It's 9-0-1. We will call to order the Transportation Energy and Utilities Committee for Wednesday, November 4th. We'll begin with introduction from my left. Stephen Libby, Council Research. Carla Schell, Office of General Counsel. Edward Linsky, Council Auditor's Office. Good morning, Monet Holder, at Large Group 1. Good morning, I think. Matt Carlucci, at Large Group 4. Ken Amaro, City Council, District 1. Is it a good morning in Florida? Ah, Jimmy Pulitzer, District 7. Good morning, Reginald Gaffney, Junior, District 8. Thank you. Council Member of Vice Chair Pittman has been excused, and we will follow the agenda. We'll take up Item 2 first, then Item 3, and Item 4. Item 1 will be explained when we get to that item. If you turn to Agenda, page number 2, Bill 2026-0779. Can I get a motion? Second. Any discussion? Okay. Yeah, it got pretty quiet there. Let's open the ballot and vote. We do have a quorum, correct, Ms. Schell, to be able to vote? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Okay. Open the ballot. Five yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0779. I'd like to welcome Council Member Raul Arias. Turn to Page 3, Item 3, 2026-0799. Can I get a motion? Move the bill. Any discussion? Let's open the ballot and record the vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0799. Item number four on the agenda, 2026-0801. I open the public hearing. Do we have any cards? Mrs. Zach Miller. Yes, you are. Sorry, I didn't see the little note up there. Mr. Peluso, please. No other cards for 2026-0801. We close the public hearing. Is there, can I get a motion on the bill? The auditor has some concerns. Can I hear what the auditor concerns are? Through Chair of the Committee, during our review process, we noted that the two adjacent properties owned by the applicant to the closure area had outstanding tax bills from 2025. When we communicated that to real estate, they went ahead and took a look at the applicant's total property holdings within the county and found that there was a substantial sum that was associated with back taxes. That number communicated to us was $114,585. Go ahead, Mr. Carlucci. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If this bill were to pass, does that release him from the obligations on the taxes that he owes? Through Chair to Councilman Carlucci, by code, the city cannot convey the property while he has outstanding taxes. So these tax liabilities would need to be addressed before the city can convey the property to him. Does that put us in the posture to perhaps, Ms. Schell, that we should or should not, or should we be concerned about passing this legislation? Is this a red flag on passing this legislation? Through the Chair to Councilmember Carlucci, I think the auditor's offices, you know, express their concern. And I think the concern is also, like, these are amounts due to the city now, and when they resolve these, you know, the next tax bill will be coming soon, and are we going to be in a perpetual state of them owing money? And then this will never actually be conveyed. It'll just be kind of hanging out there. Okay. Thank you. That's all I need to – I'm not going to support the bill. I don't want us passing something, and then it's kind of in our bailiwick, so to speak, and there's owed money, and now it's part of our problem. I'm not going to do that. I think the problem ought to belong to him or her or whoever, and then when it's paid, and then he wants to convey the problem, and then it transfers to us problem-free. But it should not be flowed through us with a problem that suddenly is part of our – becomes part of our problem. It's sort of like I don't like my customers making their emergency my emergency or their problem my problem, unless it's a problem that is a covered problem by their contract. So anyway, I'm not going to support this. Thank you, Mr. Gardner, Chief, for expressing your concerns, because at first blush, if this is approved without some way of getting this passed due – or a commitment to getting this passed due amount remediated, it can be perceived as rewarding bad behavior. So let me go to Mr. Peluso before any other thoughts. Thank you, Chair. I actually just wanted to hear what Rene Hunter had to say. Ms. Hunter? Good morning. Rene Hunter, Public Works, Real Estate. Thank you for recognizing me. As the auditor had explained, when we initially went through this process, the applicant actually owns about 7,000 – upwards of 7,000 properties in the city. So we had reached out to the tax collector's office to see what the outstanding amounts were owed, and they provided us with documentation showing that they weren't outstanding on anything. But as this bill went through the legislative process, the auditor's office found some outstanding taxes were owed, so I had a different staff member – my last staff member is no longer with my division. I had reassigned it, and she did a deep dive, and she found that they owed property taxes on 40 properties, and that was $112,000, and then she also looked into liens, and that was another $24,000, and that was just what we were able to uncover. So our total amount was about $138,000, and obviously liens, sometimes they accrue daily, weekly, so we don't have the most current information, just what was publicly facing on the city website at the time. So we contacted the applicant and explained to them that we would be seeking a deferral, because this was really something – the division's internal process is to get these taken care of before it even reaches the mayor's budget review committee. So I explained to them that I was going to be seeking a deferral until these were satisfied. They wanted to proceed and just wanted the ability for the bill to go through and then just have it paid prior to recording of the ordinance, which would make the closure effective. And I explained to them if they wanted to appeal to this committee, they're welcome to, so I wouldn't officially ask for a deferral on the agenda, but I'd give them the opportunity to be heard. And I was told they were going to be here today. I'm not quite sure why they're not, but so the Real Estate Division's position is kind of just as I think some of you are opining to defer the bill until they make payment. Otherwise, if you all are inclined to proceed, I think we, as the OGC and the auditors were explaining, I think we want some language in there to explain that at the time of recording, they should be free and clear of all liens and all taxes, because if this continues to go on, there could be additional taxes and liens that accrue beyond what we're aware of today. Thank you, Ms. Hunter. Mr. Peluso. Thank you, Chair. Through that and through the body, I mean, I think I would move for a deferral, and I'm happy, are you guys the applicant? Happy to hear from you in a moment, but that language sounds good too. However, I don't like the idea that something comes to us before something is settled. If the applicant would like to come up, Chair, if you're willing to come up. Yes, please come forward and identify yourself. Name and address. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair. If you pretend to reopen the public hearing at this time to take testimony from the applicant. Thank you, Ms. Schell. All right. All right. The public hearing on 2026-0801 is reopened. Am I able to speak? I'm the applicant, Richard Briggs, Jacksonville Homes. Am I able to speak now, or? Yes, sir. Go ahead. Yeah, Richard Briggs, address is 4550 St. Augustine Road, Jacksonville, Florida, 32207. seven. I think most people that know who I am, I've paid a substantial amount of taxes to the city of Jacksonville through property taxes in the millions of dollars. And yes, that was brought to my attention last week about some taxes that were not paid. And just on the liens real quick, most of those liens are probably properties that I purchased that had the liens already in place in which we've applied for, which you guys have a new process, but applied for the liens to be waived upon improvements to the property. So any liens that are against the property are usually ones that we inherited when we purchased the properties. We buy a lot of properties that come with inherited issues, including previous liens and what have you. So we're very good about cleaning them up. Because of the substantial amount of properties we do own, there are properties that do slip through the cracks and do not get paid on time, but our taxes are paid regularly on time. This actually was brought to my attention last week, and we had the intention of getting it paid. Unfortunately, one of our accounting people in our department had a family death, and it was not resolved. But I can promise you, by the time I get to my office today, those taxes that you're referring to will be paid. Funding is not an issue. My company is very solid when it comes to funding. So I encourage you to stipulate an approval with proof of a receipt that I'll be glad to make sure that that gets sent to whoever needs to get the proof, that those will be paid. Thank you, Mr. Briggs. Let me go to the committee. Start with Mr. Gaffney. He's been in the queue. Where did he go? And let me ask you. Let me just add more. Just a second, sir. Sorry. Mr. Gaffney. I apologize about that. Just trying to get clarity. So let me get a great understanding of what we're voting on. So right now, we're just voting on it right-of-way, correct? The closure. The closure. So I guess our real estate department brought it to our attention that Mr. Briggs, the applicant, is behind on taxes. I guess my take, I'm trying to see, can we put some type of provision, some type of clause on this legislation before it's recorded that we make sure he pay taxes? I'm just not sure what a deferral do. I mean, you know, I would like to move forward today, vote on it, put some type of clause in this legislation that before it's recorded that he pays taxes. So either way, it's still safe, you know, the city. All right. Thank you. Mr. Carlucci. If there's an amendment like that, I can live with that. A deferral to give the gentleman, I understand your story now, and I believe that he'll make good on getting the taxes paid. A deferral gives him a chance to get the taxes paid, comes back in two weeks, I'm all in. Things like this happen, so I get it, sir. Well, I think I've proven myself over the years. Yes, sir. I've billed over $2.5 billion worth of real estate in Jacksonville. I mean, I'm not going anywhere. I've got the floor. I've got the floor right now. I'm sorry, sir. So what I'm trying to do is say, I understand I didn't know who property this was. Yes, sir. And I was compelled by your testimony, is what I'm trying to say. Yes, sir. So I understand that, and that compels me to not want to vote no, but to give a chance for this to be cleared up. Thank you, sir. And it sounds like it could be cleared up in a couple of weeks. So a deferral or an amendment that solves us not having it conveyed until it's paid, I can support that. Look, I want to help you achieve your goals in the applicants and all that. I just don't want us to take on something that is not paid. Of course not. I think you can see my point there. 100%. Through the chair, sir. That's how I feel at this point. The chair will entertain an amendment, but first let's go to Mr. Arias. All right. Thank you, chair. Life happens. You know, we're all human beings. It happened to me. We all know that. You know, things happen. But the thing about it is the fact that we are here in committee, and next week we have full council. So you're going to take care of it today or this week or next week. So we could all change our mind by next week if we need to. I don't think we need to defer anything. I think we should approve this today. Like I said, life happens, and I will take his word. And if by next week, Tuesday night, if it hasn't been paid, then we'll talk about different, you know, options. But I've been doing some research on you and what you've done for Jacksonville. Thank you. And I'll be supporting this today. Just please take care of it by next week. Thank you, Mr. Briggs. Ms. Hunter, would you come to the podium? Yes, sir. He's offered language of stipulation. There's a feeling of amendment up here. What are your thoughts? To the chair and to the committee, Renee Hunter Public Works Real Estate, our position is pretty firm that this should not have even gotten this far without those outstanding taxes or liens being paid. And obviously, you know, this committee has the final say, and I think it's fair to say that as long as everything is paid prior to recording, if that is the pleasure of this committee. But we have some, you know, strict guidelines when it comes to outstanding taxes and liens before we even will process an application, before it even reaches my desk that should have been taken care of. So, I want to support our internal procedures. So, that's where I stand. But obviously, you know, this is for your consideration. Thank you. Mr. Palusa. Thank you, Chair. To the body. I mean, I tend to agree with staff. If they feel that the procedures, it's pretty sacrosanct. I really don't want to kind of go beyond that. To the applicant, is a two-week deferral really going to be, like, is that really going to, where'd it go? Sorry, sir. Is a two-week deferral really going to be detrimental to the development? No, it's been going on for a while as far as trying to get this done. We've had some issues with some other policies that delayed this substantially. So, I mean, anything that you can do would be gratefully appreciated. As I said, by the time I get to the office, within hours, it's going to be paid. So, I mean, you guys do what you need to do, but I think, again, the evidence of my performance over the last 25, 30 years has been pretty solid. So, you guys do what you need to do. I understand about procedures, too. Trust me. I run in a company that has, you know, 60, 80 employees. We have our own procedures, but sometimes as long as they make sense and as long as there's accountability there, I mean, you know. If you're going to pay it before, you expect to pay it before Tuesday night. It will be paid today, 100%. You can even put that in a stipulation. If it's not paid today, then, you know. I understand. I'm fine with language. I believe that Council Member Gaffney is probably going to offer. I would proceed if we know. Once we close the public hearing. Yep, understood. All right, thank you, Chair. Michelle, you've been in the queue. I'm sorry. Through the chair to the committee, you may wish to ask the owner if he plans to pay the liens as well, because I heard him say that he was talking about lien reduction with the city, and that's a process that takes time and requires the execution of agreements and I don't think could be completed by Tuesday or even within two weeks. Just something for you all to consider. Can I address that? Yes, sir, please. So the city has a lien reduction program. So when I'm looking to buy a piece of property, we do a title search. When that title search brings up properties that have liens anywhere from $1,000 to as much as $150,000. But, hell, I had one the other day that had, like, over a million dollars in daily fines that the city assigns to it. Those we don't ever get involved in. But when we buy the properties based on the policy that the city of Jacksonville has come up with that allows for a lien reduction, as long as you spend a certain amount of money on the property, the city will reduce it. Now, it used to be you had to apply for that to make sure it was approved. Now the city's changed that recently to where you buy the property with the lien, you get the improvements done, then you send in all the documentation of this improvement being done. There's no other way to waive the lien without building the house, which is what we do. So, you know, for me to buy a property, have to pay the liens that I, there's a program in place already that is approved by the city council, really underhands, you know, what the whole process was. That means that everybody out there has to pay for the liens that they didn't think they had to pay for that was going to be approved for a reduction or a complete waiver. So I kind of disagree with that. And apologies, I'm not trying to disagree with Carla. Thank you. Mr. Carlucci. I want to hear from real estate again, if I could. Ms. Hunter. Okay, Ms. Hunter, the policy that you're talking about, does it include the liens as well being cleared? Yes, sir. Okay. And it's in the code as well. Okay. These are to be satisfied prior to conveyance of property interest. Is it possible that the liens could be satisfied within two weeks or a month? Through the chair to Council Member Carlucci, I would have to defer to code compliance on that. I'm not really familiar with that process. Okay. Because it sounds like it might take more than two weeks. I think that we need to be working in compliance with real estate. I think, if not, we're putting Ms. Hunter in a bad spot. I want to help the gentleman who's trying to work his way through this. But he's going to work his way through it. It might get done in two weeks. It might get done in a month. But there's just something about us approving this. If lien's still on it, that's against the policy of the real estate division. And I don't think that's a good place for us to be as a committee. That's just how I feel about it. I'm not trying to be punitive. I'm just trying to follow what our process is. And we have the head of our real estate department in front of us. And so that's just where I'm at. I'm not ready to vote on this. I'm not ready to vote against it. I'd like to see it stay on our agenda until such time that the liens are cleared and everything is ready to go. It has the approval of the real estate department, Mr. Chair. That's just how I feel about it. So that's where I'm at. Thank you, Mr. Carlucci. I'll go to Ms. Holder. Thank you, through the chair. I would be in support of a deferral. I think a couple things. As it relates to the property taxes, while I appreciate the years and the dollar amount, the investment that you've put into this city, I think it sets precedent that we make exceptions for those who can maybe pay that amount in an hour. And there may be other folks who come up here who need a day or two. So we want to remain as consistent as possible. Secondly, I think as it relates to the liens, you know, when you acquire a property, it's buyer beware. So you're subject to that and the time period that it takes. And it sounds like doing something different today would be violating the ordinance code. And OGC and auditors, you can tell me if I'm wrong on that. And I don't want this committee to take that posture. So I don't think we should completely vote it down. Hearing the offer of an amendment or some additional language or conditions sounds good. But I do think it's just overall setting a bad precedent. It's going against what Public Works is presenting. And as you mentioned, sir, you've already been delayed in the process. So another two weeks just to get this right is something that I would definitely support. So I hope that we move to defer other than just trying to expedite this prematurely. Thank you. Mr. Delaney, you're off. Mr. Arias? No, the other guy. I heard Delaney, so I thought he was going to go. My apologies, Chair. Jeez. All right. I do have a question for Ms. Hunter, if you don't mind. I'm looking here at the auditor's concern. It looks like it's $114,585. Is that only property taxes or does that also include liens? I know you mentioned it, but I just want to clarify that. Yes, sir. Through the chair to Councilmember Arias, that's just the property taxes that we were able to find. Perfect. We also located another $24,000 in liens. Perfect. Okay, so while I hear Ms. Holder and everybody's concerns, what's at hand here today is only the property taxes. We're not talking about liens. So while there is a process to respect, I think we need to focus on the $114,000 property taxes. And if the gentleman says he could pay that today, which is really what's at hand here today, I think we should just vote on that. Now regarding the liens portion of it, Ms. Hunter, so whenever somebody buys a property and they're trying to have the liens removed, can they still go through the process that they're going through now and then get the liens removed at a later date once the homes are built? Is that normally how it works? Through the chair to Councilmember Arias, as far as seeking a closure request, they all need to be satisfied before it reaches my desk for approval. Liens and property taxes? Yes, sir. Okay, and then how, for the lien process, because we're all kind of speculating here on the time frame, even if we defer two weeks, is that even enough time for your office to get this completed? Through the chair to Councilmember Arias, liens are satisfied through code compliance. So I'm not sure what that time frame is, but we verify it online to show that all the liens have been satisfied. In your years of doing this, how long on average does it take? 30, 60, 90 days, 120 days? Through the chair to Councilmember Arias, I really haven't had any involvement in satisfying liens. I couldn't even tell you, unfortunately. But I can reach out to code compliance and find out from them. I just, thank you for that. So that's my concern right now. We're talking about deferring it for two weeks, and then we're here two weeks again, and the gentleman has tried to satisfy it, but code compliance hasn't satisfied it yet. We could be here for two months, three months. I think if we're talking about property taxes right now, and he's willing to pay that today, let's take his word. And then by Tuesday night, if it's not paid, then you know what? You're on the chopping block. When it comes to the lien portion of it, who knows how long they're going to take? We don't have that answer today. So I don't want to defer it for two weeks and then defer it again for two weeks and then two more weeks. So that's kind of where I stand today. I'm willing to support it. If he's willing to pay the 114 today and by next Tuesday, he's satisfied, we move forward. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Gaffney, let me go to Michelle first. I just want to make it clear through the chair to the committee that the real estate division cannot convey this property to a person who is delinquent on any city liens or taxes. So all of that has to be resolved before they can effectuate this conveyance. Thank you. Mr. Gaffney, and we'll go through the queue one more time, and then I'm going to close the public hearing. And then I'm probably going to exercise the power of the chair on this. Thank you to the chair. I'll be brief. I think we're getting this confused. We're not talking about conveying a property. We're talking about closing the easement. So it's two different things. I know we're talking about liens. So we're voting right now about closing this easement, which is in District 14, the liens and I guess the property taxes on properties in other districts, correct? Through the chair to Council Member Gaffney. I don't know where those property taxes owed are in the various properties. Okay. So let me try to close it up. So as I shared, we're not talking about conveying a property. I think the language that I had earlier that we won't convey the property if the liens and the property taxes is not paid. We're not talking about conveying the property. We're talking about closing this closure, this easement. That's the only thing we're voting on today, just so he can move forward, whatever this other project is, to close this easement. Not conveying the property. We're getting the two mixed up. Maybe I'm getting it mixed up. But I think that's what I interpreted, if you don't mind. Go ahead. Through the chair to Council Member Gaffney. I'll defer to Renee Hunter to explain this process, but closure of the right-of-way, and then it gives the property, it conveys it to the owner. So you have, okay, so I guess we can't. Through the chair, Mr. Gaffney. I'm sorry. Through the chair. Through the chair to Michelle. So we can't do one without the other. So if we did close the right-of-way, it automatically conveys the property to the owner? Through the chair to Council Member Gaffney. Yes, essentially. Because I was thinking we could do one. That's what I was trying to figure out. Can we vote on the closure of the right-of-way without conveying the property? That's what I was, in my head, that's what I was thinking. To put some type of language. Okay, close the right-of-way. We put some type of language in, and he pays property to pay the liens. However, it's not conveyed, and it's not recorded until everything is finalized. That's what I initially said. That's what the language I was going to propose to try to figure this out. All right. Can I have one comment? Yes, Mr. Briggs. Go ahead. So, again, the property liens are on properties that I purchased with the liens. I'm very well aware of the liens being on the property because of the city program. These are liens that will not go away in two weeks or three months or six months. We're in the process of getting building permits on these properties and build the houses. Once the houses are completed, then we provide receipts to the city of Jacksonville of all the money that we spent. As long as it's the ratio of dollar-to-dollar, what they require to have the liens waived, that's when they waive the liens. So now I'm being put in a spot to where I paid these liens that we were aware of a program to get a road closed to satisfy a city program that really undermines another program that I was under the impression that was a program that fit whatever bill. We didn't find out about the taxes, by the way, that was due until last week. We paid other taxes to get the bill introduced about closing the road a month ago, and we paid whatever taxes. There was like one or two taxes that weren't paid, I think, on the property. But taxes are going to get paid. The liens, if you're telling me that in two weeks we have to come back and get an approval, the liens aren't getting paid. I'm not paying $24,000 for a program that is in place that I'm abiding by those rules per the city to get those waived on other properties. The properties that the road is abutting up to, there are no back taxes. There are no liens against that property there. And I think it's unfair that I'm being asked to pay the liens on a program that I'm participating in that is already approved by the city. Thank you. Mr. Carlucci, one more time. To Ms. Hunter, if I could. Ms. Hunter, are the liens transferable to this gentleman? Through the chair to Councilmember Carlucci. I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are they transferable to him? Well, he says the liens are somebody else's problem. He inherited them, so he shouldn't have to pay them. It's what I'm hearing, I think. Well, okay. The bottom line, does he owe the liens? Through the chair to Councilmember Carlucci, yes. They're tied to the properties. Okay. And because he owns the properties, the liens are now tied to his responsibility. So, he owes the liens. He owes the property taxes. He'll go back to his office today, I'm sure, and he'll pay the property taxes and wipe that slate clean. He doesn't believe he owes the liens. I don't like making this comparison, but I'm just going to say there are times when I am the mediator between my company and my customer. And my customer believes that they don't have to do something that my company says, yes, you do. And so, my heart wants to say, well, come on, company. They shouldn't have to do that because of this, that, and the other. And I'm advocating for my customer. And my customer says, well, but this is the company's policy. Well, at the end of the day, I have to, you know, communicate the company's policy. And in this case, I want to help this gentleman, but the city has a policy. And I have to, we have to represent that policy to our constituents. And it's not always easy to do. But if we don't enforce the policy here, then who else do we don't enforce that policy for? And so, it's a slippery slope. Everybody that comes to me with a problem, I swing at every problem that comes my way. I swing the bat at everyone. I don't ever let a problem come over the plate and not swing at it. I swing at everyone, and I try to hit it. But I never strong arm a city department head or a city employee who is just doing their job. But it's wrong. It's not ethical. And if this gentleman was in my place, I'm pretty sure he would be saying the same thing. Thank you, Mr. Carlucci. Let's move swiftly through the queue, Mr. Peluso. Thank you, Chair. Just a quick question for clarification. Ms. Shelley, moments ago you said the property cannot be conveyed unless the liens and fines are satisfied. Are you saying that even if we pass this bill out, even if it passes on council night, we still need to satisfy the liens before property is conveyed? Or are you saying that our action allows for the liens to be removed? Through the Chair to Council Member Peluso. I would defer to Ms. Hunter on the order of events because my understanding is once it's recorded, that conveyance occurs. But I'll defer to her. Ms. Hunter. Yes, sir. Through the Chair to Council Member Peluso, as is written in Code 122.412, all taxes and liens must be satisfied prior to the conveyance of property. So if this committee wanted to proceed with those things still outstanding, I believe they would need to waive the code or add a special condition that the liens and taxes must be paid prior to recording of the ordinance. Go ahead. Through the Chair and to the body, do we know what kind of liens these necessarily are? Because some of them do have to go through the magistrate process, correct? Not necessarily. If they're not municipal liens, then there are other entities, I think, in the state of Florida court system that we may not have. Yeah, that's a code enforcement question, I would think. But do we know what kind of liens these are? I assume you do not. No, sir, I do not. Understood. I mean, by that action alone, I am a little bit concerned. We might want to defer this just in case. Mr. Arias. All right, simple, through the Chair, simple solution, if it's possible. Ms. Hunter, if you don't mind coming up here, please. All right. The issue is obviously now not just property taxes but also the liens. We're not sure what kind of liens they are. We don't know how long it's going to take to get them resolved from your department because of code enforcement. So there's a lot of uncertainties right now. All right, there's a program in place that any applicant could dispute the liens and waive the liens through your department, right? And that's what's happening right now. Now, is there a program in place where an applicant can actually pay those liens right now, still dispute them, and get reimbursed? And if so, can he just pay the property taxes and the liens today, move on, and then you guys reimburse him the money? That way we can just all move on. That way everybody's satisfied. You guys are satisfied. If the liens are able to be removed, do you guys pay them back in three, four, five months, six months, two years? I don't really care. Let's just move on. If there's a program in place, can we just do that now? Through the chair to council member areas. Sorry. It's a long warning. Right. But I'm not sure if code compliance has a program in place where they can pay them off and then get reimbursed later once they fulfill the obligations of whatever that program is. But from our position, if he pays off all the liens and all the taxes and we're able to verify there's a zero balance, we would just go ahead and proceed. Thank you, ma'am. But I also want to make sure that there's a program in place for him to fight these liens and not have to pay them. I want to make sure he can get reimbursed. Obviously, we have all of public works here, all right, and I know this is a code of compliance issue, but we're trying to get this resolved today. Now, defer two weeks because in two weeks we're going to be talking about the same thing. I'm telling you right now, I don't want to go through this for the next three months going into 2027 because this will go into 2027. Can we just knock it out today, let him pay it if he's okay paying it, and then we put in language in here some sort of amendment or resolution, I don't know, whatever you guys want to call it, that he will get reimbursed if he's able to officially fight these liens. Thank you, Mr. Arias. Let's go to Ms. Shell. Thank you. And then Mr. Delaney. Through the chair to the committee, the owner can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he's fighting the liens. I think these are bona fide liens. He's referring to them as not his because the property, they were accrued prior to his purchase. But as Council Member Holder so eloquently stated, buyer beware, caveat emptor, when you purchase a property, you do your due diligence, and you purchase it with all the encumbrances on the property. So these are liens that he owes because he purchased the property. Municipal Code Compliance has two programs for lien reduction that he may be eligible, he may not. One is interest only. The other one is for liens greater than $2,000, and it's a reduction of both interest and principal based on dollars spent improving the property. So it's a whole program where you enter into an agreement with Municipal Code Compliance for reduction of those liens. But I don't think anybody's fighting the validity of these liens. And through the chair, I don't know if she was responding to my question or did you just give her the cue? I gave her the cue. Oh, because I wasn't done, but okay, that's fine. You're done. All right. Mr. Belaney. Thank you. Through the chair to the body, I'll be quick. I was essentially going to state what Michelle just said. I would suggest on behalf of the administration a deferral, as Ms. Hunter has said, on the tax issue. And then I can commit the administration to working with the applicant over the course of that deferral on hammering out at least a timeline for exploring the liens. I can't commit to anything one way or another until we get the appropriate departments on board. But we will at least have the conversation so that you have more information to make your decision two weeks from now if you choose to do the deferral. Thank you, sir. Mr. Briggs, just one quick question. I presume you've used this lien reduction program before? Oh, many times, probably in 50, 75 times. When I buy a property, I find out there's a lien against the property. I utilize the program. I do my due diligence. Thank you very much. I do my due diligence. And when I make a decision to buy it, I base it on a program that the city has in place. This, whatever those liens are that we're referring to, are ones that will get waived 100% by the city program. And if I knew that this was going to be a stipulation or a problem for closing this road, I probably never would have bought those properties. And those properties would have just sat there until someone else would have purchased them, if they would have purchased them. And it would have accumulated daily fines and everything else. So I'm getting penalized by a program to close a road to do affordable housing over on the west side because of an odd stipulation. I don't know. It's really weird. Thank you, Mr. Briggs. I'm going to close a public hearing. Thank you, Mr. Briggs. simultaneously, which I doubt seriously. That is truth. It's the prerogative of this chair. I'm going to defer this matter until two weeks. I'm pretty sure Mr. Briggs will pay the taxes today, and then I'm pretty sure the administration will get with him to resolve or participate in the lien reduction program so he doesn't have to bear the burden of that. So this matter has been deferred. Moving to item number one, 2026-0777. Can I get a declaration of ex parte if there's any? Seeing none, I open the public hearing, and I will turn to our general counsel, Michelle, to give us some guidance on this procedure. This is an appeal. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Ms. Holbert. You asked for ex parte communication? Yeah, I did. Sorry, I do. I had a conversation with Mr. Miller on this application on yesterday. Thank you so much. Has it been fine? Yes. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. Ms. Schell. Thank you. Through the chair to the committee, this is an ex parte hearing, or excuse me, a quasi-judicial hearing before you today. This is an appeal of a written decision of the director of the Public Works Department. This is a de novo hearing, meaning all the information that was considered by the Public Works Department and the director is for your consideration here today, and they have the ability to produce new evidence for you to consider as well. There is my memo to you all, a printout of that at each of your chairs, as well as the appeal packet that the applicant submitted. On page two of the memo is the order of the hearing. The chair has already called for disclosure of ex parte communications, and then we'll proceed in the order listed there on page two. Your decision must be based on competent, substantial evidence, and potential motions or recommendations that you could move forward with. This legislation was written in the neutral, like many of you have seen appeals at LUZ, so it requires an amendment. You can either amend to deny the appeal. You can amend to grant or grant in part and deny in part. You can modify the written decision. You can refer the matter back to the Public Works Department with specific instructions for further action, or you can take other action that you deem prudent. I'm available for any questions on that. Thank you, Ms. Schell. I'll open the public hearing. We have Mr. Zach Miller. Would you put five minutes on the clock? Is that sufficient, Mr. Miller? It is, but very quickly, one housekeeping item. I'm not here on 8.01, but everybody said that would be coming up again in two weeks. It will actually be coming up in 13 days since this is Wednesday, so I just want everybody in the audience to understand that. It will be 13 days to work on that. Thank you. For the record, it will be taken up at the next TEU meeting. Thank you. Whatever day that is. Whatever day that is. Yeah, yeah. Yes. Okay. Your clock is rolling, sir. Thank you very much. Zach Miller, 3203 Old Barn Court. We're here. I think this is the first time you guys have done this before. This is an appeal of a decision by the Public Works Department under Chapter 654. You know, these are concerns, basically, 19 lots on rocket, jet, drone, and Polk. They're near a road called Castleberry. These are 19 lots of record. They were created in 1953. The issue is that there's a program for sidewalk deferrals. Basically, when you come in on an infill lot, there's a program where you can put a restriction on the property that says, when the city actually has a plan for sidewalks, you can put the sidewalks in. And you're deferred in doing that to that point. We asked to participate in that program. The Public Works Department said no. Their reasoning was residential growth, pedestrian safety, and connectivity. However, in the decision, there was no residential growth pointed out. There was no pedestrian safety pointed out. And there was no connectivity pointing out. This is the property we're talking about. Ironically, about 15 homes were built on lots of record in the immediate surrounding area where no sidewalks are required. There is no sidewalk in the area. The closest sidewalk is actually on the apartment complex on Main Street and part of Castleberry, but it doesn't connect anywhere. This is sort of the problem with the program. These are the 19 lots that my client owns. We're required to do the sidewalks that will connect to nowhere. This is a ground view of what we're looking at. There are no sidewalks in the area. One of the important points is that none of these roads are city-maintained. These are all privately-maintained roads. Part of the issue is you can see that there are drainage ditches, there are trees, there are telephone poles. They would have to be negotiated at great cost in order to install these sidewalks. There's also grass and drainage issues. Again, there are no sidewalks in this area. This is the area along Polk. This is sort of the north end of the property. Again, there are no sidewalks to connect to in the area. Some of the homes in the area we don't own, so we're not going to be building new homes on them. So these sidewalks will literally be on one side of the street, and then other areas of the subdivision that has existed since 1953 will not have sidewalks. This is a view down Castleberry, and I'll show the angle from the other side. Mr. Miller, can you pause for a minute? Certainly. If I can have the clock pause. I said I asked you if five minutes was sufficient. You have up to ten. Yes. So if you run over, I'm good. I would like just to reserve any other time for rebuttal. Thank you. Thank you. So this is the view down Castleberry. This is going towards Main Street. So even if we installed these sidewalks, which, again, would dead end at utility poles and drainage ditches, they wouldn't connect anything. So the people living in these homes going to Castleberry would then still be walking down the street in order to get to Main Street. This is the view. That dirt road is actually called Space Street. I don't know if this was a theme, rocket, jet, space, but these are what the roads are named. There's no sidewalk there either. This is an example of a street nearby where my client was required to put in a sidewalk to nowhere. You can see the utility pole. This is where a sidewalk is installed right in front of the home. We don't believe this improves pedestrian safety. This doesn't improve connectivity. This is Kirk Road. This is unfortunately the result of the program and what we're required to do. This is what we're trying to avoid. So what are the things that the city considered? Again, this is quasi-judicial. This is the essential requirements of law section. Walk shed to the destination. Is there a sidewalk within 100 feet? No, there isn't in this case. Whether the roadway is city-maintained? No, it's not city-maintained. Are there approved civil plans? Are there dead ends? So one-sidewalk designs. We think we qualify for the deferral program. Again, these are not prescriptive. There are other factors that can be taken in under this program. So the streets are not city-maintained. The appeal reports no nearby sidewalk connection, as I just showed you in the pictures, or identify pedestrian destination. The city's written decision identifies no specific connected pedestrian route. You can see the city's decision in your packet. The physical constraints complicate it. These are the ditches. These are the telephone poles, the utility poles. This was actually on a previous sidewalk deferral only a year ago. This was from Kevin Ware in the Public Works Department. Maintained by others means the city of Jacksonville doesn't maintain roadways. Therefore, a sidewalk can be installed or not. Meaning if it's not city-maintained, they normally don't require sidewalks. These are not city-maintained. The city's, and I'll just go over a little bit of my time. The city's position is that there's growth in the area. Again, there's no growth that's connecting to this. The only sidewalk is at the apartment complex that doesn't go anywhere. And these are not city-maintained roads. And this is the important point. Deferral is not permanent waiver. When the city puts together a plan and wants sidewalks installed in this area, then the owners will be required to put in sidewalks. We would ask that you reverse the written interpretation, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Miller. I'd like to hear the other side. We've got four minutes left on the clock, Mr. Miller, 437. Amen. Let me check this and make sure it works. Okay, you ready for me? Yeah. Again, same thing with Mr. Miller. You have up to 10 minutes. If five minutes is sufficient, we can start the clock at 10. I've got 11 slides, so I may need six minutes or so, but I won't need the full 10. All right. Good morning. Nina Sickler, Public Works. We're here to discuss the deferral request and the denial that Public Works has offered for this. I want to give a little bit of background. The commitment to Complete Streets was established and forced through Resolution 2019-653. It required improvements in 654.133. It mandates that new developments and redevelopment projects include adequate pedestrian facilities. 654.137 covers deviations, and there are several potential opportunities if and when sidewalk construction is not feasible, and I'll cover some of these in further detail in some of the slides. You've seen this already. To the right is the development of 19 homes, and so these are homes that are already built by Jacksonville Homes LLC, and they are contiguous, and they're built simultaneously. So the roads, as you've seen, are Rocket, which are the north-south road, Drone, and Polk Road are east-west, as well as the diagonal, which is Jet Street. So you can see in the middle picture, these are lovely homes. These are places that families are probably going to want to move. The challenge is the roads are not maintained by the city, and what we've heard from different neighborhoods is that that actually makes it a lot harder for elderly and disabled to get between their neighbors and to get places. And so an unmaintained road actually is a further reason that sidewalks are beneficial to this neighborhood. So just a little bit more background, 654.133 states that sidewalks shall be provided for all developments. That includes infill lots, that's underlined, as well as existing streets. So it's not limited to new subdivisions. We reinforce, we require sidewalks on private streets as well that come to us when they come in as a new subdivision. So it is not unique that a non-city-maintained road requires sidewalks. When sidewalks are required, the next two highlighted areas just describe some of the options. One is a five-foot sidewalk on both sides of the road. Another is a six-foot sidewalk on one side of the road. And there are other arrangements that can be made. So speaking about deviations, that's handled in 654.137. And that is specifically for these types of projects, infill lots. And the ultimate decision on granting a deferral comes to the director. And then, of course, now it's in front of you when an appeal is made. So the very first item that it states is that the director shall determine when sidewalks are needed based on the growth of the area surrounding the development. The next item highlighted is that whether the lot lies within the walk shed of certain destinations, parks, schools, bus stops, shopping centers, et cetera. So final thing I want to say about the background is that no deviation is to be granted solely on the basis of economic hardship or if it would have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of these regulations. So from there, let's go ahead and look at the location. This is 19 single-family homes. You've seen the diagram. The black line is the one-mile radius. It's in Council District 8 north of the airport, east of 95. And the nearest intersection is Main Street at Duval Station Road. We are familiar with this area. Most of us, it's very much a growing area. So we looked at what is surrounding this area. And so we looked at the infrastructure. It's hard to see, but I've turned on some red lines. So those red lines in the map are all the roadways in the area, and then the yellow line is all the sidewalks. So in 20 miles of roadway, there's 13 1⁄2 miles of sidewalk. That's over 67% of the roadways in this one-mile radius already have sidewalks. In addition, let's talk about the surrounding walk shed, which is one of the criteria. So you can see in the bottom right, that's First Coast High School. We've had a lot of discussions at Council about the need for accommodating pedestrian safety heading to First Coast High School. You can see in the red dots, those are 15 school bus stops within a one-mile radius. And then there's three that I'm highlighting that are within a half-mile radius. The one closest to the blue shape is within 800 feet of the end of Rocket Street, which is where this development occurs. And then you have the VA clinic on the other side of Main Street. So there are a lot of facilities in this area. We have medical offices that have recently been built. There's a Culver's, CVS, Publix, Chick-fil-A, our infamous Chick-fil-A. So all of those are within a one-mile radius of this development. We're also looking at surrounding development. So we looked at permitting since 2018. So when we look at the three-year period, 18, 19, and 20, there were only seven permits. When you look at 21 through 23, there were 28. And then looking at 24 to September of this year, less than three years, there were 48 permits. So you can see the trend that this is a growing area and that we are accommodating what's coming to this area. In addition to that, residential units, there's 290 apartments that were built in 2024, 285 nearby that were opened in 2025. And a PUD for 122 single-family is at the northern part of this radius. So to summarize, we've looked at Walkshed, the safety reasons, the school, school bus stops. We've looked at the location of the VA clinic, medical offices and pharmacy, other places that people would want to walk to. We've looked at the expansion of residential units. We've looked at the retail, dining, and grocery destinations that are within walking distance. When I was out there looking at this site, I saw a young woman walking north on Main Street, heading from the convenience store and other areas up to the neighborhood. I saw a bicyclist coming from the other side of Main Street, crossing Main Street to go to the neighborhoods. So people will use these facilities ultimately, and our goal is to make sure that we do that now. Talked about disabled and elderly residents. When you have an unmaintained road, it's really important to give them somewhere to walk safely. For children walking to school, those going to the high school, going to the bus stops, these are needed now. And so it's not sensible. You see on the bottom, these homes are being built. Why would we want to tear these up later? It also becomes the responsibility of the homeowner at that time. Right now, we get to get this built at once. If these proceed without the sidewalks now, then we're going to have to work with every single homeowner to get these individual sections of sidewalk built when it's later, and we're going to have to tear up their yards. It doesn't make sense. We've also seen the difficulty of enforcing things that are later, whether it's with the developer or others, and so it can be disruptive and a lot more work, and we know that prices are not getting any lower. If we wait to do it later, it's just going to cost more, and it's going to be the cost of the homeowner. So to summarize, we believe that these sidewalks are required, they're feasible, and deferral is not justified per 654.137. Thank you, Ms. Sickler. Ms. Miller, any rebuttal? Yes, to the Chair. He's got four minutes. Before I do rebuttal, I just want to make sure, since this is a public hearing, there's any other public comment, because I want to be able to rebuttal about that as well. Go ahead, Ms. Schell. To the Chair, after the city's presentation by Director Sickler comes the public hearing, if there are any cards. Okay. There are no cards. Any questions from committee? Mr. Carlucci, I see you're in the queue. Hang on. Go ahead, Mr. Gaffney. It's your district. Yeah. Thank you, through the Chair. That's the question I had initially. I was trying to make sure this is my district, because I will, honestly, I'm going to go ahead and make a deferral. If y'all want to go ahead and vote, we can vote today. I would like to go out and see these sidewalks, see where this area is. I don't feel comfortable right now voting on it. Now, it's five of you guys, so I would love to see what you guys have to say, but I need to go out to this area, ride out to this area, at least see what we're voting on. I don't feel comfortable right now voting on it. So that was my initial question, but, I mean, I'm willing to listen to my committee members. If y'all want to vote this morning, we can, but I would like to ride out to the area. Thank you, Mr. Gaffney. Mr. Miller. I have Ms. Sickler's presentation up real quick. I think it's still up. You control of that, sir. This is my presentation, but if you notice in her presentation, she highlighted where the roads are in red, but then the sidewalk's in yellow. If you'll notice on that, there's no yellow connecting to this property. That's the issue. We'd be building sidewalks that connect on the Castleberry where there are no sidewalks. All we're asking is for a deferral so when the city does build sidewalks on Castleberry, then we could build in the sidewalks to connect to it. So people that would require this walk shed would be paying more for a home because sidewalks have gone in, going down the sidewalk, and then walking a mile to get to another sidewalk on unsidewalked roads. We're just asking the city to be consistent on this. On Alexis, Lyle, and Gossett, which are all lots of record, which are all within a couple hundred feet of this property, 14 to 15 homes have been approved in the last few years where no sidewalks have been required. Again, when the city has a plan in place to actually put a sidewalk on Castleberry to connect to the sidewalks on Main Street, then the deferral program requires to do that. But that's the issue. These aren't city-maintained streets. That's one of the criteria. There's no sidewalk to connect to within 100 feet. That's part of the criteria. We're not asking to get around having to put in sidewalks. We're asking as we participate in the deferral program. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Just a second, sir. Before we go to questions from committee members, I don't know if I – should I afford Ms. Sickler an opportunity to rebut anything? To the chair, that's – yeah, to your discretion. Okay. Ms. Sickler. And then we'll entertain questions from committee to the applicant and the appellee. So the applicant mentions that there are – one of the criteria, which is whether there's sidewalk within 100 feet, but that's one of several criteria. And the primary ones are when are sidewalks needed, and our department sees that it's needed now. He addressed projects before that were not – that did not require sidewalks that are nearby. Well, you saw the trending in development. You saw that the permit numbers have increased exponentially, and so now is the time. And so that's the distinction is that, you know, using a past project as comparison is not valid in this case. The director has given the discretion to determine when sidewalks are needed. Given the number of permits that are now trending in that area, the development that's there, that the decision was made that this is the time that we need to begin ensuring that those folks have safe egress to their bus stops. The bus stop is 800 feet away. He mentioned it was not a half mile to the nearest – I'm not sure what number, but it's less than a quarter mile to the nearest bus stop and the nearest sidewalk from the end of Rocket Street. Thank you. Committee members, Mr. Carlucci, you're in the queue. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would support deferring and let the district councilman go out there and take a look at it and report back. That's what I think would be, you know, best for me to decide. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Arias. Thank you, Chair. I, too, agree with Mr. Carlucci. I'll defer to Mr. Gaffney's input on that. I will tell you my honest thought on this. At first glance, I was kind of like, you know what, the sidewalks to nowhere is kind of ridiculous. That one slide that we saw was honestly pretty bad. It really moved me. But then seeing the presentation from Ms. Sickler and Public Works, in my district alone, I'm big on safety. And I'm not talking about, like, public safety. I'm talking about, like, pedestrian safety. And seeing those reds without any yellows, that really did worry me. So, Mr. Gaffney, I'll wait on you to come back to us and report. But when it comes to kids and their bus stops and pedestrian safety, I don't play around with those. So, I'll look to your judgment on that part. 800 feet away is .15 of a mile. I could run that in a minute and a half. So, not even. That's how close it is, is my point. I trust what Public Works is doing. And so, in this case, I'll be leaning on them unless Mr. Miller and Mr. Gaffney come back and show me otherwise. Thank you. Mr. Palusa. Thank you, Chair. To the chair to the body. If I ran that, it would probably be 20 minutes. I'm no Iron Man, Council Member Harris. No, I mean, I think much of the commentary is kind of where my head is settling at. A lot of my district is very old. And so, I think there's a whole bunch of places that would kill to have sidewalks and different things. And had they been built 40 years ago, it would make it substantially easier than it is today. Ms. Sickler, I do have a quick question. And to the point of what Mr. Miller was bringing up with the other properties that are a part of the deferral program, why were they a part of the deferral program and not this one? Was it because they were 20 years ago or was it a year and a half ago? It's a combination of timing. The development has expanded recently much more, but also because they were more intermittent. There were maybe one or two on a street or three on a street. This is 19 that are essentially contiguous. This is an opportunity to put in a connected section of sidewalk that we don't always have the opportunity to do. And I would hate to put that on the homeowner in the future and have to disrupt them in the future. Now seemed like the right time to get this done. Understood. And I just want to make sure, and I think Mr. Miller is going to come up and refute that. Were those properties, sorry, Ms. Sickler. Were those other properties with the same property owner, property manager? It was. It was the same developer as before. Okay, so through the chair. Mr. Miller. I'm going to directly refute that. These were not intermittent. These were mostly homes that are right next to each other on a street that's actually between this and where the sidewalk is. It's actually closer to where the sidewalk is on Castleberry near the apartment complex. And looking at the certificate of occupancy, they were approved in 21, 22, and 23. So these weren't intermittent little lots. These were several lots all in a row coming off of Castleberry on the north and the south. And through the chair, I would also be fine with the deferral, especially if it's okay with the, I want to say applicant. Is the deferral something that you object to, or would you allow for the council? I am always in favor of the city council getting more information. So, yes. Understood. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Holder, questions for applicant or aptly? Thank you to the chair. Just a point of personal clarification. With the deferral program, I think I heard Ms. Sickler mention that it would be, I guess you have to coordinate with each individual homeowner and that they would have the cost, have the. Actually, I'm going to bring up my client, Mr. Briggs, so I think he can address this because he's been through the deferral program. Okay, yeah. So I just wanted to see if the homeowner absorbs the cost or is the developer. And then I do have a second question. Ultimately, it would be the homeowner that always absorbs the cost. You know, whenever you're selling a property, you're, you know, let's back up. When you're buying a property, you have, you factor everything in. Whether it's, you know, liens against the property, whether it's tree mitigation you have to pay, whether there's going to be sidewalks that's going to be mandated that we have to build into the price. We're either going to pay the property under less money and or we're going to, you know, sell it for more money to accommodate for any and all costs. Everyone pays, no matter how you look at it. Everyone says the builder, the developer pays for it. You know, it's paid for when the property is sold. So the deferral program, yes. Ultimately, down the road, if the city decides to maintain a road that is not maintained by the city today, which is still a little hardship for me to understand, you're not maintaining the dirt road today, you're going to require sidewalks. Who's going to maintain those sidewalks? Oh, the city doesn't because they don't maintain the roads. There's no, you know, requirement for them to do anything in the right-of-way of those dirt roads. So when you have sidewalks that, you know, are cracked up, busted up all around town, who's going to maintain it? Property owner, if they want to have a sidewalk that's safe. So I disagree with that part. But as far as that, yes, a property owner would end up paying for it either up front or they'd pay for it at the end. Understood. So if it's initial, it's rolled into whatever financing they may be having. But later on down the line, they would have to have that dollar amount readily available in order to get it done. And then I guess my second question is, to the point of it, the sidewalk's not connecting to anything else, which to me, similar to Councilman Arias, I was like, well, that doesn't make sense. When do we anticipate the surrounding areas to potentially have more sidewalks added? Because it is annoying, I can't think of another word, to walk on a sidewalk for a few and then not be on a sidewalk. So realistically, how do we see some connections to really build into the community safety aspect of this? Can I answer that? Ms. Zickler, thank you. So as I mentioned, there's just one stretch of sidewalk that is lacking at the end of Rocket Street to the bus stop that is closest to that neighborhood. And so pending available funding and feasibility, as long as Castleberry is a city-maintained road, we would find ways potentially to connect those. And that way it could provide a continuous path to those bus stops if possible. Thank you. Mr. Miller, I've got a question. If the cost of the construction of the sidewalk, and I hate the expression sidewalk to nowhere because pedestrian safety is always paramount to me. But if the cost is the reason for a request of a deferral, which Public Works has already stated is not justified, but if it's the cost, the driving factor, and that cost is being passed through, why not build it now? Well, then who's going to maintain it long-term? Well, respectfully, the driving force for this isn't the cost. The driving force is their own deferral program. It's not city-maintained right away. So we put these in now. Who's maintaining them? It's the homeowner. We're talking about the cost being borne by the homeowner and purchasing it, the cost for that homeowner to continually maintain it to make sure it doesn't fall apart. And then when it does fall apart, guess what happens? The city will come in and cite them for a code enforcement lien and put it on the property. What we're simply asking is either the city comes in and maintains it, and then we'll install the sidewalk, or the city actually installs a sidewalk that it connects to. The roads are not city-owned right now, if I heard correctly, but at some point I would believe that they would be conveyed to the city. The city wants the roads. We'll convey the roads to the city right now. They don't want them. Okay. Thank you. That's why one of the prescriptive criteria, other than – I understand the sidewalk to nowhere sounds a little pejorative, but we're talking about one of the criteria says, is there someone to connect to within 100 feet? That's one of the criteria. That's where we bring it up. We're not improving pedestrian safety by having 19 homes have a sidewalk, and then all of a sudden it ends. The issue is it's not city-maintained, so I think that's part of the issue. Does the city even have the authority to require it when you have lots that were created in 1953? All right. Thank you. Mr. Paluso, you got a question? To the chair. Yeah, I just do have a quick question on that. So is this an HOA development? No. It is not, so there will not be HOA fees. So it will be up to each individual property owner to maintain the sidewalk in front of their house. Correct, and then imagine the nightmare of one person but not the next person, and then, yeah. Is there any particular reason why it's not an HOA? It was platted in 1953. You usually don't do an HOA on infill lots. Interesting. All right. Let me fully answer the question. Also, we don't own all the lots in the subdivision, so that's the other part of the reason. All right, Mr. Miller, I'll close the public hearing. I guess there's Mr. Miller. Not Mr. Miller. Mr. Carnal Oliver, you got a comment on the bill? Okay. You got three minutes. Yes. My name is Carnal Oliver. Just a second. I haven't closed it yet. Go ahead, sir. Yes. My name is Carnal Oliver. Address is on file. This has been a very educational moment, because there's not a lot of clarity in our regulations. And one of the things that I'm looking at and I'm paying attention to is that there's no language inside of our own code that speaks about a one-mile radius condition of any type of development. Yes, the public works department made some great points, but the thing about it is there's no law on the books. Without law on the books, how can the executive branch do their job? If anything, what Council Member from District 8 is doing is giving some time so that some kind of condition can be established in this project, or looking back at some of our laws on the books so that we can have some impacts to certain economic growth parallels that may be happening in a one-mile square radius. There's some great points that's been brought up by the developer, but there's some great points brought up by the administration. But the key element to it is that there's no law on the books. So it could be completely, the appeal would be rejected because of the grounds of there is no law to enforce what the administration wants. Yes, you have language that supports and you have evidence that supports your cause, but there is no language of the law being applied. And then this is where the issue really lies. And the thing about it is that the administration doesn't get what they want at this point in time. The thing about it is that they're going to have to look at their code and write out language into law that makes sense so that we don't go down this situation any longer. Because I know growth is happening out north, and this is going to be one battle they'll lose. But at the end of the day, this is a lesson they must learn. And when I say they must learn, this administration has failed, and I'm saying it. You've got to make sure you put the right people around you. And I yield my time. Thank you, Mr. Oliver. I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back for discussion. As you heard, Ms. Schell stated earlier that our decision has to be based on competent and substantial evidence. The administration, the public works, is citing 664.133 as its reason for determining that a deferral is not justified. A question to Ms. Schell. The district council member has basically asked for a deferral that he can eyeball the property and meet with the appellant. Is that a proper posture to be in? To the chair, that's an option. You can defer it. If you want to do that, I'd recommend you reopen the public hearing and continue it to November 17th, the next TEU committee meeting. And then that site visit and any interactions with the appellant would just be declared as ex parte communication at the next hearing. You know, having served on LUZ, it's one of the foundation to land use and zoning issues that the district councilman get a chance to see what the issues are. So just a second, Mr. Miller, I'll get to you. So you're saying that avenue is available to the committee. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Miller. Just very quickly, as I'm counsel for the applicant, I actually have a conflict on November 17th. There's a visit deferral. I'd request a two-cycle. Okay. Thank you. All right. Given any conversation from committee members, the committee is going to afford the district council member the opportunity to do a site visit and defer this issue until, for two cycles. Is that the proper language, Michelle? To the chair, I recommend that you reopen the public hearing and continue it to, I believe, December 1st is the next TEU meeting, December 1st, 2026. Thank you. This public hearing on this legislation, 2026-077, has been opened and will continue until December 1. And again, the purpose of that is so that the district council member can actually visit the property and meet with the appellant before we take action on it. So this is continued until December 1. All right. Looking at the rest of our agenda, on page 4, item 5, 2026-0803 has been deferred. Item 6, 2026-0846 has been seconded. 2026-0859 seconded. 2026-0860 has been seconded. 2026-0864 has been seconded. Do we have any public comment cards beyond what we've already had? Mr. Cardinal Oliver, three minutes. Yes, my name is Cardinal Oliver. Address is on file. 0799. I want to refer to this because as Amendment 3 has passed, the votes have spoken. A lot of responsibility, when it comes down to community, economic growth, things of that nature, a lot of these issues are going to have to start becoming more isolated. It's because the voters have spoken. They have really shown you how upset they are with government and the people we elect. So the disciplinary practices or the reconstruction phase officially starts today. And the lessons that I'm also learning in my observation is also looking at a proposed sidewalk being developed in a community. There's no language that is included in it that holds the developer account. Since y'all in the council has not been doing their job, this mayor's administration has not been doing their job. It looks like somebody like me that's unpaid and that is homeless who actually understands this system and the nuts and bolts. I have to provide clarity. Isn't that amazing? When you actually are intentional about solving issues, find the middle ground. It always comes from people you least expect, even though you got a college degree. And here's my assessment. Moving forward, we're going to have to break down how this city actually operates. Because a lot of stuff got ruined underneath the Biden administration. And from a local perspective, we're going to have to tear everything down. The disciplinary practices are here and they're in your face. Somebody's going to get a job. Boo-hoo. You can cry all you want. It's not your fault. It's the people we put in these seats as council. It's the last mayor we had and Lyndon Curry. I'm not going to put the blame on one person. You have to start at the very beginning where these problems start, then build forward. A lot of y'all on this council, you are also held accountable, too. You didn't take your job serious. So the voters are going to speak for that. But at the end of the day, as we go through this teardown and this mass reconstruction, everybody's going to know that you're going to have to take what you do very seriously. And I think that from this standpoint, something like this happening, we're going to have to break up this city and everybody's going to have to be more responsible for their own community. And the only time that this body comes involved in it is when it comes down to bigger scope projects. Because the thing about it is, everybody is pissed off, especially me, with consolidated government. And we've got to start snatching back the veils and quit telling these lies and start accepting some harsh, honest truths. Enough is enough. The voters showed you. As much as you want to try to cover your butt, you knew it was going to happen. You spent all that money underneath Joe Biden, and you threw it away. I told you, be responsible. But you didn't listen. And now it's all coming back on you. And I yield my time. Thank you, Mr. Oliver. A question for Ms. Schell. I noticed that during the public hearing, Mr. Briggs did not identify himself and his address. Does he still need to do that? To the chair, no. During the public hearing, people, if they're going to get up and speak, need to give their name and address like normal. But since that item is closed, that public hearing has been continued. You can move on. Okay. Thank you so much. Just want to be sure that if we need to have that on the record. That being said, our next meeting will be Tuesday, November 17th. Until then, we stand adjourned.