Good morning, everyone. We'll go ahead and get started with the Tuesday, April 7th meeting of the Transportation, Energy, and Utilities Committee. We'll start off with introductions with Mr. Delaney. Good morning. Bill Delaney, Mayor's Office. Stephen Libby, Council Research.
Carla Schell, Office of General Counsel. Edward Linsky, Council Auditor's Office.
Ken Amaro, City Council, District 1. Councilman Reginald Gaffney, Julian, District 8. Will Lane in District 3. Matt Carlucci at Large Group 4. Good morning, Tyrona Clark-Murray,
District 9. And to all the parents out there, yes, there is no school today. Your child must be
home with you. Good morning, Rockman Johnson, District 14. Last but not least, the West Side.
All right. Good morning, everyone. It's my dad's 75th birthday. And dad, if you're watching, please do something more exciting. Thank you. So we don't have any presentations today. Next committee meeting, our Chief Resiliency Officer is going to come and give a presentation. Councilman Carlucci, that was one of your requests from a while back. So we'll have that going. Other than that, I don't think we have any other presentations on the docket. So as always, if you do have an area of interest that you want to have and come present here, just let me know. And we can work through that. We'll go through the agenda quickly. And then we'll have some public comments. We have four action items. Item number one, 2026-0005. We'll have a public hearing open and close. There's an amendment. And then we'll take final action on this one that's been out there a while. Item two, 2026-140. There's a public hearing on this. We'll open and close. There's neighborhoods amendment. And then we'll take action. Item three, 2026-146. This is the JEA, essentially the reconciliation bill of the prior year budget that we'll take action on. And then item four, we'll amend and move that one. Items 5, 2026-215. Item 6, 2026-216. Item 7, 2026-222. Item 8, 2025-226. Item 9, 2026-230. And item 10, 2026-231 are all on second read. So with that, what public comment cards do I have? Okay. Looks like we have one public comment card and then we have two. Got it. Two for 205. So item, or I'm sorry,
first public comment, John Nooney, you have two minutes. Hello. I am John J. Nooney. Jacksonville City Council Resolution, 2023-0819. I'm in City Council District 4, CPAC 3, School Board District 3. Yeah, I'll be touching on agenda items 1, 2, 3, 2026-0146. Anybody remember 2026-0141? JEA Solar Park on Pottsburgh Creek. JTA, Jacksonville's Transportation Access via the waterways, $443,000 in fringe benefits. JTA Park on Pottsburgh Creek. You know, Cheryl Riddick. Agenda items 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. I'm just down to a minute 23. You know, I went to the Urban Corps CPAC meeting last night. You know, I'll be touching on that, you know, during the public hearing. And let me just say this. You know, ethics is God in Duval County, Jacksonville. You know, I went to an ethics commission meeting, and I asked. We have six CPACs representing the entire city of Jacksonville. The Mayor's Disability Council. You know, two meetings are scheduled today. They've been canceled. You know, there's going to be another meeting at 1 and then upstairs at 3. Council on Elder Affairs, the Senior Citizen Gang. Why is OGC, Office of General Counsel, not represented at these meetings? I'm telling you, it's the Wild West. And so, you know, I'm just down to 20-some seconds. But, you know, FWC, it's a playoff of the Fish and Wildlife Commission. You know, the state of Florida. It's tourism. It's ethics. It's marketing. It's the world. And so, you know, I use it as, you know, fishing with council, fishing with Congress, fishing with class. So, thank you for listening.
Thank you. I have no more public comment cards. So, with that, we'll go to item 1, 2026-0005. I will open the public hearing. I have one speaker card, John Nooney. John Nooney, please
speak to this item. And you have three minutes. Well, again, I thought I marked, did not wish to speak. Oh, it is. But, you know, it's, you know. I apologize to my colleagues for missing that John Nooney. I just don't expect it, Mr. Nooney. Again, agenda item 2026-0005. You know, just remember 2026-0004-007, Pottsburg Creek, it's waterways heaven. So, whenever 2026-0004 came out, we backed it up with this one. So, this is Councilman Peluso, Sherry Pollack, you know, two-thirds votes, neighborhoods rules, TEU. But here's the thing. We're going to be waiving the code, which requires that the honoree be been deceased for at least five years, waives code, which requires that the honoree have resided in the community within five miles of the honoree street designation for at least 10 years. You know, gosh, you know, you just talk to somebody. It's like, how long have you been in Jacksonville? You know, and some people, five years, 10 years, 20 years, or you've been here your whole lifetime. Let's waive that when it comes to the public access to our waterways, you know, in Duval County. So, I'm down to a minute, you know, 40. You know, yeah, it is a public hearing, you know, by Florida statute, you know, and as opposed to what we did before with public comment, where the chair has unbelievable, every chair, every meeting, this is where it's, like I'm telling you, it's the Wild West. It is, you never know what you're going to get. It's like a box of chocolates, you know, just, I feel like Forrest Gump up here sometimes.
Okay, Mr. Nooney.
Okay, okay, all right, all right, I know. All right, well, well, well, I did, I can't wait until I am allowed to really say what I want to say on something.
All right, thank you, Mr. Nooney.
All right, well, listen, thank you for listening, and let's open up our waterways.
Thank you. This public hearing is closed. Can I get a motion on the amendment? Got a motion and a second on the amendment. All those for the amendment, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Amendment passes. Can you see? Oh, okay. So, you withdraw the motion to deny. You're going to make him break his leg again. So, let's, all right, can I get a motion on the bill as amended? I got a motion on the bill as amended and a second. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Mr. Johnson. Oh, I apologize. You recognize
Councilmember Johnson. I just wanted to speak briefly, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much, and I appreciate colleagues supporting this. I knew Mr. Burrell very, very well. He was very involved in the community, and his death was certainly a shock to many, and so this way to honor him while he has not been deceased for that amount of time, this community has clamored for it. I'm so glad Councilmember Peluso heard it, and I'm honored to be one of the co-sponsors for this because I believe the work he did. He was a restaurant owner, but he poured into the community by not just being someone who took resources from it, but he poured back into it regularly, and his memory will always be a blessing for us in Jacksonville. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Carlucci, your request. Oh, boy. I sure am sorry I picked that one to play a trick on. I'd actually like to be added as a co-sponsor on this bill to redeem myself for what is obviously was a very good person, and I ask forgiveness for my untimely joke. I just had people do that to me when I was a young 30-year-old kid, and they played around with me, so I thought I'd give it a shot. Councilmember Gaffney. Yes, please add me as
a co-sponsor as well. With that, I believe we're ready to open the ballot and record our votes now. Six yays, zero nays. By our actions, we pass 2026-0005. Item 2, 2026-140. I'm going to open the public hearing, and I do have two speaker cards. The first is John Nooney, and he does wish to speak, and then we'll have Blake Harper after Mr. Nooney. All right,
three minutes. All right. Hello. I am John J. Nooney, Jacksonville, City Council Resolution 2023-0819. I'm in City Council District 4, CPAC 3, School Board District 3, and 2026-0140. Now, as I was alluding to, you know, I was at last night's Urban Corps CPAC meeting, you know, and I noticed Ernest Smith out in the audience. Hope he filled out a speaker card and is going to speak on it, because under new business, you know, they were, you know, it wasn't even on the agenda, but they, I believe, have a resolution, you know, in regards to this, so that I hope that you will deferred at least one cycle, and, you know, so that can go through, you know, the, you know, the CPAC process, if you will, and if I'm wrong with that, I hope he jumps up here and corrects me, so, you know, I want to get that on the record, and, you know, again, you know, you know, I'm not kidding when I said, you know, with these CPACs and OGC, and, you know, it is the, it's off the charts with some of this stuff. So, anyway, I just wanted to speak to that, because they voted on something last night, and here you are, so at least defer it for that one cycle, so that the CPAC representation can actually mean something, and so I'm just down to a minute 18, and again, if I'm wrong with that, correct me, but please defer it for that reason. Thank you for listening. Mr. Harper. Blake Harper,
for information on file, I sent out an email on Sunday, on Resurrection Sunday, titled, Returning to the Scene of the Crime. Here we are. Thank you, Mr. Layden, for being here to make sure the Constitution is fully enforced and represented. Compromise. Compromise is a good thing when you're not compromising on principles or morals or ethics or facts. Compromise is a good thing when you can, when the result of it is something that isn't an actual surrender, but that's exactly what we're talking about. I've spent my entire career compromising. I spent 20 years as a commercial loan officer compromising. I compromised on structuring loans. I compromised on making waivers when people needed help. I compromised when they were having a difficult time, and we had, we had to, we had to make a decision about what we were going to do, but as a commercial loan officer, I recognized there was a time that you can no longer compromise. Believe it or not, I actually sold cars. Maybe that's why I can be down here for as many years, because a lot of people think car salesmen and politicians aren't much different. My CSI scores were very high. I compromised with all of my customers, but I never sacrificed the facts, and I never sacrificed the truth. There was a time when it said, there was a time in the process where you had to put somebody on the money. You either were going to do it or you weren't. It was time for compromise was done. There was nothing left to compromise. Compromise is a constructive thing, but it's also a destructive thing, as in the compromise of 1877, where the Democrat Party held this nation hostage so that it could remove the federal troops and restore the discrimination that was, that was, that came out, that they wanted to accomplish, to take away the freedoms and the liberties and the economic success that former slaves had under Reconstruction. I, when I started the Unity Project, that Unity Project was a compromise to expand history. The idea was to expand history so we had a full understanding, understanding that there were bad times, bad things happen. The country we are today is a stronger country because we recognize how to deal with those and work with those, but even there, what's happened since, since, since the Unity Project started is, it's been a one-way conversation. The conversation's been my way or the highway. Compromise. Do it my way. Every single time. And that's where we are today. The reality of it is, this compromise for splitting up the streets, kind of interesting. I wish Michael was here. He talked about Solomon. What is, what does Solomon do? He was talking about the baby. He presented, you can't cut a
baby in half. Thank you, Mr. Harper. I have no, no more speaker cards. I do have two council members in the queue. Do you intend to speak on this before we take up the amendment? And to Ms. Le, to Ms. Schell, I should close the public hearing right before I, okay, I'm going to close the public hearing and then I apologize, Council Member Carlucci, you were first in queue. We haven't moved the amendment yet, so do you want to come and speak when we move the amendment? Okay, I'm going to recognize
Councilwoman Clark Murray to speak now first. Thank you, Chair. My question is not on the amendment. I'm going to use a biblical term right now or action. Don't stone me for this. Mr. Nooney, if you would come back up to the podium. Mr. Smith, come to Washington. Come on. I know. I know. I know. But to my colleagues through the chair, I listen, although sometimes I'm looking away, but I am listening. And CPACs are near and dear to my heart because they are, they are composed of persons who are in, directly in the community and are affected by the actions that we take. And so if they have something to say that is contrary or relevant to my decision on this particular bill, then I want to hear it. However, Mr. Nooney, through the chair, please speak with clarity when I ask you maybe, maybe two questions. I know I'm going to ask you at least one. So at the CPAC, did they discuss this bill? That's a yes or no. That's a, that's a close question. Okay. Thank you. What did they say in reference to this bill at the CPAC? Now that's an
open question, but not open forever. Okay. Well, the chair of the CPAC is here, right there. Okay. And I would defer to him. That seems like a good OGC line. And, uh, I absolutely agree. Thank you for
that. So the CPAC chair, if you would come forward. Thank you, Mr. Nooney. Yes. I apologize for my
tardiness. I couldn't fill out a speaker card. Just go ahead and give us your first and last name and then your address. Yes. Ernest Smith, uh, 400 East Bay street. Um, yes, Mr. Nooney is correct. We brought up the issue last night or the ordinance last night for discussion. Um, and we gave it thoughtful debate. Um, and after further debate, we made a motion to go ahead and support this, um, ordinance 20, 26, 0, 1, 4, 0 unanimous, unanimously. Um, basically we, we saw that spar was the introducing, um, entity that wanted this, um, change to happen. Um, basically from their, from their observation, it was a straightforward community driven proposal. Um, the name Rose Arbor way as recommended by spar reflects a real and recognizable feature of the neighborhood, historic Rose Arbor and Springfield park. And based off of that, you know, and you know, no, um, no real contention at CPAC. I mean, we, we thought that it would be, can you please start his clock at a minute 30? We didn't start it when he got up. I'm sorry about that. Okay. We thought it, we thought it would be, you know, conducive of city council to go ahead and listen to the community or what they want in their neighborhood. So we went ahead and voted to draft a letter of proposal to go ahead and make sure that you all know what the community wants. Um, we're currently in the process of getting that to you. Um, and I just got it this morning. I found out about it. It was on the docket this morning at this committee. So I ran over here and that's why I was late. I couldn't get a card signed, but yes, we voted unanimously to, um, to approve.
Thank you. So, um, one last question to the chair. Was the CPAC aware of the amendment that was proposed in neighborhoods yesterday regarding the bill? And if you aren't, um, well, yes or no to that? No. Okay. So the amendment is that instead of the entire Confederate street, it is going to be a portion of Confederate street. And I'm hoping I remember correctly from Liberty to market, as opposed to, um, I want to say Hubbard to market. It could be just vice versa. Okay. So basically half of the street will be named Rose Arbor way, as opposed to the entire street being renamed. And I know we're going to take a vote today, but I hope that you would take that information back to the CPAC or be able to send it through an email to let them know, because then they could still, I think we closed the public hearing today is not, it's not going to be open during council. Correct. Uh, Michelle is nodding there. So I don't
believe there will be a public hearing on this. Okay. So with that being said, it'll be,
but it will not be a part of the consent agenda. It'll be a separate bill. Correct? Correct. Okay. So you will during the public comment portion of the, um, of the council meeting, members of the CPAC can still come and voice their opinion before it's voted on
by the entire council. Given the amendment, could we possibly, um, have this deferred, uh, one more round so I can get to the CPAC that way we can get it back to you and committee before it goes to the full city council? Possibly. Thank you. Thank you so much,
Mr. Smith. So we're just going to regroup here, uh, committee. So we closed the public hearing. Uh, we did move, you know, I got a second on the neighborhoods amendment. I'm going to recognize Michelle cause she popped in the queue. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Um, I, I was incorrect. There is a public hearing on the 14th. So next week at council, there'll be an opportunity for the public to speak during that hearing.
Thank you, Ms. Schell. Uh, the next thing I want to do is since we have gotten a motion second on the neighborhoods amendment, I'd like Mr. Linsky, uh, or Ms. Schell, or maybe tag team it to explain the amendment. Cause there's a number of things in the amendment
we are currently debating. Through the chair to the committee. Um, the amendment before you today was approved in NCS yesterday and included limiting the roadway to just a portion as councilwoman Clark Murray explained. Um, this particular roadway is not contiguous in that it is, uh, separated by market street and does not flow straight across. We've worked with OGC and confirmed that the waiver of the code related to naming a street, a full length is not necessary because it's not contiguous. And so it does not require two thirds vote at council as well. So the amendment before you today does not include item number two. And I'll go through that again. Once again, so limiting a portion of the roadway renaming between market and Liberty also referencing additional notices that were sent out to one of the affected property owners, including those notices in as proper exhibits, and then also correcting the reference of the code section that pertains to this road renaming. Mr. Linsky. So one question
going back to our pre-agenda meeting, we moved the neighborhoods amendment. Is that the correct posture? If it no longer includes, uh, whichever item it was that said it had to have that specific waiver? I believe number two, item number two in the neighborhoods amendment. I'm going to defer to
OGC to make sure, but I believe this will be the TEU amendment. Okay. Thank you. And just for the
committee to expand on what Mr. Linsky was saying, at some point out of neighborhoods became a waiver requirement that triggered a two thirds vote to get it to pass subsequent to neighborhoods. OGC relooked at it and believes it does not require a two thirds vote to pass. But since the neighborhoods had that in it, I believe Mr. Linsky is trying to get us in the right posture here to where our amendment would drop item number two from the neighborhoods amendment. Through the chair to the committee. So
thank you for that moment, um, for Mr. Linsky and I to confer. Um, it is our position that you do not need the waiver of code section 745105H because you're still renaming a contiguous section of it. As you may have looked at the map, Confederate street is just two sections, um, two blocks, but they are not contiguous. It jogs a little bit up market street. So the NCS PHS amendment, um, amended the legislation to just rename one of those sections, but it is a contiguous section. So therefore I do not believe the waiver of the code is needed. And, um, and Mr. Linsky has something to add to that. Through the chair, I believe that you
need to propose an amendment to strike number two in order to amend the NCS PHS amendment,
thus making it the TEU amendment. Thank you, Mr. Linsky. So a committee member would have to amend the amendment to remove item two of the neighborhoods amendment. If someone wants to bring that motion
forward. Yes, I will do so, uh, chair. So, um, and everyone knows what the motion is. So the motion
Ms. uh, Clark Murray is making is to amend the neighborhoods amendment, removing item number two, which includes the waiver as listed there on the agenda. And I believe with that, we are now in a posture, even though I have the queue full, uh, we are now talking about the amendment, the amendment to the amendment is what is before us right now. Are you in the queue to talk about the amendment to the amendment? Okay. Then I will recognize Dr. Johnson first. Cause he was first. Mine is to the
amendment. I got in queue for the, not the amendment to the amendment. Can I, Mr. Chair, is it okay for me?
So let's get back in queue and get there. Let's take care of one thing at a time. So this is on the original amendment. This is on the amendment to the neighborhoods amendment, right? Uh, Ms. Clark Murray. Thank you. Okay. Uh, councilor Matt Carlucci. And again, we are just on the amendment to the neighborhoods amendment, which is removing item number two. And if there's another amendment to
that, and then another to that one, I'll be a question on all the whole damn thing. Um, because I wasn't in the other committee. Uh, so, um, my, what I'm wondering is do any of these amendments or all of them, um, leave part of the street as, um, uh, Confederate street and then the other part, uh, you know, the Rose Arbor street through the chair to council member Carlucci. Yes.
The section from Hubbard to market street would remain Confederate street. And the section from market street to Liberty street would be Rose Arbor way. Okay. The, uh, the, the part that is,
that would remain Confederate. Where, where is that from again? I'm so sorry.
It's Hubbard street to North market street. Um, it, uh, is adjacent to the playground and in the park.
Okay. Um, I, uh, probably can support that and I, and I'm going to say why I, I've, I've been adamant about Confederate monuments. I have written editorials about it. I have introduced bills on removing monuments. I have looked Jim Crow in the eye and I have been very steadfast on that. Um, but a street named Confederate street, I don't look at that as the same thing. Um, and so I'm going to make up my mind between now and our council meeting, but a remnant of a street named Confederate just might, and it's not in the park, um, just might be a little reminder at times to people, um, that, that, that, that, that might strike a conversation as to why is that Confederate street. And it might strike the conversation of this used to be Confederate park, used to be a Confederate monument in it. And the city made a decision to take those Jim Crow symbols out because of wanting to bring unity into a public place. And my thinking may be off. And if it is, uh, I'll change it, but I, I just, I'm just thinking that, um, it, it might serve particularly if there is some sort of, um, explanation marker by that explaining the story of Confederate park. I would never support keeping it Confederate park and I would never support the monuments. Jim Crow, that's Jim Crow all over, but, uh, the street, I, I, I kind of put that more, a little more into a historical category and, uh, I don't know if what I'm saying makes any sense to y'all, but I'm sorting it through kind of the way I look at it. And, um, and, um, and let's face it, we did have a lot of Confederates in this town until the Union took it over. Um, and, uh, um, it might be a learning opportunity. I guess that's all I'm trying to say. So I'll probably go ahead and support this amendment unless it gets amended, uh, three or four more times. And then if it does, I'll ask you what, what that means.
Thanks. I have no more speakers in the queue, so I believe we're ready to vote on the amendment too. Uh, I do not show you Council Member Romero, but I'll recognize you.
Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. Um, the, uh, I sat on neighborhoods yesterday and when this was, uh, adopted with the, uh, with the Boylan amendment, um, uh, maintaining a portion of Confederate Street and changing, uh, the name of the other section at the petitioner's request. Um, just to give us some context through the chair, if you may, I'd like to ask Ms. Cindy Trimmer to come up since she represents the, uh, petitioner, uh, just to give us, uh, some context as to why, uh, this request has been made and, and why, where we are, uh, seems to be, uh, very amenable to
all who are concerned. Before I give Ms. Trimmer three minutes, uh, Mr. Delaney, you're in the queue now, and I believe you were in the queue and dropped off accidentally. So, uh, you have
the floor. Thank you, uh, through the chair to the body. Uh, yeah, first off on a personal note, it's always interesting to me to see people, uh, who are invested in keeping these Confederate names and symbols or people that are, uh, in some cases not from Jacksonville and don't have Confederate ancestry as somebody that is from Jacksonville and does have Confederate ancestry. It's, uh, it's definitely interesting to watch, but I want to offer words of caution on this amendment and changing it that yesterday when it came up or at neighborhoods, it was definitely a compromise move. Uh, it would be a real shame if we were to remove the amendment and then have the whole thing fail and have us be stuck with Confederate street on the entire street. But then on the other hand, these, this is not an issue that goes away. The, the parks debate just in this one park that didn't go away in 2020 and it didn't go away in 2023. It's going to continue as long as these symbols are there. Um, that's just food for thought. We certainly would support seeing it removed on part of that. If that's all we can get, we wouldn't want it to see the whole thing, uh, fail and have the street name be stuck there for the council to deal with in another year or two, uh, if the compromise from,
uh, from neighborhoods is not accepted. Thank you. And I will point out, this is a council member Peluso's bill. It was not the administration's bill. Uh, council member Johnson, you're in the queue.
Point of order, council member Johnson. Um, my point of order, Mr. Chair is we, I thought we were supposed to be discussing and debating the amendment to the amendment right now, because I wanted to talk about the amendment itself. And now we are down a rabbit hole and this is not on the amendment to the amendment because the amendment, I think we are ready to vote on the amendment to the
neighborhood's amendment, which is simply removing item number two there. I have no one else in the queue. So I think we are ready to vote on that now and then we'll open up debate on the amendment itself. So Ms. Tremmer will be speaking to the amendment. Mr. Tremmer, is it okay if we speak on this technical item first and then get to the, uh, amendment as we amend it and then we'll turn it over to you. That work for everyone? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. I have no one else in the queue. So we are going to do a voice vote now on the amendment to the neighborhood's amendment, which is removing item number two as listed in the agenda. All in favor of amending the amendment, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. The amendment to the neighborhood's amendment passes. With that, I'm going to turn it over for
three minutes to Ms. Tremmer. Thank you so much. Cindy Tremmer, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200, on behalf of the applicant. I was approached by Downtown Ecumenical Services Center and the owner of 956 Liberty Street. I pass out a map so you can see the area that we're talking about. They have the building at that corner of Confederate and Liberty and are moving their operation into that building. They approached me to see if there would be appetite to rename Confederate Street. We looked into the existing condition and the history of that name. So first to note, there are no addresses or no properties that are addressed off of Confederate Street. So we wouldn't be changing an actual street address for any properties in the city. We also looked at the history of the name. Originally, when the park bore a different name, the name was Park Terrace. The road has historically followed the name of the park. So 100 years ago in 1926, when the park was renamed Confederate Park, the road that bordered it was also named Confederate Street. When the city renamed the park to Springfield Park a handful of years ago, they did not pick up the street name. So with that fact pattern, we engaged with the council person and with Sparr to see if there would be interest in having the name changed with the park having been renamed. And Sparr looked at the park, recognizing the name has historically followed the park. And there has been an initiative over the last years to bring this Rose Arbor that is one of the crowning features of the park and restore it to its former glory. And they proposed the Rose Arbor Way name to identify with that feature and highlight it. Now going through the hearings, understanding there's some concern with fully eliminating the Confederate Street name. If you look at the map between Hubbard and Market versus between Market and Liberty, those two portions of that road are disconnected and distinct. So the applicant is comfortable with the amendment that has come out through committees, which would change the name of the portion that borders their property and leave the other portion, which does not have anything addressed off of it, but would still be an opportunity to honor that history as a good compromise. So we would appreciate support of the amendment. And we also do agree that it doesn't have to go through two thirds vote. We do road name changes for sections
like this pretty regularly available for questions. Thank you. Before I go to the queue, I do need a motion on the neighborhoods amendment as amended. Okay, we have a motion and a second on the neighborhoods amendment as amended. Council Member Johnson, you recognized. And then Clark Murray. May I see,
uh, Mr. Chair, uh, Ms. Pollack, can you come up for a second? Uh, I have a question about, I know when I've gone through this process before, uh, 9-1-1 was really adamant. The 9-1-1 committee was really adamant about, and I didn't see it in the, in the, I tried to go through as much of it as I could. Um, but adamant about keeping, not having a piece of a street here and a part of a street there, even if it's not contiguous. Um, what was the 9-1-1 committee's feedback about this?
Um, Cherry Pollack, Office of General Counsel, um, through the chair to Council Member Johnson, the 9-1-1 committee met and they did, uh, vote to approve the name change from Confederate
Street to Rose Arbor Way. But it did not, because will, will it now, because of that amendment from the neighborhoods committee, will it have to go back to them since it now splits? No? Uh,
through the chair to Council Member Johnson, it will not have to go back to the 9-1-1 committee because the council is the final vote on this name change as a part of the ordinance code.
Would that be recommended through the chair again? Would that be recommended since I thought that they said that street namings, I mean, does it need to go back to them? Because remember that just, even though we make the final decision, would it still, that recommendation go back since there are public safety people there? Because from my understanding, they wanted, even if it's not contiguous, the street names to be, uh, uniform if there were, you know, for, for sake
of safety. Uh, due to chair to Council Member Johnson, because this particular street, as if you look at, uh, uh, exhibit number 11, uh, that is the map and the map clearly shows that the streets are really technically not contiguous. They, they do not continue. And so, um, 9-1-1, uh, the members of the 9-1-1, I don't want to speak for them, but, um, I don't think that they would have an issue because there is not contiguous technically. Thank you. I appreciate
that. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to put that out there that I, in, in doing things in this kind of realm, they came and they were like, even if the street, there was a, the street that I was trying to rename had a street that, that ran through it. Um, according to them, even if it was not one whole street, it, and I've done it a couple of times, like with Ray Charles place and with Henry Bradley place and all that, even if it's not contiguous, they still wanted it to be together. So there had to be a waiver, but maybe it's different.
We'll see if they come back with something. Um, Charles was a, that dead ended. It dead
ended. Right. But it was still, there was a, what is that? Jefferson street that went across the street. So it made it a separate area, but you know, it's passed. So we're good on that. Um, Mr. Chair, let me say, um, right now I am still not, uh, I feel as though in looking at this and doing some research on it. Um, while I certainly understand Mr. Delaney's belief in understanding, at least let's get a piece of it or a part of it. It's almost like if we're going to do it, let's either do it or don't do it, but not come back and forth and say, we'll do tiny pieces in this part or the other. And so I'm still having a little bit of heartburn. I'm not sure where I am right now. Uh, because while I certainly understand compromise, I also, on the other side of it, believe that if we are going to symbolically do a thing, um, I certainly understand splitting the baby and being solomonic in advice. But what I do believe is that if we're going to say that we're moving forward in another part of this community with something that we're doing, let's either do it or not do it, but don't play with it. Thank you.
Councilman Clark-Marie, and you are the last speaker that I'm showing in the queue.
Thank you, Chair. Uh, through the chair to perhaps Ms. Schell, I'm trying to make sure that I'm in the right posture because I, I do understand the amendment. Um, I, I agree with many of my colleagues up here, but I'm concerned about the CPAC having a voice. So I wanted to make a motion in regarding deferring so that I would just honor their wishes. So I don't know if I'm in the right posture to make that, to make that motion or if I need to wait until they vote on the amendment or we vote on the amendment.
Through the chair to Councilmember Clark-Marie, um, I would prefer if you all would vote on the, what is now essentially the TEU amendment, the New Havens Amendment minus the code waiver. Um, and before you make the motion to defer, just so we could kind of wrap that up with, with a bow. Um, but it's up to you. A motion to defer is, is in order at any time.
All right. Well, thank you for that. Okay. So with that being said, um, through the chair to the committee, I will go ahead and let you all vote and then just for clarity's sake, and then we'll, I'll make my motion to defer. Okay. With that, I understand you'll have a motion
after we get through the amendment. So we are ready to vote on the neighborhood's amendment as amended. This will be a voice, a voice vote. All in favor of the amendment, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. I have one nay. Uh, so the amendment as amended, does pass. So with that, can I get a, uh, Ms. Schell, is this the TEU amendment now? Is that what we'll call this? Yes, it is, Mr. Chair. Okay. Thank you. So with that, can I get a motion
on the bill as amended? So I want to make my motion to defer. Uh, Councilman Clark-Murray,
you recognize, I already heard you got a motion second on the defer. I imagine some council members,
Councilman Carlucci, you're getting in the queue. Uh, thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. I, I agree with, um, I, I want to know how the, uh, CPAC feels too. I, I definitely want to know that. Um, but I would rather just vote and get this out of TEU and then make up my mind once I hear, um, and I'd like to maybe, um, I don't know if it needs to be an amendment, uh, to the amendment, but I, I would like to know how the CPAC, I'd like to, I'd like to officially find out how the CPAC voted and what their, um, opinion was. Uh, I hope they meet by this coming Tuesday. I don't know if they do or not, but I,
I do want to know what their opinion is. Councilman Johnson, you're, you're recognized. Do you wish to
speak? Sorry, I wasn't cute, but Mr. Chair, didn't the chairman say they met last night? There are no
other speakers right now. I'll speak. That's, that's exactly what I was thinking. I believe Councilman Clark Murray offered a great solution that they can come and speak not only in public comment next week, but there is, as confirmed by Ms. Schell, there will be a public hearing on council night. So I will not vote for a defer. Um, uh, I mean, we can take a vote on it. I do hope that we pass it because there is going to be an opportunity for the CPAC chair, as well as the members to come next Tuesday night. Uh, because I do acknowledge they didn't know in neighborhoods, there was an amendment that changed the scope of this bill, but I do think I'd rather they have a week to see what they want to do. Come discuss it with us on a full council night. Otherwise it's essentially three weeks from now when we'll be taking it up. Mr. Chair. Councilman Carlucci,
you're recognized. I've got the, uh, microphone. I don't know if that means I got the chair or not. Uh, sometimes I get it thrown at me and say, no, you don't have the chair. Uh, you don't have the floor. Anyway, um, no, it doesn't matter. Um, Councilman Johnson, I'm going to come to you next. I was simply trying to make a evil attempt at a, a little humor there. Uh, but anyway, um, the, uh, uh, if they're going to come up and be able to make comments at the public hearing, and I've forgotten about that. Uh, again, I, I want to get it off our agenda and, uh, and, and, and, and make up a mind at the next council meeting. And now I am relinquishing for the record, the floor.
Councilman Johnson, I'll recognize you now and then Councilman Clark Murray.
I just want to say I'm supporting Councilmember Clark Murray's amendment, uh, or the deferral. I think again, like the CPOC has the opportunity. I understand. I want to keep it on the dossier. I'll go with whatever, uh, Councilwoman Clark Murray says, but I am, if, you know, if she withdraws it, but I'm supporting her, I think it's important for voice to come out. And I think this is something, because there was a change, substantive change made on yesterday at the committee. I do think
we need some time. Thank you. And Councilwoman Clark Murray, I'll let you, uh, wrap it up here.
Thank you, chair. I appreciate that. So through the chair to the committee, um, once again, we've heard some public speakers come forward. I don't think, in fact, one of them I know for sure does not live in that area because he definitely lives on Potspur Creek and Potspur Creek is not in that area. The other, I don't know where he may live. Um, we heard the CPOC, chair. Once again, we make decisions and those decisions need to be made with consideration of the people who are going to be most impacted. Um, Ms. Tremor represents the applicant and that applicant is actually the person who has the closest proximity to the road. Although the applicant is, is, is, it seems to be fine with the amendment. I would once again like to hear from the community as a whole before we vote on this because they are going to be most impacted. So once again, I'm going to, um, maintain my motion to defer the bill and then we can, we can vote on it.
Okay. With that, we're going to do a hand vote on the deferral. All those in favor of deferring, please raise your hand. All those against deferring, please raise. So we're at a three, three. So I believe that means the deferral does not pass. Correct. Okay. So Michelle is confirming that on a three to three vote for the deferral, it did not pass. So with that, I'll ask for a motion on the bill as amended. I have a motion second on the bill as amended. Ms. Clark-Murray, were you trying to get in queue? I've been having some issues here. Okay. So we have a motion second on the bill as amended. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Five yays, one nay. By our actions, we pass 2026, 140 as amended. Ms. Clark-Murray. Thank you to Mr. Smith and the, um,
the CPAC. I know I can't, the name escapes me right now. I should know all the CPACs, but, um, the Urban Corps CPAC, yes. Um, don't let this, the vote deter you from coming on next Tuesday and bringing as many CPAC members as you can to voice their opinion because their opinion matters. And that's one of the, one of the ways that your CPAC exercises its power. Thank you, Chair.
Okay. Okay. With that, we're on to item three, 2026, 146. Uh, Councilman Johnson, I'll recognize you. You, there've been a couple of times today you have not shown up, so I'll recognize you now.
I, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I did hit it and then it went away. I'm not sure if the system, Steve, might need some help. Um, but Mr. Chair, I wanted to say I voted no on this particular, um, piece of legislation because it seemed a bit cumbersome, which is why I supported the amendment, but I voted no. I hope to look at it more and get more detail, but I think that since that substantive change, substantive change was made during a previous committee that I think I, for me, have a responsibility to do a little more work before I can get there for a yes. Thank you. Understood.
So I'm, I apologize. Did I get a motion yet on 2026, 146? We can't say consent agenda. I need someone to move 2026, 146. Got a motion second on the bill. This is the JTA reconciliation bill. Councilwoman Clark Murray, you're recognized. Ms. Clark Murray, you're recognized. Thank you. I
don't know what's happening up here, but okay. Um, is there anyone here, which I am pretty sure that some representatives from JTA here today? Thank you. Good morning. Go ahead and take care of
the, uh, particulars. Yeah, absolutely. Uh, good morning everyone. Um, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm Jessica Schepler, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs at the Jacksonville Transportation Authority. I am joined by our Chief Financial Officer, um, Heather Abora. Um, this piece of legislation that you have before you, um, the JTA does basically on an annual basis. Um, it is our budget true up. It reflects the, um, the, uh, actual occurrences in FY25. Um, as you all are aware, based on their quarterly report, the year-end quarterly report that was provided to this body, um, we typically, when we bring a budget, uh, true up to you, we typically show an overall or have an overall surplus. FY25 was not the case. Um, and so typically, um, we come back before you, give you a briefing on it. The information is summarized in here as to, um, exactly what happened in FY25. Um, we have had meetings with you, I know, beginning in January. Our board approved the budget true up, um, and then we bring that back to council for your review and to answer any questions you may have. And so with that, um, if you have specific questions, we're happy to answer those. Um, Heather Abora, again, is here to answer the specifics, um, in addition to the information provided here in the
summary. We are, we got to mention a second on the bill, Mr. Carlucci. Councilor Warren Clark-Murray
still has the floor. To, to my colleague, um, past president at Carlucci, I have the floor. All right. Thank you. Good morning again. So, um, I do have a few questions. Um, first of all, I'm trying to figure out where exactly to begin. So the, the revenue is going to come from the transit operating reserves. Typically, how much do you have in the reserves?
Good morning. My name is Heather Abora. I'm the, uh, SVP and chief financial officer for the JTA. Um, so through the chair to a council member, Clark Murray, our reserves carry a 20% of our operating budget in our transit ops reserve. And then we have additional reserves for right away. Um, also our, uh, legal fund. Um, and then there is a third fund that is, uh, a general, um, fund that carries, uh, value in it. Our total fund balances, um, are $31 million in our transit ops fund. And then the other balances are account for an additional $12 million. So we have approximately $43 million in, um, reserve
funds. Um, thank you for that. And so what has, and it may be kind of broad this question, but what has contributed to the deficit that you're experiencing at this point? Cause it's, and I'll, this is my third, fourth year on TEU. And I know that, um, J JTA, just like you said, comes back every year. And that question is posed, why do you have to come back every year? But I understand because in looking at what we call in education trend data, you make estimates, you don't have actuals, you have estimates. And because your estimates, um, your budget is based on estimates. When you get your actuals, then you have to come back, which makes complete sense to me. So, um, if you would explain to us, like what has caused your largest deficits through the chair, through the chair to, uh, council member
Clark Murray, um, for this 2025 year, we had a $19.8 million, um, actual expenditures over budget, right? Our budget is, as you're aware, um, is developed in March of 2024. It goes through our board approved process, comes then to council and is finally approved by council in September. So, for these, um, this deficit for this year, we had $9.5 million in additional expenditures for our Connection Plus service. That Connection Plus service is our premium paratransit services that provides service, um, for those peoples with disabilities so that they have mobility services. Um, that, that account is also, that $9.5 million is also counted as a budget transfer between our budget, our bus fund and our Connection Fund, right? Our bus fund typically funds our, our other mobility services like variant and Connection. The other cost, um, that is accounted for in that $19 million is also $6 million for fringe benefits as it relates to our collective bargaining, um, union employees. Um, those fringe benefits, basically relate to healthcare. The timing of when those healthcare costs are negotiated and when our budget has to be projected, right, was off. So, those budget costs did not become known until October of 2024, which was actually the beginning of our, of our fiscal year. Um, we had planned for a 3% increase and that increase ended up to be north of 30%. I mean, healthcare costs last year went a little crazy. Um, and then finally, uh, the other components to this budget is a $5.1 million expenditure for our NAVI service. Again, timing difference. The NAVI service went into actual operation July 1st of 2025. Our budget was compiled in, you know, that first quarter in 2024 up to March, again, going through our process. We did not have a negotiated value for those services, which started in July 1st until, um, June of 2025. So, there was not even any anticipated cost of what those costs were going to look like. So, that was the additional 5.1. Just one last question, Chair. Um, are there any federal funds that are provided for the NAVI project? Um, ma'am, at this time for the operation and maintenance of, um, that operation that is all locally funded? Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you. I have no one in the queue. Uh, I've discussed this, uh, at length with multiple people in JTA. So, thanks for answering all of the questions. Did want to point out though, this is, this bill is about the past. I think what a lot of us are looking forward to is when the next budget amendment comes to us for the current year. Uh, when can we expect to see that legislation introduced? This month, sir. Okay. So, this month, and I know the board's already made some decisions. We've, uh, we know there've been layoffs and other tough decisions made at JTA to come back to that balanced budget. Uh, so, I'm sure that's when, uh, a lot of us will have, uh, even more questions about how we're looking from now through September 30th, rather than this bill, which is just reflective of what happened, uh, last year. So, with that, I have no one else in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Thank you, JTA. Six Jays, zero nays. By our actions, we have passed 2026-146. Item 4, 2026-188. Can I get a motion on the amendment? I got motion to second on the amendment. No one in the queue. All those that favor the amendment, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Amendment passes. Got motion to second on the bill as amended. I have it in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six Jays, zero nays. By our actions, we passed 2026-188. Uh, that takes us to the end of the agenda. I already read the second read items at the beginning of the meeting. Anyone on the committee have anything? All right. Wow. We went an hour. I think that's a new record. We are adjourned.