May I have your attention? Michelle, I'm sorry. I presume we have a quorum. Good morning. It's 9 o'clock. I'll call the TEU meeting for today, Tuesday, September 15th, and begin with introductions from my left. Good morning, y'all. Bill Delaney, Mayor's Office. Stephen Libby, Council Research. Carla Schell, Office of General Counsel. Edward Linsky, Council Auditor's Office. Monet Holder, at large group one. Ken Amaro, City Council, District 1. Good morning. Jimmy Peluso, District 7. Good morning. Rao Arias, District 11. Good morning. Reginald Gaffney, District 8. Michael Boylan, District 6. Thank you. And I was notified that Councilmember Jacoby Pittman is on the way. We have two actionable items on the agenda, 2026-0570 and 2026-0634. I'll begin with item 1, 2026-0570. Can I get a motion? Move the substitute. Can someone explain the substitute? Okay. Visiting Member Michael Boylan, it's your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill my third time around, so hopefully I get it right this time. And you've got a couple of handouts we've provided for you. The journey of this bill, let me start there, goes back to October of last year, working with Milo Corey, OGC, in putting together this bill based upon the active interest. I saw Commander Tillman this morning, and she mentioned that every CPAC meeting she goes to, she hears about e-bikes and the concerns of that. And I have to say, apart from the CQLI work, I would offer that much, this is the bill I'm introducing here, I've gotten so much support for, the general community saying, we've got to do something about this. And as I said yesterday, you know, to think that a child whose only qualifications is that his feet can reach a pedal, can go 20 miles or an hour on a sidewalk, just is flawed thinking in my mind. And so we moved ahead with this bill, and there's a lot of things in this bill already in place, but I'm going to only speak right now to some of the items that were recently added following, number one, our notice meeting, multiple conversations with JSO about the concerns of the enforcement of this bill, and then the focus, which we did not do until very last, on the education component of it. So in your package, you'll have a sheet that itemizes the nine specific changes to the bill. By the way, what happened yesterday in neighborhoods is they modified the last item to a date specific, and I'll talk about that in just a couple of minutes. So we focused on specifically speed limits and age of use and a variety of those kind of focuses. Number one, state statutes does already provide local governments the opportunity to create an ordinance, but in doing so, they maintain that the speed limit should be no more than 15 miles an hour on either sidewalks and or sidewalk areas. So in the crafting of this bill, although we initially started at 10 miles per hour and had an age appropriate prohibition in here, items number four and number six, we eliminated the age appropriate one, although not in my best interest, but to accommodate the concern raised by JSO about the ability to recognize whether or not a child is 10, 11, 12, 13, or 14, et cetera. So that was the one that we accommodated JSO with respect to that. But the 15 mile an hour speed limit it was initially, we put it in a 10 for the sidewalks and side paths. Does not preclude speed on the right of ways. They can drive faster. Now, as you probably know or may not become an expert on e-bikes and the statutes thereof, there are three classes of e-bikes. One, two, have manufactured limits of 20 miles per hour on those two bikes. Class three bikes can go up to 28 miles per hour. And that's where we are today. By that inference, JSO has determined that 28 is an acceptable speed because that's what the statute allows based upon the manufacturer limitations. Many kids, families, perhaps boys, older, have found ways to circumvent that speed limit and raise it. So we have to be sensitive to that. And our amendments speak to that as well. We did establish an authority for the city to implement a signage program. And that was a concern that was raised again yesterday. But also in your packet is an email from Chris Ledoux, who was here yesterday, that speaks to that the concerns for some folks was that the price of signage. And I'm going to talk about that in just a second because I just asked a question of our folks, the auditors and Michelle, about the use of funds for this. But in there, it's talking about speed limit signs right now. Right now, according to the manual on urban traffic control devices, because there's nothing specific in the state statutes regarding the number and or location of speed limit signs. But this one, what this manual offers, the fact that speed limit signs need to be mounted at the main arteries leading into a municipality or to a governmental area. So that limits quite significantly what we need in terms of statutory requirements to, not even statute, but recommendations to let people know we are imposing a 15 mile an hour speed limit. I just reached out to, as I mentioned, to Mr. Lipsky and Michelle. I just went back and took a look. Collectively, as you know, that we each council, district council members were awarded, afforded a $45,000 allowance for safe streets initiatives. Collectively, I just looked at the numbers and totaled them up. It's over a half a million dollars available to us to be used. And I've asked Michelle to take a look to see if, in fact, if at the discretion of a city council person, they want to use some of those funds for speed limit signs on sidewalks. We're going to make a determination if that's possible. And if it isn't possible right now, I will look likely and offer an amendment to the existing ordinance or the appropriation of those funds to allow that process. So, in those districts where you see a lot of activity involving e-bikes, in particular streets that have e-bike situations, you will have the capacity, as the district council members, to have signs put in. And that speaks directly to the concern that JSO had. Yesterday, under Sheriff Corsi mentioned the fact that they would have a difficult time justifying a speeding ticket. Now, what we encourage them to understand and appreciate also built into this bill, and I apologize for going on, Mr. Chair, but I appreciate your tolerance and allowing me to do so, that we made it very specific in the bill that if a 15-mile-an-hour speed limit is in place, and an officer clearly recognizes that an operator of an e-bike on a sidewalk is going well past 15 miles per hour, they don't necessarily need to cite them for speeding. They can cite them for reckless operation and noting that. And the ordinance specifically now states, as you can see in item number five, that noting the exact speed limit, the speed of the operating budget bill of the bike isn't necessary a requirement for a citation to be issued. The last piece is number nine, and again, part of the concerns is understanding and appreciating that we need to educate parents, and we had Matt Fall here yesterday morning during rules with the planning department talking about their readiness and willingness to provide brick-and-mortar vendors of e-bikes, the necessary tools, signage, et cetera, to educate families about the safety and the rules of the road, if you will, or rules of the sidewalk, too, as it relates to e-bikes. So I offer that, and I appreciate that the substitute has been moved, and the opportunity to speak to it, and I know you heard most of this yesterday, Chair, so I apologize for going on and on about it, but I think it's really important, and I want to finish with where I started. You know, we've got to do something. Councilman Clark Murray yesterday was very passionate about this, and I did appreciate her comments as well. You know, there's an expectation of us as city elected officials to focus on an issue that's a concern to everyone. Is this going to solve all the problems? No, but it certainly is a great start in that process. So I appreciate your time, and thank you for the opportunity to go on and on and on about this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I see Mr. Arias is in the queue. Thank you, Chair, and to Council Member Boylan. Why is there only e-bikes and not e-scooters on this bill? Council Member Peluso asked you to ask that question. I mean, you know, I think we can do that. I wanted to keep this simple and straightforward. I knew there was enough challenge in getting this done, and particularly given the posture of JSO going into it. So we'll focus on this. If we want to do e-scooters, we can build upon this as a process. To me, this is the opening shot of the bow to direct to the fact that it was interesting. I had a conversation with Chris Lodoo about this a couple of days ago. He says, this is an issue that China dealt with 15 years ago. What we are seeing is a replication here, what's happened in other countries. I mean, I saw now, what did I read yesterday? I think it was Guinea. They are now requiring a driver's license to use an e-bike. We're seeing lots of places picking up. Illinois just passed some legislation limiting age and speed of e-bikes. So I want to focus on e-bikes. Scooters can come. I welcome the opportunity for you or others to address that, either as an addendum to this bill at some point in time. I just want to get this bill done as it is today, and hopefully we can use it as an entree to having further conversations on e-bikes, e-scooters, and even e-mikes. And I'll respect that. I mean, it is your bill, so whatever you want to do is fine. But I just think that it just makes sense to just tackle them both, because at the end of the day, they're both the same thing. E-scooters, you have high-performance scooters. I'm looking it up right now. They could go up to 40 to 60 miles an hour. And you look at neighbors like Nocatee. I've done town halls recently in Nocatee, and they've had issues with e-bikes and e-scooters. So I figured this bill could actually appease both worlds. It really wouldn't change much of anything, just adding the language that says e-scooters in it. That was one. And then the second thing is, I don't see anything about operating these e-bikes or e-scooters without proper safety gear, helmets, and all that. Yes. It is in the budget. I didn't note it, but in the budget, it does talk about the requirement of wearing a helmet, including passengers wearing a helmet. And even to the extent, if you go through the bill, you'll see if the bike doesn't accommodate a passenger, you're not allowed to have a passenger on it. And, you know, obviously lights and, you know, all the kind of other things you would expect to see in this bill. It's a fairly comprehensive bill, and thanks to Milo Corey and his drafting of it. It does speak to all of that. And through the chair, one, that's more of a statement or a comment. But when you talk about number nine, new retailer education provision, I know that these e-bikes and scooters are obviously sold, and they're manufactured a certain way. But there's aftermarket upgrades that you can do. And these retailers are selling them, right? So what can we find these retailers for selling upgraded things? We haven't. I didn't address that in this bill. Spoiling through the chair, please. I'm sorry. Through the chair. I did not specifically address this in the bill, but we've, you know, raised the awareness of the responsibility of the retailers in this process of educating them. We'll start with that. At some point in time, I think it's possible for us to take a look at that. Okay, cool. Well, yeah, I think this is a great bill, and I would love to be out as a co-sponsor, please, and then maybe later on we could just keep on adding more to it. This is an evolving bill. I foresee it. Thank you. Mr. Peluso, you were in the queue. Thank you, Chair. I just want to make sure, so scooters and bikes are different in state law. It's one of the other reasons why. And scooters actually have, there's a lot more to the scooter issue than there is the e-bike issue, for whatever reason. I think it's because of some of the companies that have e-bikes, or e-scooters. So I'm with you. I do think we need to tackle a little bit more. We're seeing a massive expansion of it in my district in particular. So same thing with e-bikes. I'm very pleased with this, and I'm pleased to see we don't have JSO here today. To kind of retort against you. I guess you did the good work there, Council Member Boylan. Thank you, Mr. Peluso. Mr. Gaffney. Thank you to the Chair. I just want to be added as a co-sponsor. Thank you. Mr. Boylan, did you intend to? I'll stand down. Okay. Ms. Holder. Yes, heard this at length yesterday. I appreciate it. As a mom with children with e-bikes and e-scooters, I love the parameters that's being set on this. So thank you for your good work, and we'd also like to be added as a co-sponsor to the bill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Boylan. I called you, Chair, a second ago, Freudian slip. I know who you are. Two quick questions, just to follow up on the educational piece of the posting of signage at the retailers. Is that the extent of the education that you speak of? Well, we want to make it easy for them to do, and what the planning department will do. There's a wealth of material already. Florida FDOT, the planning department, also have educational materials already. So we can put them in their hands. At the very minimum, the goal is to put signs, create and provide them signage that they can vote that has a QR code to direct family members to where they can get information regarding that. If they're willing to take on handing out brochures and pamphlets already manufactured, that certainly is easy to do. And when you speak of education, does this extend to the big marketplace like Amazon if you're buying your vehicle? That's a challenge. I appreciate that. We spoke specifically to brick and mortar. Obviously, we can't legislate nationally that Amazon utilize kind of this thing, but I think you're going to see that becoming more of a standard. I suspect at some point in time we'll see even federal legislation in addition to perhaps the state coming back around to this conversation again. As you know, Governor DeSantis vetoed Senate Bill 382, but not so much because he didn't like the idea of e-bikes. There was a lot of administrative responsibilities associated with what he thought was onerous. He didn't want to support. But, yes, that is a challenge, and I recognize that. And one more question, sir. You mentioned the $45,000 in each council member's district aggregated amount of half a million, I think you said. 503, actually, yes. Are you suggesting that each council member use their own money to make this a priority? Well, as I said, all we are required through the manual, the traffic manual, is the fact that we put them in the perimeters of the city leading into the city. I'm suggesting if you as a council member of a district and have a specific area where you're seeing a large congregation of e-bikes, that you might, again, we're looking to see, Michelle, I don't know if you had a chance to take a peek at it yet or not, if the Safe Streets initiatives allow us to use money for this. To me, it's a safe street issue, so I would think the answer is yes. But be that as it may, if you have on Arlington or whatever road in your district, you see an excessive amount of number of bikes or incidents involving bikes, you say, I'm going to buy half a dozen signs and put them on specified streets to make sure people are aware of that opportunity of the speed limit. Thank you. Mr. Arias, second time. Thank you, Chair. All right, to Mr. Boylan, do we have an estimated cost on how much these signs will cost? According to Chris Ledoux yesterday, he said we need roughly 26, 27 signs from the main arteries leading into the county, and he says between $10,000 and $15,000. Sorry, Richard, just wanted to... Oh, the individual signs. Individual signs. No, I don't have a number yet on that. $10,000. Okay. Many of those could be appended to existing speed limit signs on the road. It could just be amounted on the sign below. I only ask because I know that in my district, I'm using my safe streets for a lot of other projects. Some council members may not even have. So the $45,000, I don't have $45,000. I know you don't. I don't do that much. I saw that. I saw that. So my question through the chair would be to more than likely probably Ms. Sickler, if I may call her up here, but if this bill passes and we are mandated to put signs and we don't have dollars in our safe streets, is this something that the city or Public Works could encumber a cost of because I don't have money for that and I need these signs in my district. So through the chair, if that's okay. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Nina Sickler. Good morning. Nina Sickler, Public Works. So as Council Member Boylan said, the total cost of about 26, 27 signs is between $10,000 and $15,000. So that would put them at just under $1,000 apiece, so $800 to $1,000 apiece. We don't currently have that budgeted in Public Works budget, however, you know, the dollar amount is fairly modest, and so, you know, we could work with the council members and administration to determine how, you know, where those critical areas might be and figure out how they could be funded. Okay, well, thank you so much, and I appreciate the help because, obviously, this is something that's important in all different districts, and I don't think we need 27 in each district. I think, like you said, you know, some parts of town might need it more than others, so thank you. Thank you, Mr. Arias, Mr. Peluso. I'm sorry. Need further conversation? All in favor of the substitute. Is that a voice vote or ballot vote, Ms. Schell? All in favor of the substitute. Any opposed? Go ahead, Mr. Boylan. R.B., for me to correct the OGC, but the bill was offered as a substitute, so you're not voting as substitute, you're voting on the bill as substituted. Through the chair, to the committee, and to Council Member Boylan, the proper procedure is to move the substitute, do a voice vote, and then move the bill as substituted. It's treated almost like an amendment. All right. Any further discussion? Open your ballots and vote. Five yays, zero nays. By your actions, you've approved the measure. Item number two on our agenda this morning is 2026-0634. Can I get a motion? Second. We have in the audience, JEA's treasurer, A.J. Soto, to explain what's being asked of here. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name's A.J. Soto. I'm the treasurer of JEA. Here to speak to this piece of legislation we have before you, and if the chair would permit, I'd just kind of like to go over the history of this for the record. So prior to 2023, JEA would come back to its board and subsequently to the City Council on an as-needed basis to seek authorization for issuance of debt. And so what you end up having is this kind of patchwork quilt of authorizations since 1988 for the electric system and since 1997 for the water sewer system. It made it very hard to track. It certainly made it very difficult in terms of transparency for the public or even for the council to understand, hey, how much debt does JEA have outstanding? How much is it allowed to have outstanding? And so in 2023, my predecessor and I ran a piece of legislation through the council 2023-724, which formally established not to exceed debt outstanding amounts for each of our systems, $1.9 billion for the electric enterprise, $2.5 billion for the water sewer system, and $150 million for the district energy system, which we call our chilled water system. And so since that legislation was approved at the end of fiscal 23, we pledged to the council on an annual basis that we would provide a one-page summary that got submitted with our budget. And it was our way of proving compliance with the not-to-exceed-debt outstanding limit that the council had authorized while at the same time trying to enhance the transparency so that way anyone from the public can go pull that one-page summary to see how much debt we have outstanding relative relative to how much debt we were planning to issue and where we thought we would end the coming fiscal year, which brings us to June of 2026, when we went back to our board to request further increase to the not-to-exceed-debt outstanding amount for each of our systems. And so since 2023, we have endeavored to, we've executed three transactions, and at the same time, looking forward through fiscal year 26, where we just closed on two bond transactions, one for the electric system, one for the water sewer system, and looking at our planned bond transactions for FY27, we're projecting that we will have reached the capacity, at least on the water sewer side, and we'll maintain some capacity on the electric system, and so that's why we're back here asking for an increase. I just want to contextualize some of it because I understand, and I'll take it system by system if the chair would have it. Please, go ahead. On the electric enterprise, we're requesting an increase in the current authorization from $1.9 billion to $3.9 billion. Certainly a lot of money. JEA last reached its debt outstanding peak in 2009 at $4.3 billion, and we had an outstanding debt-to-asset ratio in excess of 90%. So $3.9 billion is certainly not a new peak for JEA, and we're projecting we would reach a debt-to-asset ratio, I'll call it in the mid-to-high 50s, at the end of this borrowing cycle. What's driving the need on the electric side, as you all are very familiar with, is the construction of the new combined cycle natural gas plant, which is replacing existing generation Northside Unit 3, which is a 1977 unit that's nearing the end of its useful life. And so of this $2 billion increase, we're seeking $1.57 billion is tied to the combined cycle natural gas plant. We have three or four major utility transmission corridor projects going on in the electric system as well. On the water sewer system, you know, that system reached its peak debt in 2011 at $2.1 billion with a debt-to-asset ratio of 70%. So certainly $2.5 billion was a new peak for the system, and, you know, I would offer that $3.7 billion certainly represents a new peak for the system as well. You know, the issues on water sewer, there's a couple of them. One, we spent in excess of a decade under-investing in the water sewer system to the point where the capital investments we were making in the system were not even enough to keep up with the depreciation of that system. It's something that we would get dinged for by the credit rating agencies on a regular basis, because if you're not investing enough in your system, that impacts system reliability and service that you can provide to customers as well. At the same time, since we last reached our debt peak in 2011, you know, there has been an unfunded mandate from the state known as Senate Bill 64, which eliminates discharge of treated wastewater onto surficial bodies of water. And so in order to comply with that, it's very expensive as well. JEA has undertaken several efforts to enhance our water treatment efforts and to comply with that mandate from the state as well. So you've got a bit of a compounding issue going on where you're paying for years of under-investment in the system and at the same time trying to comply with these mandates from the state. And so that's what's driving the need on the water sewer side. We project we'll probably get to a debt-to-asset ratio in the low 60% range. I would say for both systems, electric and water sewer, we have a plan to eventually glide that back down to our target metric of a 50% debt-to-asset ratio for each of our systems. But that's why we're here today. Any questions from committee members? Just on that last piece of information, you said you have a goal to glide back down. What time frame are we speaking of? We're typically looking at a five-year window in terms of getting that debt-to-asset ratio back within target. Like anything else, Council Member, it's a balance, and so we don't want to put undue pressure on the front end while trying to meet a target very quickly. We'd rather kind of glide into it as we can in order to smooth the effects as much as possible. And it's fair to say that this increase in capitalization is necessary for sustainability of the utility. Absolutely, sir. The investments in the system are required. All right. Thank you. I see Mr. Arias in the queue. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very quick. Obviously, this is happening because we're investing in infrastructure needs right now. What other infrastructure projects, capital projects, do you see in the near future that we're probably going to have to address the same concerns maybe in the next five years? Are there any other projects that are of this magnitude that require this? On the electric side, not quite, although I will say we are projecting, sorry, through the chair to Councilman Arias. On the electric system, you know, once we are done building the combined cycle and that plant is projected to come online in 2031, we won't necessarily have anything major down the pipeline in the immediate future. However, we have several purchase power agreements that will be expiring within that 10 to 12-year window. Given the significant lead time to either build new assets or price new purchase power agreements, I would imagine at the time the combined cycle is done being constructed in 2031, within a couple of years, the attention is going to turn to, hey, what are we going to do to replace those PPAs that are expiring in 10 years? Are we going to enter into new PPAs or are we going to seek to maybe build generation to make up for those PPAs? You've probably heard me say it before, Councilmember. If I'm not building the power, I'm buying it from somewhere. And so, you know, a PPA typically has 20 years. A new generation asset typically carries 30 to 50 years with it. So there's a lot to be said for, you know, quote, unquote, controlling your own destiny. But both come with a cost that we would need to weigh in order to determine what the recommendation would be to the board. That's on the electric side. On the water sewer side, you know, you will see us continue to endeavor our efforts to expand and enhance our water reclamation efforts. efforts and as well as our water purification efforts. So the new water purification facility off Southside Boulevard in the Deerwood area, that's a million gallon a day facility. We're looking at potentially expanding two other facilities, Arlington East and I think the other one is Cedar Bay. Cedar Bay, thank you. I got the thumbs up on that one. To eventually bring up our water purification abilities to around 14 to 15 million gallons per day, which could be used to recharge the aquifer here in Florida. So all those things, council member, very expensive to do and are not done overnight. They're done over the course of the long term. Okay. Well, thank you for that. Thank you, Mr. Arias and Mr. Peluso. Thank you, Chair. I didn't want to ask questions, but I may as well. All right, the PPAs that we have right now, are they able to go up in price based on price of gas, price of oil, price of natural gas, everything else? Like even a 20-year agreement, does it allow for increases to go up as the years go on based on outside factors? Typically with PPAs, through the Chair to Councilman Peluso, typically with PPAs, you're going to lock in a significant portion of the contract costs for that period of time, which is what makes them so attractive. Some of them could have provisions in them which allow for escalators on a basis that occurs outside of that agreement. That's the issue when you're weighing PPAs against, let's say, a self-build option. You know, the same issues that exist with cost increases on a PPA also exist with cost increases on a self-build option as well, Councilman. Do any of ours currently have the ability for an escalator? I don't know the answer to that right now, but I can get it to you, sir. All right. Would appreciate it. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Peluso. The bill has been moved. It's been second. Any further discussion? Open your ballots. Five yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0634. Continuing with the agenda, item number three, 2026-0644, has been deferred. Item number four, 2026-0662, has been deferred. And item 2026-0702 is on second, 704 is on second, 709 is on second. And item 8, 2026-0720 is on second. Do we have any public comment cards? Mr. Cardinal Oliver, you have two minutes, 30 seconds. Yes, my name is Cardinal Oliver. Address is on file. Yesterday in neighborhoods, this conversation came up with 0709, talking about standing committees and quorums. Now, I remember that debate when it came up when Michael Bolin brought that legislation forward. And I don't have a problem with more disciplinary practices, especially when disciplinary practices are not coming down on the public. The disciplinary practices are reflecting back on you. And the problem is that this council doesn't show up for work. Show up for work. Do your job. That's one of the biggest issues Congress is having right now. The executive branch is doing more work than the legislative body. That is the problem with this council. I don't care too much for the mayor. I don't care too much for administration. But I also want to apply disciplinary practices upon this council. Because the simple fact is that you're the biggest headache. There's a separation of power. And a lot of it involves politics. I'm on nuts and bolts. And, you know, when I say something, my expectation is that you follow through. You do your job. You listen to the people. Not what we say. But you act in action. Because everything is built within the color of the law. Not political pictures. Not political talking points. It's in your actions. Because you see my actions. No nonsense. But y'all get up here after these meetings. You go in the back. You smile. You keep, keep, keep. But you don't know how many lives you're in the ruin already. The politics in the city from local, state, federal level is piss poor. Y'all don't know what it is to work hard like most people. You don't know nothing about the struggle. Because you don't know it. You come up here. You show up. You do your job. There's a mess that has been made from 1,000 feet up all the way down to the ground. And you're not waking up and you're not understanding. Do your job. When I say jump, you jump. You serve the people. You are public servant. How clear and how simple is that when it comes down to the word of accountability? Thank you, Mr. Oliver. Our next speaker is Ms. Roshonda Jackson. Good morning. I am Roshonda Jackson and my address is on file. I want to officially put on record that I am on break and I'm not working in any capacity with the city. I am a resident of Jacksonville, Florida. I wanted to come before you because I am suffering with JEA. My bill repeatedly has increased. There are many individuals across Jacksonville, Florida who is posting on all Instagrams, all Facebook, all social media, the impact of what's happening to us, the individuals that live in Jacksonville, Florida, how that is impacting our daily life. Where I work is I get paid pretty good. And for me to make the amount of money that I'm making and for me in eight to 12 years that I've been in politics to stand before you shaking to say that what is happening with our bill in Jacksonville, Florida is affecting us and is causing many of us to determine, let's just say, Rob Peter to pay Paul. So I am asking on behalf of myself, Roshonda Jackson, and every citizen in Jacksonville, Florida that is consistently feeling the pressure of our bills increasing, I ask that you please consider and do something. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Jackson. Go ahead, Ms. Harris. All right, thank you, Chair. So we've heard from our citizen right here talking about her experiences. I've also encountered a lot of emails, as most of you have. I've met with a lot of people out on the streets, a lot of business owners. And if you think the bills are increasing for residences, commercial increases are even more astronomical through the roof. And so in a time where cost of goods are up, overhead is up, we really need to do something right by our city. And so I would encourage you guys, I'll even spearhead this conversation with JA to have a public notice meeting. But we really need to have an expectation as to why does JA continue to increase our bills. We already know that they have to pay obligations from the past. But we need to have a plan of like the next five years, 10 years, so that people could understand what's going on with JA, why are we increasing the bills. They see the articles in the news of executives getting paid hundreds of thousands, close to a million dollars, yet the everyday person is having to have two increases per year last year, one increase this year. Previous years was also an increase. Every year is an increase. When has there not been an increase? So I think JA does good by our community. They continue to invest, as we saw today, in infrastructure. But it comes to a time where we also need to make sure that we're looking out for the people that live in Jacksonville. So I'll have a conversation with JA to see if we can have a notice meeting, because this conversation just started is not the end of it. There needs to be more of it. And so I'm also, like I said, looking out for the small business owners as well in this conversation. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Peluso. Thank you, Chair. Given that we are TEU, I don't see why we wouldn't just do a workshop out of this, the body that we have now, if that's legally available to us. We already have an agenda that's relatively light. We could kind of be the tip of the spear when it comes to anything involving JEA. To that end, everyone should be aware, our rates are some of the lowest in the state, right? We have a municipally owned utility, which is a major value. It's a huge asset to the city. And to that end, the reason why we are in the situation we're in is because of prior boards and prior CEOs who specifically kept rates low so they could not invest, so that they can claim that they were in a death spiral, so that they couldn't... Like, we consistently see in this city, right, over the past 20 years, this city has done everything on the cheap. And so now it's up to leaders like us that have to finally look at our constituents in the eyes and look at what we want to be as a city and say, sorry, the garbage fee is a great example of that, right? Even now with Amendment 3, I'm not going to go down that road, but the point being is if you want your city, if you want your residents to be successful, you need to make sure you're properly investing. So JEA is doing what it needs to do now to right the ship. And while that's... This is a miserable time to do it in this economy. We all know that. And I can go all day about why DC is not helping us very much. But these are issues that could be solved not just by the city of Jacksonville, because frankly, JEA does have rate users in St. Johns County, Nassau County, and it's probably going to grow as the years go on. So even then, like, our board manages electricity in other parts of the state outside of Jacksonville and Duwell County. Point being is there's a lot to do. And Chair, I might encourage you to kind of move in that direction, because I got the time. Thank you, Mr. Peluso, and thank you for the context. You are correct that this is the Transportation Energy Utilities Committee, and this is the scope of this committee, is to have that kind of conversation. So, Mr. Arias, perhaps we can find a way to achieve that. Ms. Holder, you have the floor. Thank you. Through the Chair. Similarly, I've heard the same things about the rate increases. Experience it myself, single mom, two kids, having to decide how do I pay this huge electricity bill, amongst other things. I had the opportunity to meet with JEA on last week, and they gave me a beautiful presentation similar to now, and talked through with me why the rates are increasing, where the dollars are going. And that was helpful for me as a councilwoman, but I raised to them as an everyday resident of Jacksonville. They need relief, right? Or they need to at least be able to understand why this is happening. So, I appreciate either the notice meeting or the opportunity to workshop. I will say, and I guess this question is to Ms. Councilman Peluso, if we do workshop this within this committee, how is that an opportunity for the public to get a deeper understanding? It is 9 a.m. on a weekday, so I would support having either a workshop for us here and maybe another noticed meeting where it is open to the public at a different time of day, so we can have people come in, hear some of the factors contributing to their rates, and be able to ask some questions. But I don't think 9 a.m. on a Tuesday is going to satisfy that. Thanks for the question. We'll get with legislative services and general counsel and see how we can coordinate something to make it work. Councilmember Peluso, thanks for the context on the rates where we stand throughout the state. The context of the big picture, clearly it's the affordability issue that we're all facing. When you go to the grocery store and a pound of ground beef is now $20. It's everywhere. When you pull up at the gas station and regular was $3.00 and something cents, and now it's $4.00 and something cents. So we're all feeling the issue that's hitting our pocketbook. So we'll find a way to have that conversation and see what the best approach is. Is there anything else to come before the committee? Our next meeting is going to be October the 6th, and on that day we will have a presentation from the Aviation Authority regarding emergency preparedness. It's good information for the committee members to see. Can I get a motion to adjourn? We stand adjourned until October 6th.