So it's 4 p.m. June 4th, 2026. Call to order the taxation, revenue, and utilization of expenditures, the true commission. This session begins the committee meetings that will meet from 4 until 4.30, at which time we will reconvene as the full commission. We don't have any presentations in the committee other than the auditor's presentations, and since we do have four audit reports, why don't we go ahead, Tommy, and get started. If you would like to take this time to, let's take 15 minutes, maybe go through the first two, and then we will, under item two of the commission agenda, we will pick up the other two. How does that sound? All right. Yes, sir. To the chair, do you want me to go through the quarterly summary, because I know that's probably a first, or do you want me to wait until the commission? Let's wait until the commission at large is assembled, as many of them as possible. Sure. Okay. We may not have an agenda, so it may just be here to listen today. Through the chair to the commission, council auditor's office released four reports since the last true commission meeting. Report number 832, which was the follow-up on the stormwater fee audit, was released on May 14th of 2026. This was the second follow-up on the stormwater fee, the first follow-up was done back in 2023. The original audit objective was to determine whether or not stormwater fees were accurately calculated, which included gross amounts and any reductions, adjustments, credits, or discounts that they were assessed and collected. The original audit had 23 issues. The first report, there were 11 issues remaining. After this follow-up, there are still seven issues remaining. The main issues that are remaining are that the public works stormwater area is still finalizing some policies and procedures, particularly with regard to how compacted dirt is calculated for impervious areas for stormwater. And then also regarding the utilization of third-party vendors, doing aerial photos to review non-residential parcels and compare that information to their customer billing service system that, as it relates, again, to compacted dirt and identify the big differences that you see there. Those were issues that were still not being done on that. Also, the denying of incomplete applications for charitable and faith-based organizations for the stormwater fee calculation. And then there was a fourth one that dealt with applicants for pond credits toward stormwater fee should be based on operating permits rather than a construction permit. And we found that that was still happening as was addressed in the original audit. And those issues are still outstanding for this follow-up. So there will be a third follow-up on this. What was the date, the original date of the audit? The original date of the audit was April 9th of 2019. And then there was a follow-up in 2023? Correct. And this is the second follow-up? Correct. So it would be fair to assume that the third follow-up will be sometime in 2029? Depending on workload and things like that. I don't have an exact date, but yeah. Does the city have a policy on how soon after an audit is done that all outstanding items must be resolved? Because at this point, it will be 10 years after the initial audit. Probably half of the people working in that agency will be gone by then. To my knowledge, I don't believe there is a policy of how many times. It just depends on how well they are addressing the issues. Because this is on the administrative side. And I know you have changes in administrations and things like that. But there is really no set time limit. At this rate, we could be on our third mayor by the time this is ever resolved? Well, yes. Or sometimes, you know, if our recommendations, if technology changes or something, that our recommendation is no longer applicable, you know, we may just waive those. But then we will have them ready for our – we will test the new procedure with another full audit. We won't test a new procedure in a follow-up. We'll test it in a – I have two follow-up questions, but I'd like to give the other members a chance to ask a question first. Are there any other questions regarding this audit? All right. My first question is you mentioned something about how compacted soil is calculated for impermeable area? Well, the point of the follow-up or the point of the stormwater is the amount of the fee is calculated on the amount of impervious area that's on the property. That's what's going to create runoff? Correct. All right. Compacted dirt – I wasn't on this audit, but compacted dirt affects that somehow. Because it's denser, therefore it's not as likely to be acceptable of water percolation. Right, right. So the policies on how that is calculated have not been finalized yet. I believe that Public Works had the policy in place, but there was like a – but it had not been approved yet. So the Department of Public Works has adopted a policy or has proposed a policy, and it is required to be adopted by whom? City Council? No. No. It would be by the head of Public Works. Okay. Or the head of the stormwater area. Okay. And when was that policy proposed? That I do not know. Okay. Is it possible that it was proposed in 2019 and it was the subject of the follow-up in 2023? Let me see. One second. I don't believe it was proposed in 2019. We found recommended in the first follow-up of any policies regarding the second follow-up. We found that they had implemented as a review process, but they hadn't finalized any written policies or procedures. Those are for manual updates on the – well, that's for the billing. Okay. It was between the first and second follow-up, I believe. Sometime between 2019 and 2023? 2023 and 2026. Okay. Sometime between the first and second follow-up, there was a proposal submitted within the department pending approval by the director of the Department of Public Works or the division head who had to approve the policy. The division head for stormwater management or the department head for public works? It would go to the division head and then ultimately I think the department head as well. And there's no evidence that that policy has ever been approved or adopted? Finalized, correct. So sometime between 2023 and 2026, this policy was proposed, and the department director under the current administration has never taken action. Is that a fair statement? I don't know. I don't know the dates for sure on that, so I would hesitate to say that it was – Can you research that and bring it back to us in August? Sure. Then I'll ask my second follow-up question. Okay. All right. You made reference to how the fee is calculated for nonprofits. Would you expound on that, please? No. I said denying the applications for charitable and faith-based organizations. Okay. So the charitable and faith-based organizations have to go through a process of applying for an exemption from the fee? Yes. Okay. And has that policy been adopted? It's my fault for not listening carefully enough. That's why I'm asking the follow-up question. Could you just reread that section for us? Yes. Well, I was going to say during the second follow-up test, we found that four out of five of the applications reviewed had incomplete applications, either not signed or all boxes not checked. And all five had required forms that were not saved, in other words, missing property, appraiser printouts, sunbiz filings showing not-for-profit status with the state or program affidavits. So the applications were incomplete, but they were receiving the credit. So the city has granted a credit on the stormwater fee based on an incomplete application by the respective nonprofit or faith-based organization. Is that what you're saying? That's my understanding, yes. So we have organizations that are receiving a credit for the stormwater fee, even though they may not be entitled to it. Or the application wasn't complete. I mean- But they were given credit for the fee. Yeah. Do we know the total dollar amount of that? We do not. Okay. Can you find that out and report to us in August, please? Any other questions? Mr. Tyson. I'm sorry. Good evening. In reference to that, how often do those applications supposed to come in? How often do they reapply? I am not sure. It may just be the first time they- I don't know. I'll have to find out. Any other questions? All right. All right. Why don't we go on to audit number 906, the employee reimbursement audit? Okay. Report number 906, the employee reimbursement audit. This was released on May 15th, and this was done- basically what we did was we- we looked at employees' reimbursement program, which is mainly related to city travel, okay? And the employees submit their expense reports to request reimbursement for expenses that were paid out of pocket by the employee, but have a business purpose, such as traveling expenses, mileage per diem, or training expenses. At the time of our audit, the accounting division was responsible for the employee reimbursement program. Accounting staff worked as expense auditors, reviewed and approved expense reports submitted by departments, and ensured compliance with policy requirements. Our period that we looked at during fiscal year 24-25, the city processed 2,598 employment reimbursement items, totaling $403,865. We did a sample testing on 185 transactions, totaling $28,077 plus detailed testing. We also looked at cash advances. Employees can request cash advances. It's not all that common, so much so that we had to go back to February 29th of 2020, which was the implementation of the new accounting system. And through, and we looked from February 29th, 2020 through September 30th, 2025, the city only issued 36 cash advances during that time period, but the cash advances totaled $22,011. And there were how many of those? 36. For $22,000? Mm-hmm. And... Somewhere around $800? Yes. Question? Yes. Why would these cash advances be made to employees? Do they not have a P-card? P-cards, but they may not have a P-card. They may not have a credit card. They may not be made, right. So they can request a cash advance for travel. What we found, it appears that overall, the employee reimbursements were appropriate. They were sufficiently documented and properly approved. Accurately reported. We did find significant timeliness issues and some issues and control weaknesses related to other areas. Our issues included, there were missing and incomplete policies and procedures. We found cash advances were not properly and timely closed in the financial system, which creates problems in ensuring that the funds were utilized properly. We found timeliness issues with the processing of expense reports and some that had not been fully processed. We found an incorrect system configuration for meal reimbursement calculations based on the time entered by travelers. And then there were some limited and accurate employee reimbursements and some that were not properly supported. We also found some user accounts of former employees that were not timely deactivated. And we found that the expense module system improvements for efficiency and effectiveness were needed during that time period. There were some deficiencies in the procedures, for example, types of things that can be reimbursed for and then the no dollar limit being identified for reimbursements that are missing receipts, things like that. Cash advances were not properly and not timely closed in the financial system. Cash advances have to be submitted within five days of the return from travel. We found that that was not happening. For $5,108 of the $22,011 were not closed properly because there were no expense report that was created where expense reports have been in pending status for over three years. For $16,653 of the $22,011 and cash advances expense report was not submitted within the five working days of the traveler's return, things like that, on this audit. And so I can keep going if you'd like. I think I've heard enough. Does anybody have any questions on this? You may have already said this through the chair, but I guess they have to provide receipts, especially for the cash advance. Especially for the cash advance. And also... Are there any cases that they did not provide receipts? Uh, we found... Well, I mean, there probably were because the expense report wasn't created, so they would attach the receipts to the expense report. So what does the supervision, for lack of better words, what do they do when somebody goes out of town, or whatever they're doing, and they give them an advance of some number, 500, 200, whatever, and they come back and they don't do a report and they don't turn receipts? Is it, is that it? I mean, I'm understanding that they get audited at some point, but is there any repercussion? Even the company I work for, if you go out of town, you've got to come back with receipts. You know, a taxpayer company. I know, I know in traveling, you know, the limited I've done for, you know, CPE and things like that, you know, you attach your hotel receipt. Meals are per diem, you know, you have a set amount for lunch dinner. Unless there's, and then, and then you get mileage, and based on the, the miles based on either Google Maps, things like that. Okay, so it's mileage, not, not a refunding for the gas. That's correct. It's mileage. It's mileage. Using the IRS. Yeah. Thanks. Yep. Through the chair. Did I hear you say that there was outstanding reports, which mean people did not submit their expense at all, which mean it was not paid? The, well, for the advances, they'd already, these were cash advances, they'd already been paid. No, not the cash advance. Did I hear you say there was reports not submitted, or were you saying there was reports submitted for the cash advance only? Cash advance only, but not, not, not reports weren't submitted for that. Thank you. Uh-huh. So what happens when an expense report is not created? Obviously, can the city employee be reimbursed? Well, when, these are for, these are for the cash advances. They've already, they've got the cash advance. And they have not filed an expense report? Expense report, correct. So they have the money, but they never have provided documentation as to why the advance was justified? But that's, um, and do you have a total number of that in dollars? Five thousand, $5,108 out of the 22,000 in cash advances. So 20-something percent. Yep. Fortunately or unfortunately, cash advances don't happen very often, but there's, um, not like the regular expense report. You know, it reminds me of Everett Dirksen, you know, a million here, a million there, pretty soon it's real money. Well, in this case, 5,000 here, 5,000 there, pretty soon it's real money. And I don't know, I don't, did they have like a threshold of the minimums where they don't go after a certain amount if it's below a dollar amount? Well, it was, I mean, with the, with the cash advances, no, that, um, I don't know the reason why they didn't, uh, but they should have had a report and it should have been followed up on regardless of the. All right, it's, uh, running up on 425, um, any other questions? All right, we will go ahead, we will adjourn the committee until, uh, we resume at 430 as the full commission, and then we will resume that part of today's meeting. Any questions? Uh, Mr. Chair, um, I will have to leave at 5 due to a prior engagement, but I am writing some notes, um, regarding the resolution, um, regarding that resolution and also regarding the bylaw revisions that, uh, Commissioner Barr has put in forward, um, what would be the proper procedure for me to be able to pass that along with you, uh, in accordance with Sunshine? Agenda, we're, you're leaving at 5? Correct, sir. Uh, so we probably won't have a quorum when the deal comes, and we just won't be able to take action. Okay. So, I mean, I guess we could, uh, do that, so we can at least take some sort of action. So what, to what we'll do, let's take a, we'll recess, we'll come back at 430, uh, I will look at the agenda, and we will restructure the agenda. Do we have that flexibility as chair? Okay. In light of the extenuating circumstance. Right now you have a quorum, and if Mr. Bass arrives, as you said, then you should be okay, but let's, let's do that. Do we have to put public comment first before we take any business, or is it, can that, okay, just want to make sure. I'm going to get, I'm still having a little bit of pain, but I'm probably about 95% recovered at this point, or I can real quick. Kevin, do you have anything on your subcommittee report? Okay, so what I'm going to do is, um, is it okay with you if we delay your presentation until August? Okay, so we'll be able to move straight on. We'll take care of item number one. We will then take care of item number seven, and then we will come back to the agenda. All right, it is 431. We will now convene the meeting of the full commission of the taxation revenue and utilization of expenditures, the true commission. Today is Thursday, June the 4th, 2026. We do have a quorum. We are required to have six of 11. We have six. Any excused absences? No, sir. Okay. Has everybody had a chance to look at the minutes of the meeting in May? I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes as presented unless there are corrections. I move to approve the minutes. I second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All right. We have for action a memorandum that has been presented to you pursuant to Article 3 of Section D of our bylaws. All members of this commission are expected to attend all meetings on a regular basis. If any member of the commission fails to attend two of three successive meetings of the commission without cause and without prior approval of the chair of the commission, the commission shall declare the member's seat vacant and the vacancy shall be filled as soon as possible. This particular provision of the bylaws is derived from Section 50.104 of the ordinance code of the city of Jacksonville. That section of the code relates to advisory boards and bodies of the city of Jacksonville. According to the attendance record of the commission, two members are not in compliance with the expectation of meeting attendance. Commissioner Alexandra Hoffman and Commissioner Kim Pryor have failed to attend two of three successive meetings without cause or an excused absence. Section 50.104 requires the commission to declare the office vacant, which requires action and a vote by this body. The Taxation, Revenue, and Utilization of Expenditures Commission declares that the offices of the above referenced commissioners to be vacant. The Urban Corps CPAC and the Greater Arlington Beaches CPAC are to be notified of the vacancies and requested to initiate the process for filling the vacancy of each commission. Do I have a motion to approve this memorandum as presented? I move to approve. I move to. I'm sorry. I just blanked. Say that again. To approve it. I move to approve. Yeah. Thank you. Yes. Don't I mean. Is there any discussion? Call the question. I will just say this is not an easy thing to do. I don't know that it's ever been done before. But if we're going to operate in a businesslike manner, we have to follow the rules. And you can't have one set of rules for some people and a different set of rules for other people. And that is inconsistent with the traditions of our country and our city and state. All right. We're not required to. It is the duty of a member of the commission to give notice of their absence. And technically, the ordinance says they are to request approval of the chair of the body. And I will say I've been very ill myself, but I have been reaching out to say, hey, I cannot make it today. So there's really no excuse. It's a simple email or phone call. I mean, it's an email to Colleen. That's all you have to do. Exactly. You know, I'm not going to require, you know, I don't have time to babysit members of a commission. We're all adults. So all right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Right. The seats are hereby declared vacant. So, Chairman Day, with your permission, I'll go ahead and put a date and approval vote on the bottom of this and send it to both of those CPACs. All right. We will move previous business up next. We have a motion. I'm sorry. We have a proposed amendment to bylaws that have been submitted pursuant to the bylaws. Mr. Barr, would you like to address? Well, Mr. Chairman, let me say we've been, I think we've been working on this for, this is three months. This is the third meeting. I know that Commissioner Bass had been outspoken one way or the other about it as well. And I know that he'll be here shortly because he was in some traffic a few minutes ago. I would ask that we'll delay this at least till, say, five o'clock or something till Commissioner Bass gets here. Because he's been very boisterous for the last two months. I think he should have a warrant, and since he's been on the commission, though he's a little bit late sometimes due to traffic, he's never, I don't think he's missed anyway. So I would ask that we postpone it for a few minutes and go about some other business at the time. I will, with great reluctance, accept your request. Once again, we have an obligation to meet the responsibilities of the members of this commission. And there is an expectation that we meet those obligations. But I will defer and grant your request for that forbearance. I agree with you, Mr. Until 445, at which time we will take this matter back up. Okay. All right, so we'll go on, and I think we're not going to have time to do the auditor's presentation right now, so we will forego that. Committee report, item number four, we will defer that until August. All right, we will move on into public comment. Do we have any comments of the public to speak on matters that are on the agenda of this commission today? Mr. Nooney, all right, the timer. I am, John J. Nooney. Jacksonville, City Council Resolution 2023-0819. I'm in City Council, District 4, Carrico, CPAC, Planning District 3. That's Raymond Day, Rosemary Wislowski, School Board District 3, Cindy Pearson. And, you know, I'll be touching on this resolution. Also, I am going to be making three donations. First, it's going to be to 2026-0004. It's the Parks Trust Fund. Next one is 2025-0463. It's the Veterans Trust Fund. I got one more. No, Mr. Nooney. 2009-442. It's the Artificial Reef Trust Fund. And I will be, you know, this is taxation, revenue, utilization. Mr. Nooney. Okay. I'm going to rule you. I am going to rule you out of order. Okay. Well, I'm going to ask you to sit down. Well, you got this resolution thing. So please speak to the resolution. All right. If you can't, then please have a seat. All right. All right. Okay. Well, you know what? You better just defer this thing. You know, right now, okay, you know, everything about this, you need to take a time out. And let me just say, as a participant in the Resilient Jacksonville October 23 report, it has highlighted that public access on our waterways is the worst ever. Mr. Nooney. Okay. Mr. Nooney. Mr. Nooney. You're talking about access. Mr. Nooney. Mr. Nooney. Mr. Nooney. You're building stuff. Mr. Nooney. What? This resolution does not pertain to public access. It's quality of life stuff. It is not quality of life. It relates to affordable housing. Yeah, well, that's a quality of life issue. Three minutes. Well, now we're doing a time check. You use 220. All right. You have 40 seconds left. 40 seconds left. To speak to the resolution. Well, the resolution, like I said, upon this approach will increase the supply of housing units available for sale and rent. The combination no-cost land, low-cost financing will foster the creation of more affordable housing in the city of Jacksonville. I mean, you know, that's all fine, well, and good. But, again, it gets back to a quality of life component that was highlighted in a study where, you know, waterway access is the worst in the entire city's existence. Your time is up. Please sit down. Well, thank you for listening. Thank you for your comments. Okay. We will revert back to item number seven, previous business. Mr. Barr, would you please continue? Yeah, so my motion was to – well, let me see. It's in red here. In the past, what seems to happen, like last meeting, I think we were, I don't know, six and a half, seven minutes of what we just saw. The meeting before that, we were 11 minutes of what we just saw. Most of these committees and commissions you go to, at least ones I've been to, even the JEA, they have time limit, X amount of time to give public comment. You can talk about your grandma's cake she cooked that day. They don't really care. You can talk about anything. They let them – now, when there's a – of course, when they get up and talk about a certain bill, they have to talk about that bill. But they do have public comment. And, look, it gives the community a voice. Whether we like what we hear or we don't like what we hear, it still gives the community that voice. And, quite frankly, I think the proposal was for two minutes that a – somebody who wants to do public comment, they can speak about whatever for two minutes. Now, we just – we just – we just seen this for three minutes, right? Six last month, 11 the month before. I would rather whoever – it doesn't matter if it's Mr. Nooney or whoever – come in, say their piece, speak their piece. Give them that voice because even though we're not being paid like city council is being paid sitting up there, we're our commission for people to come vent to. There may be somebody show up in this room that really don't know where to go. They don't have a clue. And they come here and they talk about some money they spent putting rocks out in front of your street, which has nothing to do with the agenda, but it does have to do with spending money. But they don't know, so they come here. Or they might show up at another commission. I mean, I walked into commission before having no idea what it was. So that's my proposal is that we give the members of the public two minutes, not three or four. That number could change in the event all of a sudden all these seats are filled up because we know we have to be out of here at a certain time. But currently there's only one or two, usually one, but there have been a couple before. And we haven't had an issue. So that's my proposal is that we vote to allow the public to speak for two minutes about whatever they want to talk about. Two minutes is it. They can't go over. So anyway, that's what we're voting on. Is there a second? Second. Discussion on the motion to revise the bylaws as presented. You should see a copy of a red line revision of the bylaws. Comments on the revision, please. Who would like to start? Mr. Lures? Well, I agree unequivocally with your sentiment there in the sense that many of us are very highly engaged, pretty well-educated people on these matters. And when we have members of the public come in, you're right, they might not know everything or where they need to go. And I do think it is important for us to be able to offer a form for people that even if it's not on the agenda, if it's germane to the work that we're doing, then absolutely they should be able to come and speak. So I'm going to support this motion. The only thing that I have is I would rather have the three minutes, to be honest with you. I'm opposed to any reductions and speak in time. Sure, you could make an argument logistically, but anything that restricts the ability of members of the public, whether it is in length or in content, to come before this body and speak on any matter that they wish, I'm opposed to that generally. So if it would be possible to entertain a motion to do that, that would be – I would very much like to be able to put it back to three minutes. Mr. Chair, I'm no expert on Robert's rules, but can he make a – propose an amendment to amendment? I was getting ready to address the matter. Mr. Lures, you may offer an amendment to the motion that is on the floor. Of course. Okay. So – Please reference the written document. I'll indicate where the changes should be made. Sure. And verbalize that so we have a record of it. Sure. So just kind of say the suggested amendments and then make a motion. Look at the text. Yeah. Tell me where you want to change it. At C. So I would like to have it back to revert that change for three to two, to just keep it to three minutes or less. So you're speaking in support of Article 9, Section B. Yes, correct. I would read as follows. All members of the public may speak before their true commission on any matter, period. Correct. C would read, members of the public shall be limited to three minutes. Or less. Or less, depending on the number of commenters. Yes, sir. All right. That would be my motion. That's your amendment. Yes. There's a second to the amendment. Second. Any discussion on the amendment? Okay. Let's have a vote on the amendment. Let's raise hands. We have an accurate count. All opposed. The amendment passes. Now, to the motion on the floor as amended. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye, raising your hand. Well, the motion is to pass it, right? Yeah. As amended. All right. And I vote no. All right. The amendment, the revision is adopted. So, going forward, Article 9, public comments will read as presented, except that there will be a new Section B. All members of the public, I'm sorry, Section B is amended to strike the language after the word matter for the remainder of that sentence. And then to add Section C, members of the public shall be limited to three minutes or less, depending on the number of commenters. Perfect. All right. All right. Done? Mr. Chair, I just want to say thank you to the commissioners for taking this into consideration. All right. So, we are back on the agenda. So, we are moving next to auditor's presentation, item number two. Tommy, we will pick up with audit number, report number 906, correct? Yes, sir. All right. Excellent. Through the Chair of the Commission, the Council Auditor's Office released report number 906. I'm sorry. It would be 905. We finished 906. We covered the employee reimbursed. I thought we did 832B. We did. And then we did the employee reimbursement audit on 906. Which is 906. Yes. Okay. I see. All right. I follow you. All right. So, rule number 905. 905. Okay. Quarterly summary, report number 905, which is a quarterly summary for the six months ending March 31st of 2026. This report was released on May 15th, and highlights of the report for the independent agencies, JPA. JPA is projecting to have a surplus at year end of 6.3 million. JAA is projecting to have a year-end surplus of 11.2 million. And JEA is projecting a balanced budget at year end for district energy system and electric to have a $20.2 million surplus and water and wastewater of 6.5 or 65. And the reason for those surpluses and those is as JEA is not spending as much cash as originally planned on capital projects. They're cutting back a little bit on that. JTA. JTA is, has a, bus has a $15 million shortfall overall. For the actual, let me see, let me get the right page here. JTA shows an overall deficit of $15.6 million in year-to-date actuals, and it's projecting an overall deficit at year end of $2.2 million. That's despite they've made some significant cost reductions throughout the year. The overall projected deficit of $2.2 million is based on a total projected unfavorable budget variance of $15 million for revenues that is partially offset by a total projected favorable budget variance of $12.7 million for expenditures. JTA is addressing the revenue shortfalls through various cost containment measures across all divisions, and those were approved by JTA's board on February 26th of 2026. Specifically for the bus division, like I stated, JTA is showing a deficit of $15.4 million. Operating revenues, JTA is showing an unfavorable budget variance of $13.2 million, and that is primarily due to a projected unfavorable variance of $10.5 million in the net sales tax. That's the half-cent sales tax that comes to JTA, and then an unfavorable budget variance of $2 million in interest earnings. That's primarily due to lower cash balances in JTA's investment portfolio. For CTC, the connection division, JTA shows, for the six months ending, shows actual of a balanced budget. However, they are projecting an overall budget deficit of $2.2 million at year end. A schedule shows a projected unfavorable budget variance of $535,000 for operating revenues overall, and then they show unfavorable budget variance of $1.7 million for total operating expenditures, and that's mainly due to projected unfavorable budget variance of $2.1 million for services. And that's JTA. A lot of unfavorables. That's a lot of unfavorables. Yes, yes. Can you back, through the chair to the council auditor, can you backtrack to, you just said a lot of numbers. Okay. Okay. So I'd like us, if we can, to ask some questions before we jump any further. So back to your, you said 13 point, then you said 15 point, and you're kind of bouncing all over the place. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. You said something along the lines of a $2.2 million deficit. So can you reference back to that as the overall? Overall, looking at all the divisions together. Okay. It's a... Divisions of JTA specifically. Projected $2.2 million at the end of the fiscal year. This fiscal year. Okay. Yes. All right. And then, and then the bus division was, the bus division was what? What was the... The bus division is projecting, they're projecting to have a balanced budget at year end. Okay. The bus division is... And so the UT, UTC, what was it called? UTC, what was it, the UTC transportation? Are you talking about CTC? Yeah, CTC, yeah. And that's the coordinated transportation. Okay. Yeah, the CTC. That's connection. Okay. And is that, that's the one that was having the unfavorable variance? Because that was the, what the whole tobacco was prior that we had. Was that they were having an unfavorable... There have, there was an unfavorable variance there. And that's primarily due, JTA had under budgeted their services line item. Okay. For that. And yes, for that, they had understated that line item for services, which was basically the MV contract. Okay. For that. Okay. That line. Just wanted to clarify. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Carter, how many of those, how many operating divisions does JTA have? And can you real quickly summarize the surplus and deficit of each? How we get to that $2 million negative schedule? So, the overall projected deficit, I'll say it that way. This is projected by September 30th of this year? Correct. So, can you please now go into the detail as to how we get to that negative $2 million? Yes. JTA bus division has a, let's see, they are projected. It's primarily coming from the... What's the total number? Oh, the total of... Of that first division. Okay. The projected end of the year, September 30th, 2026, what is that projected number? Okay. So, JTA is projected to finish the year at budget. With a balanced budget? Correct. All right. Now, walk through the components on how we get there. Oh, the balanced budget? Yeah. Okay. The bus division. The bus division. Negative or positive? Um, it's, it's, it's, um, what they're projecting, uh, is your main, in revenue, they have a shortfall of, uh... What's the final number? Well, it's, it's zero, it's the final number. Projected. Plus division. For the bus division. Because they're projecting an unfavorable variance in total operating revenues of $13.2 million. They're projecting a favorable variance in their expenditures of $13.2 million. Okay. So, that leaves you a net of... What's the next division? For the, uh, connection division, they have, uh, unfavorable variance in total operating revenues of $535,583. They have also a, uh, unfavorable variance in total operating expenditures of one point, of $1,715,822. But you put them at 2.2 negative? 2.2 negative. Okay. That's where you're, that's where your, um, your deficit is overall. Are these the only two divisions in JTA? No. You have Skyway and Connection. Skyway is, um, projected to finish the year at budget, um, or with no, no deficit. Let's put it that way. Uh, they are, they have total operating revenues of unfavorable variance of $459,000. And they have total operating, uh, for total operating expenditures, they have a favorable variance of $459,318, which nets to zero. So, um, and this is the, uh, Skyway. Skyway. Mm-hmm. But the, but the, the funding is transferred from the bus division. Sorry? The, the funding is transferred from the bus division, right? That's correct. Yeah. So it's not a revenue. Right. It is, but it, I'm just clarifying that. Yeah. So it's like, you don't get anything from Skyway. It's just, it's just trade. There is, there is no, uh, the only revenue Skyway shows is transfer in from the bus division. Okay. Just clarify. Thank you. Uh-huh. For the ferry division, um, again, it's finished, projected to finish a year, um, uh, with no surplus or deficit. Uh, it has a, uh, unfavorable operating, uh, revenue of $164,453. And that's offset by a favorable operating expenditures of $164,453. And, and each of these divisions, uh, with the exception of the general fund, um, receives some transfer from bus. From the bus division? From the bus division. Um, the bus transfers to, uh, the connection division, the Skyway division, and the ferry division. But the bus division is, is expected to finish at budget. The bus, uh, yes. Well, it's just. Even after it transfers money into the other division. That, that, that includes the transfers. It's, it's, it basically, um, has a zero, you know, the total operating expenditures that has a favorable variance offsets the unfavorable variance in total operating revenues for bus. So, um, uh, but the bus division had a negative variance on revenue. The. We're going to make that up because they're, they're projected to have a positive variance on expenses. That's correct. Okay. Yep. Uh, and for the, what's called the general fund, uh, their engineering fund for the JTA, um, they have, uh, total operating revenues, uh, unfavorable variance of $602,918. And that's offset by a favorable variance of the same amount in total operating expenditures. Um, for the quarter or for the six months year to date actuals, uh, they are showing a deficit of $233,000. Okay. Um, bus division. Which of those divisions is going to run the $2.2 million total, uh, surplus to offset the $2.2 million negative projected number for, I forget which division. Is that the connections? Connection. Uh, well, right now, uh, they're projected to be in the year at the deficit of $2.2 million. Connection. Connection. Which overall JTA is projected to end the year at balance for the three to fit for the, for four of the five divisions. Yes. What's the total for JTA projected? It would be projected overall deficit of $2.2 million from the, from the connection division. But total JTA will be $2.2 negative. Total JTA. Total JTA. Yes. If. Has JTA ever broken even? Uh, they, they, they have ended the year without, uh, a deficit, yes, uh, in the past. They've had surpluses. So how does JTA fund this $2.2 million deficit? Well, I mean, they have, um, they have another six months or less now, uh, to continue their cost containment measures for connection, uh, to, to try to mitigate the expenses there, try to cut back there. Um, they, because the bus transfers in, uh, dollars to connection, the bus fund could try to, and fund that at the, but the bus for the actual, for the six months is running a, a, a, a deficit right now of $15 million. Um. The bus is running a deficit of $15? Actuals through six months. Yes. And they're projected to run a surplus by the. They're, they're rejected. They're projected to, um, in the year with no deficit. I'm sorry. They're projected to break even by year end. Correct. So they're, and they're expected to make up a $15 million deficit in the next six months. Yes. Okay. All right. Um. They have, uh, adjusted their budget, um, for not necessarily through city council, um, because it's, they're, they're cutting their budget, uh, and they did that at their board meeting, um, which is, which is, um, you know, allowable, of course, of course it's less than what city council approved. Um, and if they stick to, you know, and the amount that they adjusted their budget down to, um, is less than what was, like I said, approved. So, um, the third quarter will be, we'll have to see what, how much they've improved over the third quarter. Okay. So, uh, through the chair to the council auditor. So this is the U2C division, right? The CTC, I keep getting that thing. They got so many programs that's pulling money from our budget. I don't remember. Um, so UT, you, you can call it the connection. Yeah. Can we just connection? That's way easier to remember. Yep. Um, so the connection, so that is the only division that's running a deficit. Now, is it running a deficit or are they transferring stuff over to make it just this one division instead of four divisions? And, uh, I need to correct you a little bit. Yeah, yeah, go ahead. Um, they're, they're the only division that is projecting a deficit. Projecting. Okay. Got it. Actual, um, for the six months, actual, they are six months, actual, they are, they are, um, uh, zero. They, they're operating, operating expenses equal their operating revenues. And so, um. And, and I guess my question is, are they, is it actually this division that's running itself you know, starting or gonna run a deficit at some point? Or is it, or is it them transferring stuff like that? It's, it's due to the, uh, as I mentioned before, it's due to the services line being under budgeted. Okay. Um, by about $12 million. Okay. Okay. And I, I guess, so, and then the ferry division, the ferry, it's his own thing? Okay. Yep. And the Skyway is its own? Yes. Okay. So the ferry, what's the, uh, can you re say that again? The, the, what is the expenditures on the ferry and what are the expenditures on the Skyway? Projected or actual? Projected. Projected. Um, projected for the ferry, um, they are projecting operating expenditures of $3.3 million against a budget of $3.4 million. And it is, you know, I haven't been as, around as long as some folks, but it is, you know, the bridge was originally, I mean, there wasn't a bridge there. That's where the ferry was originally there, put there for, but now there is a bridge. So do they, is it not, not, I know that's what I'm saying with the ferry, but there was not anything at all at one point, I would think. You're talking about the Dames Point? Yeah. You're talking about the Dames, I'm asking for, yeah, the ferry, yeah, the Mayport. Yeah, Mayport Ferry. Right, Mayport Ferry, right. It's been there a hundred years. Yeah. At least? At least. Yeah. I'm asking for a history lesson more than I am anything else. Well, through the chair, may I, may I, uh, ask about this as well? And that's, that was kind of my question. Is the ferry still there for nostalgic historical reasons? I know it was there when I was a little boy, but if you wanted to go to Mayport, it took over an hour going across the Matthews Bridge from, from the north side, and now you could jump across the Dames Point Bridge, providing there's not a wreck, hit the Wonderwood, and you're right there at Mayport. So is it still left open for the purpose of just, because it's unnostalgic? From a personal standpoint through the chair, I used to live at Mayport Village until last year, so I maybe was out there five years. People use it. Okay. Very, very early. And, and, and, and to, uh, Commissioner Barr, uh, the ferry is the only continuation of A1A. Okay. Um, so, uh, A1A stops there at Mayport and continues on across, on Hexner Drive. And that was the whole point of my question, by the way. That was exactly what I wanted to know, was I don't, I don't live over there. I live on the south side of Jacksonville. I'm just asking, not saying, you know, I want to take anything away, just asking, um, for clarity. Um, so that's great. I just didn't know where the Dames Point, if that made a difference or not. I don't live over there. So, so I was just wondering. And, uh, from what I understand and because I, I, I, I lived in, uh, I live south of here in Middleburg, so, um, but, um, but born and raised here in Jacksonville, um, the going down to the Dames Point actually adds, yes, you can get there quicker, uh, by taking the Dames Point, but coming down from Hexner Drive, it actually adds more miles to your trip. Okay. And dealing with traffic. Okay. Through that. I guess my general only thing was just making sure that it was something that was utilized. And so, so, yeah, I should. Um, so if I need to head over there. It's, uh, yes. Okay. Perfect. The, the, the state operated it for a while and then, uh, the city operated it and then Jacksport operated it and the city operated it and now it's back to, and now it's to JTA. Okay. No questions on that audit. We'll move forward then for the final. This is going to be the, uh, procurement audit on informal purchase of supplies. Bear with me while I get all my, make it look together. Um, yes, this is the, uh, report number 871A. This is the first follow-up on the procurement audit informal purchase of supplies. Uh, the, the original audit, uh, had, uh, 15 issues. Uh, this first follow-up cleared six of the 15. Uh, there are still nine issues remaining. Uh, the outstanding, uh, items that are remaining. We found, uh, a few internal procurement processes were not yet documented. Uh, procurement indicated they will address that in upcoming updates. Uh, we also found that there were some, uh, requisitions that could inadvertently bypass procurement. Uh, procurement has indicated that, uh, they changed the parameters for one of the scenarios and are researching the others to document how to best, uh, remedy that. Uh, we also found that there were still excessive, um, access rights. Uh, the areas are all working to, uh, they're all working to address those issues. Uh, we found that 18 of 22 procurement employees had a combination of access privileges that would allow them to, uh, uh, the ability to single-handedly complete a purchase. Uh, we found that 56 users had the ability to submit a requisition, utilize any city funding source. We found that 179 users could submit a requisition for non-departmental call centers, including call centers that are not necessarily related to their department. And we also found the system is still configured to apply workflows, flows for requisitions to flow based on user position and business unit without consideration of the funding source. Uh, this means that basically a requisition could be approved by someone in the requesters department instead of the department that controls the funding source. Uh, and, um, we also found, uh, where solicitations were worded in a way that only one vendor could respond. And, um, that's pretty much what we found. Okay. So, did you expand the audit to see on the operational side if any of those items was being done? I know on the administrative side you found errors, but on the operating side, was any of those items checked? Well, this, this wasn't, um, this was the follow-up to an audit. So, we were basically, we were only following up to the recommendations that were in the original audit. So, would you not expand or go back to see if anyone took advantage of those? If it, in which, like on any of those that you stated that they, I think you stated that someone, um. To, what, user access? Yes, user access. Did you go back and see if it had been done? That, as part of the follow-up, we went back, oh, to see if they actually did that. Yes. Um, I don't, I don't know if that was part of the testing on that or not. I know that we were, uh, the original audit, uh, there were, let's see, I don't know that we tested to see if that, if that had actually been done. One, uh, we did note that none of those issues, uh, had been addressed from the original audit. So, um. So, is that something that your division will go back and put in your procedures as a follow-up? We'll go back, um, I'll talk to the, I'll talk with the audit manager on that and let you know, but, um, as far as, um, I, I, I'll have to see what was tested on the original audit to see if they actually went in there and. Okay. Thank you. And, uh, on the original audit. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Carter. Thank you. That concludes my report. Thank you. All right. It's 515. We should, at this point, have been completed with the public service grant subcommittee discussion. Mr. Lewis is going to, uh, come back in August and present that information. Uh, so I am going to, uh, move on into my comments. I don't have formal comments. However, I will speak to the resolution that I have presented, and then that will be the next item to be taken up under new business. In fact, probably it's more appropriate that we go ahead and move directly into new business, and then I can address, uh, this item, uh, uh, this resolution under that item. So, uh, we'll move forward into new business. Is there any new business that members would like to bring to the commission? All right. I do. I have prepared a resolution this morning. I don't remember the exact time, 10, 30, 11, somewhere in there. I saw a Facebook post by Council Member Gaffney and, uh, explaining how there were multiple, I believe there were, I want to say, six parcels of city property, and maybe one of them was actually a school board property that were, uh, on a surplus list. And, um, that he was encouraging non-profits to apply to, uh, receive these, uh, properties. So, it prompted me to start thinking about, uh, uh, this, uh, affordable housing crisis that we have here in Jacksonville per the city. The mayor has spoken about it. So, um, the resolution reads as follows. Whereas, the city of Jacksonville has stated that there is a crisis in affordable housing within our city. Whereas, the city of Jacksonville recently disclosed there are surplus properties owned by the city. Whereas, there is a compelling public interest in utilizing the surplus properties to alleviate the crisis identified by the city of Jacksonville. Whereas, a viable solution is to utilize a partnership with the private sector and the public sector. Therefore, be it resolved, the taxation, revenue, and utilization of expenditures, true commission, proposes that the city of Jacksonville explore the following concept. Number one, all city, I'm sorry, all surplus city property be contributed to private developers who will create buildable lots for the construction of residential units to consist of both single family and multi-family structures. Two, upon the completion of construction, the Duval County Housing Finance Authority shall issue bonds to finance the origination of mortgages that will enable operators of multi-family properties and homeowners to purchase the completed structures. Three, this approach will increase the supply of housing units available for sale and rent. Four, the combination of no-cost land and low-cost financing will foster the creation of more affordable housing in the city of Jacksonville. Number five, this new construction activity will create new jobs for the residents of our city. Number six, the true commission encourages the Jacksonville City Council to enact legislation to implement this goal. So the purpose of this concept is to, whenever you're building housing, sometimes anywhere from 25 to 40 percent of the cost of a structure per unit is attributed to land, okay? So if you're looking at a percentage, one to 100, or zero to 100, and 40 percent, and we'll just maybe cut that back to a little bit more, let's say 25 percent. This is all very theoretical. So 25 percent of your total cost is land. So you eliminate that, and now you have reduced your housing cost by 25 percent. Well, you go through and you complete the structure, and let's say that the typical house would be affordable house or affordable housing unit, whether it's single family or apartment, multi-family apartment. Pick a number, somewhere around 1,500 square feet. So under current construction costs, that would be somewhere around probably $200 a square foot. So you're looking at about a $300,000 cost to build a unit, a dwelling unit. By reducing that by 25 percent, so now you've dropped that cost, that price point, from $300,000 down to, let's see, you've reduced it down to about $210,000, right? So $300,000 minus 25 percent, whatever that percentage is, so $300,000 times 0.75, yeah, $225,000, okay? Now, your unit price has dropped from $300,000 to $225,000. Then we let the private, we let the market set in. We've established the cost basis for the developer. The developer or the builder is going to make their profit in the construction of the structure, okay? They've built that price in the cost of the structure. There's no land component because the city is going to contribute that to this project. So now we have to finance the project. So now whether, let's say, item number one is an apartment complex, okay? And so then you have an apartment operator who will then go in and acquire that property. And let's just say, for sake of argument that you're talking about, let's make it a nice, simple 50-unit apartment complex. So we're going now about $11,250,000 cost for a 50-unit apartment project. The developer is going to have to put in equity probably of about 25 percent. So they're going to be getting a loan for $8,400,000 roughly. They're going to have to contribute $3 million in equity. So now the Duval County Housing Finance Authority issues bonds, in essence, their revenue bonds, that they issue at a municipal interest rate, which is typically around 60 percent of the market. If the market right now is about 6 percent for a 30-year fixed mortgage, do the math. So now this apartment operator has a 3.6 percent mortgage. The debt service on that mortgage is a lot less than the debt service on a 6 percent mortgage. The rents are now able to be lowered for two reasons. We don't have that 25 percent cost factor of the land, and we've just reduced our financing costs considerably. So those 50 units, instead of renting for $2,000 per month, can now be rented for $1,200 per month. If you have an average apartment configuration of a two-bedroom, two-bath, that means you have a person who can pay each – if you have two individuals, say two unrelated roommates, they're paying each $600 a month for that rent, as opposed to paying $800 to $1,000 per month for rent. You have broken the cost curve, and therefore you have lowered the price point on affordable rental housing. Now let's flip to the other product mix, the single-family residence. You can have nonprofits that will provide down payment assistance. And these mortgages that are underwritten by local lenders using the money supplied by the Duval County Housing Finance Authority, they're going to follow FHA lending guidelines, which means you have a higher ratio in order to finance the property. And typically these things are actually FHA-insured mortgages. This funding source comes from the Housing Finance Authority, which is going to be, again, about 3.5% because we're borrowing at municipal interest rates as opposed to market interest rates. So now that home, instead of costing $225,000 financed at 6%, is going to be financed at, we'll say, 3.5%. So $225,000 home, we'll say that there's a nominal, about a 5% down payment, which is about $11,000. So now your mortgage is $213,000, and if you're financing it on a 30-year loan at 3.6%, I think it's 211, that mortgage payment is $959 a month as opposed to a higher mortgage payment at market interest rates. Now you've not only increased the quantity of affordable housing, but now you've allowed somebody to own a property and to begin building generational wealth. And we're doing this without a dime of city money other than the city contributing the property, that the city has declared a surplus, no longer being needed for public purposes. We turn it back into the private sector for market transactions to occur to acquire the property and then to begin the development process. So we have increased the supply of affordable housing. We have created jobs in the construction of these structures. We have enabled rents to be reduced. The rental properties, we have allowed a lower price point for homeowners to buy a property and to begin building equity. So this is the framework of this resolution. So I am presenting this. I've explained it. I would like to open the floor for discussion and to see if we can take action and approve this and refer it to the city council for them to begin discussions of enacting this into legislation. Mr. Chair, I have a couple of questions. I think there's already a type of system in place where the city gives people. Just on this commission, I think it was last year, and I think Commissioner Pryor brought it up, there were some houses that were given to somebody, and they have X amount of years to fix them, and they didn't, so maybe the city took them back. So there's already, I believe, a mechanism for the city to give somebody properties or land. Again, we discussed this at Nausea sometime last year. That's one issue. Another issue is, if I understand this right, the housing department will do the financing and carry the mortgage, right? No. Housing Finance Authority issues the bonds. The proceeds from the bonds will then be funneled into local lenders who will then make the mortgage loans from that resource as opposed to using the typical mix of intermediary depository institution sources of funds, which typically comes from your depositors' balances. So there will be no zero involved with that? There will be no taxpayers' dollars? No tax dollars. That's the thing about this. And to refer back to your first point, if you remember, Commissioner Pryor revealed that those nonprofits, which had been given individual houses, this accumulation of property includes literally as much as an acre in one case that I saw, and another was 12 acres, another was 50 acres, you can build a lot of houses on 50 acres, especially if you're doing, you know, quadruplexes or sixplexes. And that's how you put a dent in the affordable housing crisis. Next point. My last one is, so nonprofits will also be able to get involved with this. Now, are these nonprofits nonprofits who don't take... That's for the city council to determine. All I'm coming up with is a broad outline. That was the proposal that nonprofits can also take advantage of this and escalate it, right? If you have a nonprofit developer, yeah, but most developers are not in it for free. I mean, they're going to make them. Because a lot of times if it's nonprofit, a lot of times, they also receive tax dollars. Right. And so you're back to taxpayers' part of this as well, not taxpayers, but most nonprofits, a lot of nonprofits, let me say that, take taxpayers' money. This is not designed for nonprofits. This is designed for a developer, a for-profit developer, to receive these properties, to then go in and start the development process to put in all of the horizontal improvements, the water lines, the sewer lines, the electrical utility lines, all of the necessary infrastructure to come up with platable lots, which would then be recorded. And now you have a piece of real estate that has gone from 50 acres down to individual lots that can then be put onto the market for private sale. It's not that the way that this would work is we're not out here handing out parcels of real estate to nonprofits. This is going to be put into the development process so that we can create housing. This is not for a nonprofit to take advantage of and then they go down the road and sell it and the organizers pocket the money. So my last point would be this is something that you had thought on, I guess, earlier today or yesterday, and we've just seen it. I wouldn't be willing. I don't think it should be voted on today. I think we need to take a month, think about it, do a little research because, I mean, look, there's a lot of issues here in this city with developers. Some people get mad with developers. Some people don't. I'm not saying I'm for or against them. Now we're talking about giving developers land without doing a little bit of – I know you've done some research, but the rest of us haven't. But I would be more comfortable if we voted on this at our – when's it going to be? August? At the August. That way we'll have time to look into how will this work out. You know, that's my opinion. I concur. I agree. So through the chair to the commission, I would like to break this down if I'm able. I'm a realtor here in Jacksonville, so I'm pretty decently familiar with real estate. And my family, it was in real estate. And so I've heard about this a lot. Anything with the government getting involved, whether we're the middleman or we're contributing, my ears perk up because I don't like that. Big on limited government, limited taxes, all the things. When you said I'm just going to ask questions, not poking anything. I'm just going to ask questions, get answers. That's all I'm asking for. Right here, number one, all surplus city property – I'm just confirming. All surplus city property be contributed to private developers. So that means we are just – we are giving them the land. Correct? Okay. There would be a process. These parcels that the developer would come in apply to the developer has zero dollars cost basis of the land. Now they begin the process of putting in all of the – it's called horizontal and site improvements to get it to the point where we can then go further. So that's absolutely right. Straight up. Okay. So when it says contributed, so you explained that. I think a lot of times I'm going to dig into this a little bit, and I'm going to dig into each one. And I think this might bring up other questions for the commissioners that may ask they might have. So a lot of times when they develop the section itself, whether that's pipelines, whatever it is, they often don't pay attention to, when we say infrastructure, the roadways. And I know we talked about, you know, that might fall into drainage for that specific area, but what about down the way? You know, sometimes we can have, okay, there's a huge development here. Yes, we did the plumbing, septic, all the things there. But what about down there in John's house and Smith and Amy's house? And so – I'll answer that question. Yeah. Yeah, go ahead. So order for a developer to be issued a building permit to develop the site, they have to comply with all of the current city codes related to subdivision development. So they would be in full compliance, whatever the code requires, the developer has to meet those requirements. Okay. So another big thing that I'm concerned about is the values. So the values at homes, not only surrounding said development, but the development itself. And I say that because we have seen that happen. I've seen this happen in District 11, where they built an affordable housing complex and then in turn behind a very, let's say, expensive neighborhood. And this is not me going after saying, hey, I'm trying to, you know, go for the rich. Like a lot of people like to say, that's not what I'm trying to do here. I'm simply just saying for other people's values that some of these developments may bring down the value. For instance, we don't know where the city land is. You may know where the land is. That's why I like the idea of this voting – I mean, not voting, but waiting to vote for it, because I would love to research this. But let's say one of those city parcels are, you know, right behind a major development that they just did. Let's say it's – throw it out there, Seven Pines. Let's say it's the Seven Pines development. And those houses are like $800,000 there. And then we throw a development behind it. Let's just – okay, let's not even say that. Let's say it's a $400,000 development. The houses are selling for $400,000, $375,000 right there. They have that. That's going on right now, Normandy. Normandy and Yellow Water. They have a development there. It's about $400,000 to $375,000 for a home. What if we throw a development behind it where we're selling them now for $215,000? And so now – okay, now that cuts into the builders. Okay, yes, equity. They're going to get equity. Now, what does that mean? You said it's in the front end, but now those values are going to drop the house values around it. And now you've got an entire mad district, you know. And so that's some of my concerns with it. As far as rent, we're throwing up an apartment complex over here on the south side, District 5, right there by San Marco. They have thrown up some affordable housing complex. They have the lofts at San Marco East, which rents houses. It's an affordable living complex, kind of similar to what you're talking about. They rent one bedroom for about $1,150, and then a two-bedroom is about $1,400. It's an affordable housing complex. And, you know, what if this complex is built next to another apartment complex that is, you know, really privately owned, and they have their rents a little higher? And, you know, yes, that may offset that. But what about that developer's, you know, the money they put into it in the beginning? And now you're talking about – now you're going to bring values down of that apartment complex. So now that – you know, it's just – it can be a trickle effect. You know, it may do more harm than it will do good. But having a surplus of houses will naturally bring down the cost of real estate. We know that. There's going to be a surplus. That's what I mean. This is delivering the demand. Yes. All this is designed to do is to apply the built-in cost structure. Developers sell the property at a reduced price because you don't have the embedded cost market transaction. Yeah. And so – and I get that. Like the, you know, the idea behind the – what did you say over here? The Duval Housing Finance Authority being the middleman where the city – they're just kind of just making the bonds and giving lower finance options. I kind of like that idea. I mean, I can see that being successful. It's when we get to the cost of the build itself, that's where – because to your point, you're going to know this because I think you're in real estate, correct? Yeah, in some form. I don't – Yeah. Developers. No, no. I'm in finance. Yes, yes. So, you know, with financing, you know, you have FHA and you have all these different lending options. You know, bringing the cost of interest rates down can also reduce your mortgage, obviously. With mortgage outbots. Yes, yes. And so – which I'm in favor of bringing mortgage interest rates down. I would be in favor of this bond issue – what we're talking about with the issuing of bonds. I'm not totally in favor with reducing the house costs because it's going to affect directly or indirectly the houses surrounding it. And with these city lots that I have seen that have been on the surplus list, they are in these neighborhoods that it would not be ideal to put a development like that in there. I will send a list of these sites that were on the Facebook post today, and you will see that all of these sites are in currently developed neighborhoods with similar houses. This is not going to go behind Seven Pines. This is not going to go behind my house in Nocatee. These are urban-oriented – essentially, it's an urban infill project where the demand for housing is – where the shortage of housing is the greatest. So the purpose of this is to fill the need in the community and solve a problem that the city has identified as a crisis. And I will provide all of this, and then we can bring this back in August, and you guys can decide to approve it and recommend it to the city council, or you can just say no, I'm not interested, and end of the subject. Well, one of the things I'd like to see is rather than saying all, because you're saying now the properties that are on this list are in areas that would be great, but perhaps going forward in the future, some of these properties are exactly where Mr. Bass is talking about. And so that would create – I understand what he's saying, because the other thing that would happen is that the residents in these neighborhoods would probably be taking things to the city council, let's put it that way. Well, that's why this has to come from city council. So I would rather see – rather than the resolution saying all, that we change that so it doesn't include each and every property that is surplus, since we do not have an idea as to what all of these properties will be at one point in time. Well, let's bring that – we can make that change in August when we bring up the resolution. I would like to know – I would like to know, you know, just for – you know, if you want to help us out with this, I would like to know with these properties you're talking about, you know, what that value – what the current average median home value is in that area and what we would propose would think – obviously, we're not going to have a set number. It's not going to be, you know, 285, 36. It's not going to be nothing like that, but a specific range of what a house would cost to be built there. Because, for instance, even if it's a neighborhood with houses sell for $250,000 and we're throwing out there a house we're going to sell for $195,000 or $190,000, you're still – that's still going to impact that – the home values in that area. And we've seen this with the morgue. With the morgue. They were freaking out about their home values. Perfect example. You know, and that stuff, you know, with the city, I'm just – my blood – I just get – I'm shaking right now because anything with the government involved, I'm, like, freaking out. I don't like that. You know, we want to keep them out. We want to limit the government. Charles is over there smiling because he knows that's what we're about. And we want to keep the government out of this if we can. But I completely understand. I do like the idea of what you're talking about with the Duval Finance Authority. And I would love to look into that further, which when we go and vote on it, we could have that discussion. And I can do some more research. I would like to do some more research on my own because you have. And so I would like to do some more research on my own and find out because that might be – you know, maybe we don't go just like anything with legislation. Maybe we don't go with this option specifically, but we may be able to find a consensus somewhere in there. Well, ultimately, this is going to come before the city council for them to – this is a policy decision. This is simply a concept that this commission can recommend to the city council for them to fully vet. Through the chair, I'd like to go on the opposite end of this. I have seen where we like to label affordable housing, but it ended up not being affordable housing. They turn around and they only do like 5% or lower as affordable housing, and then they sell the rest of the apartments at a higher price. So I don't like the labeling. Well, I mean, that's the whole point is because this is – I mean, we're going to put it in there. It needs to be affordable housing and not change the wording. And that's what – I mean, and again, the city council is going to put in the percentages of area median income. All of these are formulas that are well-defined in the – But at the end of the day, it doesn't do us any good. But if you're going to say affordable housing, then the turnaround only being 5% as affordable housing, then we're just wasting our time. No, no, that's the whole point. You take this parcel that the city has declared as surplus. Right. I guess like for the north side, they like to say they're building affordable housing. Then they turn around and say we're only going to do 5% or we're going to sell the rest at a higher price. That's why the city council has to write into the legislation that all of the units developed will be rented or sold to people of X area median income. That's for the city council to write. It sounds good. I understand your criticism, and that's one of the chief points of the failures in so-called workforce housing. Through the chair, may I make a motion or a recommendation that we table this for our next meeting? Well, we've already – yeah, we can have a motion to table and bring this back in all. Yes. So in the meantime, you have now two months to do your own research on this topic. Is that fair? Yes. All right. And a motion to table is non-debatable. Okay. So – all right. Yes. And recent city council approved 400 and some odd houses out on Yellow Water Road. Actually, they've got another parcel about a half a mile away that's got another 85. And Southwest CPAC, we oppose that legislation because, number one, this community is on non-contiguous lots. They're not all joined together. Some are as low as one acre with – talking about putting seven or eight houses. Others are 50 acres with 40-acre lots crammed into it. And all of that, 500 and some odd homes out there, finishing about the same time, is going to dump 570 residences, figure two vehicles per residence, onto Normandy Boulevard. Two lanes. Two lanes. And they have no inkling of an idea when that they may end up four-laning that. It's been, quote-unquote, spoken about for the last 15 or 20 years. And it still is nowhere closer. And our problem is it may be affordable, but there's enough – exactly, it's not practical. The infrastructure is not there. Yep. And they may have the infrastructure on that piece of the property to tie into whatever the city has, but get three miles down the road where it's got to go. Yep. And they – you say they're going to – they have to be under code. They'll build the code. What's wrong? The code won't be changed. Nope. And the traffic – the traffic right now is horrendous. So let me address – let me address your concerns, and then we'll move on because we're almost out of time for this component. These are infill locations. Infrastructure is there. City water, city sewer, city roads. We're not going out, you know, to – off of Chafee Road somewhere with raw dirt because it's not city land. These are city-owned properties that, for whatever purpose, the city has declared them surplus. I don't know why, but that's what the post said, and it got me thinking. I said, okay, well, let's put forward this proposal. So that's the whole purpose of that. We have two months. Each of you can do your own research and then come up with your input. And if we don't want to do it, just vote no. It's no big deal. All right? And we'll move on. Where would we – where would we go to – I've never looked it up. If we want to look up surplus property. I'm going to provide everything to Colleen. I will give you all the parcel numbers. You will have the printout from the property appraiser's website. You simply go to the property appraiser, the Duval County GIS map. You put in the address, and the parcel is going to pop up, and you see all the houses around it. I mean, it's not rocket science. And I just want to – through the chair to the commission. I just – sometimes I think with the city and with government just in general, we like to put temporary fixes on things. And this is one of those patches where once we give the land, it's gone. It's gone. And so that's what we do. And I mean, just perfect example, CC to the stadium deal. Yes, that's awesome. We just gave the Jaguars the land. Okay, that's great. This is just an example of what we're talking about. We gave them the land, but in 15 years, 20 years, that stadium is going to have to be redone again. And we have nothing left to offer. And so that's – but I'm just saying that's a stadium. Yes, and so that stadium, I'm just saying that's an example of what this could turn into is we're going to run into the block. We'll move on. Last item, commissioner comments. We have 10 minutes. Anyone like to make any comments? General. All right. Good enough. We will meet again on August the – August 6th. You are correct. Thursday, August 6th. Okay. So we are not meeting in July, and we will come back August the 6th. Any other comment? Adjourn. In person. Just give me – must be present to play. Yeah, it's important to be present. But I just don't trust the government. What about future lands? This is the 6th, but what about the future? This is the 6th, but what about the future?