. Okay. I was here in May, and I did a presentation. It is extremely expensive to do an operation of this kind. We are a small family business. We, we are trying to do something that's not been done in 15 years. Jacksonville has not had a dinner boat. I understand. I appreciate that. We went to Thunderbolt Marine in Thunderbolt, Georgia. The yard itself, we have, we have enormous expenses. Plus, we have to fix things constantly that are being maintained for the safety of this vessel. So we're all about safety. We're taking people out. The Coast Guard needs to make sure that we operate in a safe vessel. And that's what we do. I totally understand about the Coast Guard and operating in a safe manner. What I'm trying to dial in on is you've already taken the boat to Savannah to have repairs, but you don't have to take it again to do repairs. No. Not every two years, the Coast Guard requires us to go up. I understand about every two years. I'm just trying to find out if, if, if you're going to take it to Savannah, the repairs have been completed. They've been completed. Okay. All right. And we passed the Coast Guard. All right. Thank you. All right. So here's my take on this, that we're, we're looking, being asked for $70,000 for repairs on a, on a boat that was taken to Savannah to, to have repairs on. Uh, my district has got several boat yards in it that, that, that I'm, I'm not going to be able to look at my constituents and say, yeah, I, I support your, your businesses, but we, we're funding, uh, repairs out of town. So I, it doesn't make sense. Um, what, what I'm hearing, uh, Ms. Pittman, you're, go ahead. I'm sorry that we couldn't take it anywhere here. Yeah. That's, that's what my question. I wanted to find out if there were, if that's the only repair shop that you could take that to, or did you try to find out if that could be done here in Jacksonville? Absolutely. We tried everything we could to keep it here. We're 220 tons of steel. We cannot take it anywhere. We're huge. We're 125 feet. We tried to go to Fink and Teary across the river. They, their, their fees were astronomical. We tried to get in touch with BAE. These were the only, they wouldn't even get back to us. We had no choice but to take it 17 hours to Georgia and back so that we could, we could, we could, and, and, and repairs is really, it's more about maintenance. It's important. There's fuel efficiency. When you lift the boat on a synchro lift off of the water and you clean, you power wash, it makes the yacht more efficient in the water, fuel efficiency and everything else. So we are, we, we have no choice but to do this. It's a mandatory expense that we just couldn't afford. And I have one more question. So once this $70,000 is spent, do, will you have to go back, I guess, in another two years back to Georgia or would you be looking to work with a boat repair here in Jacksonville? We would love to bring it to Jacksonville. It was not an option. The, the costs were $50,000 more than what we were quoted. It was insane. We would love to stay in Jacksonville. Yes. But we went to Thunderbolt because of the cost. Okay. One other question. This will be my last one. The boat that you have, did you buy that boat from someone else or has that always been in your family? We, we've, we purchased Royal Princess in 2007 and we, she, we ran her in New York and then she was leased out for two years in Miami. We had to repossess the vessel because that operator defaulted. It's a, in Miami, it's a very difficult business. When we repossessed the vessel, we found it had structural problems. It took us two years in Green Cove Springs to completely reconstruct this vessel. And it's, we've spent all of our hard earned money doing so. We're at our limit and we're trying to operate here and give people an exciting experience. And we're doing that and it's really helping the community. You can't imagine how many people have been on board, thousands of people we've had on Royal Princess and we're Jack's Yacht Charter. We've named it after the company and we're very proud. And so, um, is this the only vessel in Jacksonville right now? We're the only luxury dinner yacht in downtown Jacksonville. There is no other vessel of our capacity, period. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Let me go back to Councilmember Bowling. All right. Sorry, Mr. Chair. I just suggested, you might want to take a look in the ensuing years, the Cultural Service Grant Program. If you are putting, in fact, cultural level type events, I think there may be some valid opportunity for you to secure some city funding through that process as well. As far as today, I gotta admit, this is an extraordinary, traditionally would not want to support it, but I appreciate the unique initiative here. And, uh, I think I'm going to be okay with it today. Thank you. So, as I was saying earlier, that, uh, I will not be supporting this as well. Uh, no other speakers in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Three yays, four nays. By your action, you have not approved 2026-0721. The next items are on second, item number 32, 2026-0722, 0725, 0726, 0727, 0728, 0729, 0730, 0731, 0732, 0733. And that takes us to item number 42, 2026, 0734. I've got a motion and a second on the bill. No speakers in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, approved 2026-0734. Next item 43, 2026-0735. Get a motion. I've got a motion and a second on the bill. No speakers in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you have approved 2026-0735. Next item 44, 2026-0736. Can you get a motion on the bill? I've got a motion and a second on the bill. No speakers in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you have approved 2026-0736. Next item number 45, 2026-0737. Get a motion on the bill. I've got a motion and a second on the bill. No speakers in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you have approved 2026-0737. Next item 46, 2026-0738. Get a motion on the bill. I've got a motion and a second on the bill. And Ms. Clark Murray is in the queue. Thank you, Chair. I just simply want to be added as a co-sponsor. All right. Thank you. No other speakers in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you have approved 2026-0738. And that brings us to the end of our meeting. I would just like to add this before we close. The next Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday nights, a lot of y'all have heard the news about what's happened to Andrew Jackson volleyball team. Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday night, they have home games. And, uh, they would love to have, uh, all the support that they can from the, uh, community and, and elected officials. I will be there, uh, Tuesday night, uh, to show my support as, as y'all, y'all, uh, tomorrow night, tomorrow night. As, uh, y'all know, I always am promoting, uh, Andrew Jackson, uh, ironically, uh, at the beginning of the volleyball season, they were one of the teams that I sponsored. Um, and so, um, I got a quite connection, tight connection with the volleyball team. And, uh, I just want to encourage, uh, anybody that can and will please, please come and, uh, support the team, uh, for these unfortunate circumstances that had, they had to rise and should have never taken place. Ms. Pittman, you're recognized. I concur with you. I know I have a meeting tomorrow night, but I will be there right after that. That is also, Andrew Jackson is, uh, school in my district and was there when parents call. It is unjustified what happened, um, in Ferdina. So, um, thank you for the invite. Councilman Amaro. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just, uh, quickly, what, what time is the game? Yes, I'm, I'm sorry. So, um, there, there's different times for, uh, each night. Uh, Tuesday night, JV is at five, varsity is at six, and I will probably be there for the, the six o'clock game for the varsity. Uh, so, varsity each night at six o'clock, but I don't know if JV plays every night, but the varsity is when, when I'll, when I'll be there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to be sure because, uh, you are correct. Um, uh, at least what I've seen on social platforms as to what transpired up in Ferdina is, uh, a sad commentary as to where we are here in 2026, so. All right. With that, thank you, everyone. We are adjourned. Thank you, all right.