We do have a quorum, and we have two excused absences. Is that correct? And those are? McHugh and Roundsville. All right. Thank you. All right. We're going to switch the order of activity a little bit to allow for a free flow of presentations. Mr. Nooney, would you please come up and give your public comments? I'm assuming you're going to make some, and you have three minutes, sir. We're going to start charging your transit time against your allotted speaker. All right. Please proceed. John J. Nooney. All right. Address is on file. You know, this is the true commission, taxation, revenue, utilization of expenditures. You know, what I want to just do is just share with you. You know, I just came from the Northeast Florida Regional Council. You know, it's seven counties. You know, the whole thing about, you know, even being here, I always keep thinking of Wendy Kahn and the CIP, you know, our capital improvement projects. You know, and I'm in, you know, we have six C-PACs. And I'll tell you, the public trust is just crushed. You know, I went to an ethics commission meeting. I said, you know, we have these six C-PACs. Why is OGC, the Office of General Counsel, not represented at any of those meetings? Mayor's Disability Counsel, same thing. You know, the Council on Elder Affairs, Senior Citizen, same thing. Why is OGC not there? So, anyway, what I want to share with you, and, you know, the big reason, too, is, you know, going through all this stuff. You know, here's find. You know, there's only three properties that are on a potential find land acquisition list. And they're in Carrico's district and Malero's, Canamaro's district and Boylan. And those are so powerful. You know, find, that's the East Coast of the state of Florida. Anyway, here's, like I said, here's the Northeast Florida Regional Council, seven counties. And, you know, here's, you know, the resilient Jacksonville, you know, the woke joke thing. And, you know, the biggest takeaway is public access. And so, anyway, where I really want to go with this and with the true commission is if Amendment 3 passes, these counties are scrambling for revenue. Our place, it's a gold mine. People will be making money from day one. I'm going to St. John's County. I'm going to Clay County. And very shortly, you know, I got the, you know, I'm wearing my boat ramp Billy shirt. And if any of you haven't seen it, he's in St. John's County five years. He's right. Go do a site inspection. You know, that's the other thing. You know, JEA, JTA, you know, the Port Authority, Reed Island. And I know he's getting ready to smack that gavel, but I'll tell you something. You know, our place, I want to be one of the biggest cheerleaders, but the only way that's going to happen is for public access on our waterways. Thank you. Okay, take any questions? Thank you. Okay. All right. Next up, we are going to hear from the City Council Auditor's Office. Mr. Carter is going to present report number 908, a quarterly summary for the nine months of the fiscal 2526 fiscal year ending June 30th. Mr. Carter. Yes, sir. Through the chair to the commission report, Council Auditor has released one report since the last true commission meeting. As previously mentioned, it's report 908, and that report was released on August 14th of 2026. Just some high-level highlights from this report. The city is showing an overall favorable budget variance of $29.1 million, which it was $30.4 million in quarter two. It's now $29.1 million as, you know, you start getting a better, a little bit clearer picture of where the city is, is the status of the city for the quarter. Revenues were favorable by $1.4 million. Expenditures were favorable under budget by $27.6 million. There were several, there were three funds that had negative cash that projected to have negative cash at year end. That's the special events fund, and that's due to carry, carry overs from prior years. Also, the motor vehicle inspection fund, those had less fund balance available as in, as was in prior years. And then the Office of General Counsel, their billings, they're working on getting their billings right. The billings were based on attorney positions. There are several vacant attorney positions. So the billing, it's an internal service billing to what, when, when services are performed for different departments that, for the attorney that's charged for internal service charges. So that billing, they're, they're working on getting that right. And it should be hopefully corrected. Hopefully, if not at, by year end, but beginning of next fiscal, fiscal year. For the independent agencies, JEA had a total favorable variance of $119.3 million. And that's mostly due to less being transferred to capital projects. JTA overall has an unfavorable budget variance of $31.8 million. And that is due to a $17.4 million revenue shortfall and a $14.4 million unfavorable variance in their expenditures. These projections, JTA will need to, based on these projections, JTA will need to do a budget amendment at year end. JPA is listing, is showing an overall favorable variance of $8.5 million, projecting that at year end. JAA is projecting a surplus of $64.4 million. That is partly due to $19.3 million in insurance proceeds from the garage fire. And also in $37 million in less transfers to capital outlay based on the timing of the capital needs. And then also due to an $8.4 million budget surplus. That's a high-level view of that. If you have any questions, anybody have any questions on that? Yes. Okay. Quick question. How are we, that we're nine months into the current fiscal year, and the JTA is running a negative variance on expenses of $14 million? That is mainly due, it's mainly due to a $8.4 million negative variance within the services category for CTC, which is a community transportation coordinator. It's basically the connection. And the contract for the service provider was not budgeted for the full year in 25-26. When the contract was executed, was it executed for a full 12 months? The contract's a multi-year contract. It's already fully executed. They did not budget fully the amount that was needed to pay for the full year of, for that contract, for fiscal year 25-26. They are, that was, that's the main part of that. Did the JTA staff explain why they did not budget for that contract? They stated that, and this was over a year ago, of course, we asked them, they stated that there was going to, they were working on getting savings for the contract, and that, but those savings did not materialize. But that doesn't relieve them of the responsibility to put into their budget the expenses that are outlined in a legal document, correct? Correct. And so they have no answer other than they thought they would realize savings? They would realize savings, and just point blank, it was the only way they could balance their budget. It has to have a balanced budget. And then the shortfall on the revenue, was that a federal grant shortfall? No, that is mainly due to the half-cent sales tax and the constitutional gas tax. That's about $10.5 million of the $17 million. So that revenue has fallen short of expectations. That's correct. Also, well, I'll just add $8.4 million, and then there's $7.4 million in related fringe benefits that was not budgeted correctly as well. That added to the $14.4 million. Is the CFO of the JTA still employed by the JTA? The CFO? The JTA. They have – the previous CFO under the 25-26 budget resigned, retired. They had an interim. Now they have a CFO that was hired in July of this year, or last month, or two months ago. And he is actually – Randall Barnes, he is the former treasurer officer here at the city, and he also worked at JEA. He left JEA to go work somewhere in Georgia. I'm not sure where. Anyway, he has been hired back, or they hired him to – so he's just trying to get his feet on the ground right now and up to speed. But so he is relatively new to the JTA position. I'll put it that way. But he's a seasoned financial professional when it comes to city finances and authorities, independent authorities. Yes, sir. All right. Then my last question relates to the JEA. So that favorable variance that they're showing – and I forget the reason why it's a favorable variance – but does that take into account the expected contributions that the JEA will make to the city general fund? Do they budget for that each quarter, or do they simply wait until the end of the year, and then based on their surplus, then they transfer over to the city? Are they under a contractual obligation to make that transfer? It's in the ordinance for that, and it's based on kilowatt sales from a certain period of time. It's not necessarily based on surplus or anything like that. It is based just on kilowatt sales. And as far as I know, it's just kilowatt sales. I don't think it's water, but anyway, it's basically kilowatt sales. Okay. Any other questions? Yes. The gas tax that JTA is benefiting from, when is the – what was that date? We brought it up a couple commission meetings ago when that runs out. Like when the change is going to be for the city is going to get more of it than they're currently getting? They're getting five of six cents now, and then I believe it's 2036 is when it will be split three of the six cents. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Ms. Oglespeed, do you have any questions? That concludes my report. Thank you, sir. I don't have any comments, so we will move on over to – I'm sorry. We actually need to move next to the committee report, public service grant subcommittee update from Mr. Lures. So in terms of additional work, there is no real update. I've spoken with a few people, a few council members and someone from the mayor's office in very informal situations about the idea of a study to look at public service grant payments to organizations that employ council members over a set period of time, and then take a random sample of payments from organizations that don't employ council members over that time and try to see if there is some difference in insufficient or no support payments and see if that's between organizations that employ council members and those that don't. The people that I have talked with have seemed very receptive to the idea, but obviously the issue being, is this a priority or, you know, being able to gain traction? So if anyone has any ideas about ways that I can gain traction or people I can talk to regarding this idea, that would be wonderful. It would be – the study, I had offered my own expertise. For those of you who don't know, I teach at UNF. I teach political science research methods, so statistical analysis is well within my wheelhouse. This would be kind of a negligible task for me. So I offered that and also the ability to write a report. But if anyone has any ideas on how maybe for this to gain traction or anybody to talk to, I'm all ears that that would be something that I could open the floor to the rest of the commission. Is this a report you had volunteered to write on your own? Yes, as a private citizen. Without compensation from the city? Without compensation from the city and without formally representing the true commission or the PSG subcommission, correct? All right. Okay, we'll come back to that. Of course. Any other items you want to bring as an update? No. I failed to ask for corrections to the minutes, and I believe we do have two. I found one under the presentation, finance department. The second sentence – I mean, the second sentence beginning with Mr. – it should be Tyson, T-Y-S-O-N. T-Y-O-N. And then, Mr. Moores, you have an addition you'd like to make. Correct, yes. The part where I asked Ms. Brochet about using regression-based methods to forecast revenues and expedentures over a certain period of time, or future expedentures of revenues, and comparing that to movement averages in terms of their performance of predicting those revenues. Colleen, is that something he can send you an email with the requested text, and you can just update the minutes for next time? Yeah. Whatever is easiest. Of course. Okay. All right. Excuse me for correction. Here, it has me listed as absent, and I have an excuse absent. I sent in an email like two, three weeks prior to the meeting. I'll correct that as well. Thank you. Thanks for that note. All right. Okay. Regarding the report that you would like to write, your committee, your subcommittee, was given the task of looking into the public service grants. Your committee of one, would you like to write such a report and present it to the commission for our consideration and potential adoption, and then refer that to the city council? Of course. I just didn't want to. I didn't want to make the assumption that I could represent the commission in this matter without obviously bringing it before and having a vote or something as a matter of fact. So I would think if you want to write a draft, present it, we can discuss it, make any modifications that we think might be called for, and then we can take a vote and either adopt it or decline it. I can draft a research design for the idea and, you know, present it to the commission, and then we can discuss it. If there are any issues or anything that people have with my design, they can bring it up, and we can vote and then recommend it to the city council. So when you made your verbal report last month, you gave examples. I believe there were three or four examples under the organization, the Jacoby's organization. Clara White Mission. Clara White. Okay. So you had examples where that organization had not been in compliance with the terms of the grant. With the payments that were tested, yes. They were, every payment, every cent that was given to the Clara White Mission in that data set was either insufficiently or not supported at all. Just kind of trying to be careful with my word in there. So expect to include that information? I think that would be a good case study for showing the importance of this, of such a study, because, I mean, it's a council member-run organization. I mean, that is deeply concerning. So I think that would be, yes, I would be willing to include that. It's not like we're going to issue a press release. Ben Becker found. This was the test. These are the results of the sampling. What I'm doing is proposing a study, so not based on the data that I had previously, because the data that I had previously only had, like, two organizations that employed council members. So for me to be able to, I couldn't draw any reasonable inferences from that. I could do descriptive statistics and all that. But this would be to propose a study in the future that could be conducted. Okay. I'm going to answer that. Of course. Questions or clarifications? Now that we've gotten that done and we've corrected the minutes, we do have an item. We don't have any previous business, but we do have an item that was presented last month. And, Mr. Smith, you were not here because we have flipped the schedule because of Mr. Tyson needing to leave. Had you intended to offer public comments? Would you like to do that at this point? You have three minutes, and I assume you're going to talk on Amendment 3. All right. I couldn't. But first and foremost, thank you for allowing me to speak, Commission. I am Ernest Smith, Chair of the Urban Corps CPAC. And to Mr. Lerr's swoop, Class of 2013, so I'm glad to hear that. My first two comments was on the Urban Corps CPAC's appointment to the True Commission. I know I stated last time I was here that we would hope to have them on by September. However, unfortunately, that person did not make it to the last CPAC, and they're going to be there this time. So what we're going to do is go through that process, get them voted on, and then get their information over to legislative services. That way they can go through the Rules Committee and go ahead and make sure that they're on, hopefully, before the end of the year, hopefully by October. With that, I also want to speak on, like Chairman Day stated, Amendment 3. Mr. Tyson, I don't think you were here last time. However, I did make a comment on the significant impact that Amendment 3 will have if it is passed. So I tasked this commission to make sure that if it is passed, and it may not pass, but if it is passed, to possibly convene a subcommittee to make sure that you supplement city council or the finance committee on their decision-making on how to best allocate funds. And given that, you know, you are an apolitical organization, I want to make sure that, of course, your voice is heard, meaning our voice is heard, meaning the CPACs. So with that, I just want to make sure that that's on the back of your mind, making sure that that subcommittee is convened. But other than that, I mean, I want to thank you for allowing me to speak, and I'll be seeing you soon. Yes. A couple of questions. So I know that all the six CPAC chairs come together periodically and meet, and I am aware that y'all had a recent meeting, and wasn't this Amendment 3 discussed at that meeting? The Amendment 3, it was discussed. However, you know, we didn't go too much into detail, given that, you know, it's still pending. But, again, you know, it's something that's going to really impact the city's budget. But, again, if it does pass, and, again, we want to make sure, at least from our urban core CPAC, that we have somebody on the true commission who's able to serve, who's able to give their input, you know, for the urban core. That way, you know, of course, the finance committee and, of course, city council can move forward in the best possible fashion. Given that, you know, the city is anticipating a $200 million to $300 million budget deficit, I'm sorry. And, you know, that could have far-ranging impacts on the city. So, again, with this body being apolitical, I want to make sure that this body's voice is heard to city council. That way they can take into account, you know, what the citizens of Jacksonville would like to see budgeted, cut, what have you. Let me just comment as well. You know, I'm the chairman of the North CPAC, Ms. Oglesby. She's also representing CPAC here. I'm being represented by the council president, not the CPAC, but it's good that we have a council president who has agreed to finally listen to CPAC. I want that for the record that, you know, he made that announcement the night he was installed, and he's made that announcement at other meetings I've been at. And so it's good that Councilman Howland is willing to listen to it because I'm sure you guys are like us and other CPACs that we think sometimes it falls on deaf ears. So I'm hoping now that they're going to be listening to the CPACs as well. And just to add on to that, Mr. Barr, Council President Howland, he made sure that the CPACs came to the finance committee and submitted their CIPs. And I believe I was the only one on August 4th that was able to submit. However, all of my submissions were read during the budget hearings. And as a matter of fact, all of my proposals were sent to the directors of parks and the directors of public works. And with that being said, to your point, Mr. Barr, I do believe that City Council is hearing the CPACs, and they want to continue to hear us, which is a great thing because we have some work to do in the urban core, especially in Springfield, especially over near Shands, O'Shands, UF Health. So with that being said, I'm glad that he was able to allow us to speak, allow us to get our concerns out there, and hopefully there will be much more of that going forward. Yeah, absolutely. I spoke, I don't know, a week or two ago at one of them, me and I think it was maybe Southwest, a couple of us spoke that day. I know they were going through all of them. So that is good that they're listening. Any other questions or comments? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to our next item on the agenda, which is Commissioner Comments. And so we will begin. Mr. Tyson, since Mr. Lewis has stepped out. Ms. Oglespeak. Mr. Youngblood. I do have more questions and answers or comments. Upon finding efficiencies, savings, budget changes, we make a recommendation to council. How has that council received those recommendations in the past? And why wouldn't we go directly to general council and then back around to Doge? It seems like we have some competing boards within the city and some overlap. How is that handled on the True Commission? The True Commission submits a recommendation to legislative services. They, in turn, draft communication to the city council president. And it's up to the city council president to do whatever they want. And I imagine there's probably a box somewhere up on the fourth floor full of reports issued by this commission that have never seen the light of day. That's my honest opinion. So we can, what I would recommend is that once we issue a report, that we speak at city council during public comments about that report. So at least the other council members are aware of it. I don't know that they're ever aware of anything this commission does. So that's what I've seen in recent history and past, those who've served. But now we're at a state and time in our government that we do have a Doge department and inspector general that would be accountable for the very same oversight that we are. So we have a duplication of essentially boards and offices. How do we bring that together so that we do have a voice, we do have a backbone, we do have teeth, and we find savings and efficiencies that we can bring it to the attention of council. We can do, we can bring those recommendations to the attention of city council at any point. You could, if you would like, you can go speak. Is there, is that Doge committee even meeting any longer? Was it dissolved? So through the chair to the group, when council president Howland took, took office or took leadership, he, he didn't dissolve it. He merged it together with the JEA special investigatory committee to, to be a select committee that's just looking at a couple of things. It's not, and then after that they're done. So after September 30th, I think they're finished. So there is no more Doge. Theoretically, we would be acting as an impartial objective body to look at potential efficiencies and savings. And I spoke last Tuesday night to the city council about what I had discovered in the office of the mayor in terms of her staff salaries. And I learned as a result, by talking to the council auditor, Mr. Peterson, that the mayor's budget was cut last year by about $425,000 or $360,000. I forget the exact number. And the mayor simply used the budgetary authority to transfer back in to fund her staff. That's how that shortfall was made up. So I have thoughts on some suggested reforms, which we can get to at some point. But the bottom line is that when it comes to the mayor's office, the city council does not control the purse strings. And that any department can transfer up to a set amount of money within their department. And then I believe we would go into an interdepartmental transfer. Tommy, is that correct? If one department is short from what had been appropriated, that they can go into other departments maybe that have surplus and transfer into a department? Am I correct in that understanding? I'm not sure on that. I would think it would go before the NBRC. Colleen, I don't know if you have any additional. The mayor has transfer authority of up to $500,000. $500,000. Within any department? Yes. From any department into another department? If she's an executive. And then once it's put into a department, does that director have transfer authority to allocate it within the divisions? We'll dig into that later because that's exactly my line of reasoning. Mr. Chairman, that's back to my original question then. How is it that we should not have to go before council and speak on behalf of the public when we're appointed by council to be their eyes and ears? We're not appointed unless you're appointed by the city council president, but you are confirmed by the council. That's correct. I was appointed by the Southeast CPAC, but I was confirmed by the city council. Mr. Lures was appointed by the mayor, but he was confirmed by the full city council. As I have read the ordinance, there's nothing that requires us to present to the city council. We have, on multiple occasions, since I've been the chair, we have done that. In fact, I think we did it last year about this time, and I was not the chair, and we did it having to, we recommended support of the one-eighth mil reduction. We did that one meeting, and then the next meeting we spoke separately on how to make up that shortfall. Now, the city council didn't take our advice, and it was not a formal report. It was simply prepared remarks. We did write a resolution. We presented that resolution to the city council, and as far as I know, that's where it ended. So would it be better for us to find the proverbial low-hanging fruit and put a recommendation together right now why it's fluid and dig through it as quickly as possible, but would we have the ear of the OGC for legal questions for contract issues and the inspector general for any that would be efficiencies or savings that are found so that we formulate a statement immediately upon budget presentation? I don't think there's anything to limit our recommendations to the council if it involves a contractual matter that the office of general counsel would need to be consulted, then that is going to be the call of the city council president. And we don't have access to the OGC. The OGC works according to the charter. It works for the city of Jacksonville, and at one time it worked for the school board, and I think over time consolidation has gotten diluted by allowing the authorities to have their own legal counsel. But at one time the theory of consolidation, when it was passed in 1968, was that we were going to have tremendous economies of scale because of what was at the time it was called central services. And then under that philosophy there was one department that did all purchasing for the entire city, including independent authorities, including the school board. That was in 1968. Over time, that sort of fell apart because there were state statutes that were passed, and then there were interpretations made under different governors so that the governors could assert their patronage and appoint people to the school board that was contrary to the way the charter was written and adopted in 1968. It's just been a gradual dilution. And, you know, so, but yeah, what I would recommend is if you have something you would like to present, do you have it in a format that you could present it in a resolution? Or would you be able to verbalize it subject to a resolution that we could present to the city council next Tuesday night or at the next council meeting following? Because I have something that I intend to put into a resolution and present next Tuesday night, but we're not there yet. Well, I don't know that government and Sunshine would prevent us from communicating directly with council as we see savings or efficiencies, correct? Nope. We're allowed to. Okay, so there doesn't need to be. We just can't communicate with each other. Right, right, right. So. Except on anything to come before the commission. So wouldn't it be better than for us to collectively discuss those findings and then independently discuss them with the individuals who have appointed us and presented it to them? Just to move smoothly through it, I mean, $2 billion, it's a heavy lift. We're doing this voluntarily. I want to use my time wisely. I'm thankful to serve in the community, but I'm not so foolish to think that we shouldn't have the ability to communicate directly versus in some formal recommendation before council. You have the freedom. Just to move smoothly. You have the freedom to communicate as an individual member of this commission with any member of the city council. It does not carry the same force as though we take an action and pass a resolution from the commission to be presented to the council. So that's how the commission speaks. But in your own admission, that hasn't worked. I'm sorry? But in your own admission, that hasn't worked. Only because the city council doesn't want to listen to us. I do want to say something. Sure. If I can. Through the chair, through the commission. Recommendations. Now, I know that Chairman Day has done and went and followed up with individual council members on various occasions for different things. And I believe that is, and you spoke right to it. So when, I'll just give you an example. When I was looking into the landscaping and mowing division and problems we were having, I went and met with the director of mowing and landscape. I didn't go to the commission and do a recommendation. I'm not saying we should. We should totally do that. If we come to an organizational point, and this is something we want to work on, we also, side note, we need to make tier, we need to make some kind of tier system on this commission, tier one, tier two, tier three, tier four. What is most important for this commission? Because right now, I feel like sometimes we spread out over, whether we want to or not, political matters, when we should focus on the things we're supposed to focus on. And I love that Chairman Day points out exactly what we're supposed to do when he started and what our role was. But we need to focus on that, identify a handful of things that we want to go after as the commission collectively. And then, as we all have lives, as time goes on, and people, if somebody says, Commissioner Lewer says, I have some time on Wednesday to go meet with Councilman So-and-So, or Chairman Barr says, I have some time on Thursday to go meet with So-and-So. We collectively need to work on this as a team, because we are a team. And that's the way we're going to be able to get things done. But back to my point with the mowing and landscape division. I went and met with the mowing and landscape director, and then that got up to the public works director, and she wanted to meet with me, so I went and met with her. And then got up with the director of intergovernmental affairs in the mayor's office. We made this whole point. We come to find out that nearly $600,000, and I have this report, nearly $600,000 just off of a little thing on Beach Boulevard where we are cutting grass for FDOT, and they weren't reimbursing us, nearly $600,000. And I had found just by having a couple of meetings about it. And when I went to meet with the public works director, there was a talk about it. I said, hey, why don't we, you know, this $600,000 is missing. What can we do with FDOT? And then she gave me some contacts. We were able to follow up on that. But it is a process. It is not a one-time go to a city council meeting and get it done. It's something that we're going to have to work as a team. And I promise you, as history has shown in this commission, we will not get it done unless we work as a team on individual tier one issues and not getting off on all these little side streets. So, anyways, that's what I got to say. Yeah, through the chair, back to the commission, I agree completely. And essentially, I think that's a harder-hitting approach to if we could find a way to notice the meeting, gather, go to the department, specifically ask those questions, gather the information, bring it back to the whole, and dive in deep and quickly. At low-hanging fruit, if we see efficiencies, if we continue to discuss Amendment 3 with a $250 million to $350 million shortfall, that's going to be a lot of work for a lot of people to overcome that. Like, you didn't have to notice your meeting because it was this individual meeting? No, sir. Yeah. So there's nothing to prevent you from meeting with anyone? So if we meet with an internal board or internal organization within the city, there doesn't have to be a notice of meeting. Because we could be communicating on a true commission matter before then. That you can only speak as an individual member of the commission. Mr. Chair, through the chair, when it comes to Sunshine Law, when it's a meeting between two members of a body that are going to vote on a matter and you discuss that, that has to be publicly noticed. So, like, between me and you, we would have to notice a meeting pertaining to a matter. But meeting random, I don't want to say random, meeting people within the city and different departments, you can do that at your own will. But with multiple committee members? No. Then it must be a notice meeting. That's my point. That's my point. Welcome to Sunshine. No, that's fine. And I'm okay with that. Just, you know, let's know the rules so we can play by the rules. Yeah. And moving forward, I think it would be, as you said, Commissioner Bastin, dealing with multiple of us going specifically to departments to determine questions. Yeah. And answers that we can bring back to the whole. So, there would have to be noticed meetings. So, to do that, do we get with Colleen and notice that meeting? Or to you, Mr. Chairman? There could be multiple. Look, I carve out two hours a month out of my schedule for this on the first Thursday of every month. Can I carve out additional time? Yes. With enough advance notice. You're trying to manage 10 schedules. You know the geometric complications of that. So, we try to do – we're all free to go as free agents and discuss with city departments and then bring that back here. And hopefully, you can provide enough detail that we're reasonably intelligent people. We can take an action on it. In Blake's case, I mean, it didn't take any committee action. I mean, they found this $600,000 that the state of Florida just – I think that would happen more often than we would – I agree. I agree. I agree because, you know – and we'll talk about it in the spending committee. But, you know, I mean, I'm looking at just salaries. And so, anyway. And through the chair of the commission, one of the things that I found when I was – found the $600,000 was I just found $600,000. Like, this was one thing. One thing. One thing I found out of tons of instances. And the thing is, it's also about our approach. And I think we should talk about that. Like, how do we approach these situations? Like, I didn't go in there guns blazing saying, you know, you destroyed this department all these things. I said, no, hey, man, what's going on? What's going on? I said, can you pull this ditch up? I remember I told him he had this big touchscreen TV. I said, hey, can you pull this ditch up that hasn't been cut in a long time? Can you pull that up for me? And he pulled it up, and we did the math, and da-da-da, and we were figuring out everything. And we found out who the contractor was. And, well, hey, the contractor hadn't been here in a year. A year. And, oh, well, we need to follow up on that. Remember when I first got on this commission in October, we had – I had brought it up. It was an old – something they reviewed in previous years, the commission did, on landscaping and mowing. It had something to do with that. And I went and studied that report, and it was the findings about they missed – contractors weren't completing the work in the time. They said they did. And then he told me about this whole new system that they implemented. They just implemented the Mowing and Landscape Division to be able to keep track of it and how they're trying to catch up on it and how a lot of it is done by contractors. And I can't remember. I don't want to say the wrong thing. And I think he said something like they had – we have 10 or 12 crews as a city of Jacksonville that actually handle mowing and landscaping, and everything else is subcontracted. And so, you know, and I was talking to the public works director, and I was like, hey, you know, couldn't we do this for probably cheaper if we did it ourself? And he was – she was like, yeah, we'd do it for a third of the price that we're paying these contractors. And then I was like, well, there's also, you know, we want to support small businesses. And so there's – it's a balance. It's a balance. It's a balance. And so, you know, I live in reality, and I understand that. But those little things like that we can identify. And I agree with what you're saying. You know, we can't coordinate every single person's schedule, but we could identify certain things and certain points we want to do because me and you come to this meeting every month and see that JTA has fallen off the handrails. Leave that to council. Let's go find the $600,000 in the mowing and landscape, you know, and so – Every quarter. Every quarter. Every quarter since I came on this commission in June of 2020, JTA has been the poster child for complete incompetence. And I say the same thing in other meetings where I attend, and, you know, they don't like to hear me say it, but I say it's a very accomplished organization running a very mediocre bus system, and that's about all they can do. So, long story short, let's bring this back to the point of the constitutional amendment, Amendment 3. Let's see if it passes. We're 60 days out. And if it passes, then, you know, it's going to be a fire drill upstairs between the mayor and the city council. They'll be pulling their house and panicking. So, what I would recommend is we have 60 days to think about it. You can get the budget online. It's a very, very big document. I don't print it out, but I have it open on my desktop at my office, and I look through it periodically. So, you know, we can do that over the next 60 days, and just keep in your mind that if this thing passes, the city budget will go from about $2,023,000,000 to about $1,750,000,000. That's the magnitude of the reduced spending. Conversely, they could keep the budget at $2,023,000,000, and simply raise the millage rate and make up for the difference. I don't think the constitutional amendment prohibits the city council or any government agency to use its taxation power to raise revenue. Would it be politically unpopular? Oh, yeah. That's why it's unlikely that it would happen, especially as we're coming up to city elections next year. You speak to the issue because the charter does allow for the increase in revenue. And look, I read the state constitution today as it relates to taxation. And we're unique because we have the 10 mil taxing power of a county, and we have the 10 mil taxing power of a city. Our millage rate is 11.19 mils, I think. We're operating at about, what is that, about 55% of maximum revenue authority. And I have always argued this, that I believe we are saving somewhere between 4 and 5 mils a year because of the economies of scale provided by consolidation. If you were to take somebody who lives in Tampa, look at what they pay a millage rate, plus what they pay a millage rate for Holesboro County, I need to sit down and just do it. I think I did it a number of years ago, and I think it was a 5 mil difference. They're probably somewhere in the 16 mil range, and we're at 11.19. So, anyway, but let's think about it. You know, it's not, you know, and I haven't read the text, and somebody said that public safety is off limits. I don't know if that's what the amendment says. And so that would mean that JFRD and JSO could not be cut. Okay. Well, that's half of your budget. Those are charter responsibilities. That's the whole purpose of government, is to keep the people safe. So, now you've got to take that $250 million reduction out of a billion dollars, which is not ad valorem taxes. Well, through the chair to the commission, those that have been serving for many years, where are the efficiencies? I'm the new guy. I have a lot of opinions, but not the detailed dive that you guys have done over the years. Where's the low-hanging fruit, where's the wasteful, egregious spending that everyone speaks of, or is it death of 1,000 cuts, which is death nonetheless? I think it's a combination of all those things. Sometimes it just bewilders me, but it's very frustrating, especially for those of us that come out of the private sector, you know. It's just a whole different world. It's just, you know. I mean, I would say, through the chair, regarding the Amendment 3 subcommission, I do think that there is some work that we can do now, and things that we can use, resources that we can give, research we can give counsel. I mean, we can do scenarios. We can run scenarios on it. We can talk about the different sources of revenue that we could raise in the place of the property tax, which, I mean, spoiler alert, it's just sales and excise taxes that predominantly fall on poor and working-class communities relative to the property tax. So we could discuss things like that. We could discuss, we could run, I mean, hypothetically, I'm sure we could run some sort of scenario where we, you know, maybe we, you know, role-play as the council and just, like, say, like, this is what I want to cut, this is what I want to cut, and we argue just like they do on council and, you know, try to get to the best outcome. I mean, that's certainly something that we could do now. I also don't, I mean, are we waiting until, for the next 60 days, to make this subcommission? Is that something that we're considering doing, or are we making it right now? We can name the subcommittee today to start working on this. So, here you go. For the budget, the proposed budget, net ad valorem taxes. So, we have ad valorem taxes, and we net out the distribution to the tax increment districts. So, the gross number is $1,291,000,000. The net number is $1,248,000,000. That is where the revenue will be cut. Now, it's, theoretically, if it's $250,000,000, well, then that $1.2 is going to become $1,000,000,000, okay? So, there's nothing that says, dollar for dollar, that you have to cut public safety, because it's simply funded from that. That's just how the numbers add up. So, I think what would happen, politically, is this $1.2 billion number becomes $1 billion, and the sheriff, and this is spread over $59 million for fire and rescue, and then you have, and these are revenues. Okay, hold on, expenses, corrections, $185,000,000, 7.7 for the office of the sheriff, fire and rescue, $400,000,000, investigations, homeland security, $100,000,000, control and enforcement, $252,000,000, personnel and professional standards, $44,000,000, police services, $82,000,000. You add all those up, and you're probably pushing $1 billion, right, just from two functions of city government. Well, those are what city government exists to do, in my opinion. Everything else is an afterthought. Traditionally, we do public safety. Municipal governments have been organized to have libraries and to have parks. If you got through, if we had a $250 million reduction in revenue, my guess is you would just have those four functions. You would have the sheriff's office, you would have fire and rescue, you would have the libraries, and you'd have the parks. There wouldn't be anything else done. Doesn't really sound like a nice place to live, to be honest with you. Anyway. I mean, but something to take into account with public safety. So, having said all this, who would like to serve on the subcommittee for Amendment 3? And I will create that subcommittee today, and I'm taking volunteers to join that subcommittee. It was your idea. Time allocation. It is. It was your idea, so you have to be the chair. No, I didn't. So, you brought up a lot of issues that are charter obligations, charter responsibilities. I think there's a tremendous amount that has been added to the charter through different areas of legislation, whether it be art in public places or public service grants or children's commission or, I mean, it's a list, right? Mitch Attala called that budget creep. I'm sorry, mission creep. Mission creep. That makes sense perfectly. So, and I also know that our city is the largest city in the United States, landmass-wise, and we have the largest park system. And when I discussed this 10 years ago with Mayor Payton at that time, he said that, you know, Jeff wants to sell the city parks. Well, if it doesn't have a park bench on it, and if it doesn't have a fence around it, and it's just an overgrown grass lot that we call a city park that we can't even afford to maintain, then sell it, put it back on the tax roll, and allow private visits to do what it does best. I'm not offering to buy it. I'm just saying it's a huge efficiencies and savings. Real quick, if you would pause, Mr. Tyson has to leave a hard stop at 5. Do you have any comments you'd like to make before we move on? Your career was with the risk department in the city, correct? And that was under the Department of Finance. So you sort of looked at the risk profile of the city, insurance, all that stuff. Any further comments? And I want to respect your need to depart early. We do have the right to communicate directly as long as we communicate to you, and then you can simply relay our question to the body, correct? Yes, yes. I can answer you individually. I can send things one-way communication to the group. You just can't reply. Like, I could ask you a question. Hey, can you ask Blake this question? And then you would send Blake a communication. He would respond to you. Then you would respond to me saying, Blake says this. If the question were about logistics or meeting time, that kind of a thing? But not content. Then yes. No, not content. Oh, so we can't even discuss anything with content unless we're here assembled. I don't know that I want to bifurcate the whole to have a subcommittee meeting just to notice another meeting, unless you increase the frequency of this meeting. No, that's why we would have the subcommittee meeting that would meet from 4 to 4.30. We have a two-hour block. And that would only be the purpose of a deeper dive? What would be the purpose of the subcommittee meeting? To look at the potential solutions to the impact of the adoption of Amendment 3. And why not do that as a whole? We can. I have no problem with that. I'd rather do it as a whole. We already have a difficult time, I see, having a quorum. So I can't imagine bifurcating this and not having a quorum. So I will request a motion to create the subcommittee on the impacts of Amendment 3 to be a subcommittee, I'm sorry, to be a committee of the commission to function for the commission to function in its role as committee of the whole with the purpose to analyze the impacts of the adoption of Amendment 3. Is that convoluted enough? If I could, you did not want to do it as a whole. Or you still want to create a subcommittee? It needs to be a subcommittee. And why? Well, it needs to be a committee of the commission. But we will adjourn the commission into a committee of the whole for the purpose of this subject. It's like when we were doing the stadium. Tommy adjourned. He called the city council meeting to consider the stadium and Lot J, I think it was. They were both. And the whole city council met on that topic. But they were meeting as a special committee, a committee of the whole of the council, if I remember correctly. Now, I understand the concept. I just don't see the need. It's just procedural. I'll just, I'll make the motion and we can vote on it. I move to create the Amendment 3 subcommittee in the form, subcommittee, or committee in the form of a committee of the whole. Hold on. Through the chair. Did the chair withdraw his motion? I didn't make the motion. I was simply saying. Okay, I thought I heard you say you make a motion. I said I will entertain a motion to create a committee to look at Amendment 3 to be a committee of the whole of the commission. Mr. Lewers has made the motion. We now need a second. Make the motion again. I move to create the Amendment 3 subcommittee as a, or committee as a form of, in the form of a committee of the whole. I don't have a problem. I'll second it. Any discussion? The purpose would be only to dive into the details and the weeds of the Amendment 3 of a $250 million shortfall of Amendment 3. And as the chair, I will pledge to you that for the duration of the October meeting, because we only have one month, we can, you know, do our own private analysis, but we would come back in October and meet the commission. The purpose of that meeting would be to meet as the special committee meeting as a committee of the whole of the commission to discuss our individual. Findings, we can then discuss it, and then we can make a recommendation, and we're done. Because if we wait until, when's our November meeting? November the 8th? November the 5th. Now, we could meet on November the 5th as well, because I'm sure the world will come to an end if this thing passes, or so everybody's going to think it will. And then maybe we could actually present a rational document and adopt it on the 5th. So we have October, we have the next 30 days to do our individual research. We will come back in October and discuss it. We can do some fine-tuning, individual analysis during the interim, and we will come back November 5th and adopt or kill the recommendations of the committee. So we have a motion, we have a second, we have a question. I still question the purpose of the subcommittee meeting, because I think it can be done as a body of the whole without creating an additional level of communication and legal maneuvering. Sure. I think the core CPAC already has their member. They just need to appoint. Through the chair to the committee, thank you for allowing me to indulge. It would meet like the King Sutel CRA, or Advisory Committee, and also the Renew Arlington Committees. They meet, the city council is the actual committee. However, I'm part of King Sutel CRA Advisory Committee. We advise the committee of the whole on King Sutel CRA. The same for Renew Arlington. So it would be the same structure as that. You would meet as a whole on one subject, convene, 4 o'clock, 4.30, you know, dismiss, and then get into the regular order of business for the entire truth mission. Yeah, I just think that the purpose, just don't see the need. Okay, well, I understand the structure, just don't see the need. It's to keep the deliberations of the commission separate from the deliberations of the committee. Otherwise, there would be no need for committees. We would just meet as the commission and talk about topics. Yeah. That's why we have the special time for committee meetings from 4 to 4.30. I'm sorry, your turn. So through the chair to the commission, so at work we have this saying, what is only something you can do, right? And my question is this. We do this. We draft it. We get our opinion. We have, just hear me, we have no public way. We do. We could draft to, you know, whatever, a news conference, whatever. But we wouldn't do that. We know that. But we pull this information together. We have no way to put the information out social media-wise. And, well, who's going to know about it? Who are we doing it for? That's my thing. They're going to do this. They're going to do this anyways. You have no limitation what you do as an individual member of this commission with your social media. That's my opinion. Okay. You're very effective at social media. I just make an occasional post because, you know, it was Thomas Jefferson's birthday. So, but if any of you want to utilize social media to bring this to the awareness of the public, I have no problem with it. And I don't think it's anything legal for us to do it. Through the chair, Commissioner Young, do you think if we had more meetings or more time to come here and discuss it before the election, would that help? Yes, and then you would definitely have no need for a subcommittee meeting because it could be done as a whole and move faster. So, that being the case, Ms. Colleen, I realize we meet on the first Thursday of the month. That doesn't deter us from or prevent us from meeting four times over the next month, does it? As long as it's a called meeting, publicly called, right? It's a matter of available resources from her office. She is stretched super thin as it is. $350 million shortfall. You're allowed to call special meetings if that's the will of the group. Are you able to staff it? I will have to figure that out during working hours. Okay. I have a staff of three. Mr. Lord, would you entertain a friendly amendment from Mr. Youngblood where he would specify that the commission will meet multiple times over the ensuing two months? And we will, it will be a special meeting of the commission called to study amendment. So, no problem. And he will meet as the full commission. Should we just withdraw our motion? We have a motion. He's simply going to make a friendly amendment and then we just vote on the motion. But his amendment is going to be bypassing the subcommittee and making that the committee. Why don't we just withdraw our motion? And then let's just have meetings. Well, we have to have a motion to do this. Hey, Robert's rules, I didn't write it. There is an inconvenience of following parliamentary procedure, but it's a way for us to maintain. I'm not a parliamentarian expert. I wish I were. However, there is a term. It's call to question, I think. And I think that means let's vote one way or the other. What is that term? To call a question. What is the term to let's vote? You call a question. To call the question. And then you vote on the motion to call the question. That's correct. If that motion passes with a two-thirds vote, then you come back and vote on the question. It's even, it's a more complicated procedure than... Complicated. All right. If you would withdraw your motion. Sure. All right. Okay. I will exercise my discretion as the chair of the commission to request two meetings during the month of September of the special meetings of the true commission for the purposes of discussing Amendment 3. And we don't need a motion for that. All right. Yes, ma'am. I've been there. I'm trying to catch up. I'm listening. We're happy. Did you guys, I mean, I understand what you're saying. Are you guys going to vote on that? I know you made us... You want us to... I'm going to... I'm going to... I mean, the committee to actually to vote on... We don't need to now because we've withdrawn the motion and I'm simply going to call special meetings of the commission under my discretion as the chair for the purposes of discussing Amendment 3. Doesn't need a vote. I just want to make sure that everybody was on board with it. That's why I asked that. Okay. Well, if you're on board with it, come to the meetings. If you're not on board, don't come. It's not complicated, but, you know, we want to be open and democratic about it, but we don't need to have a vote for me to call the special meeting of the commission. Does that work? You guys good? You guys all on board? That's, again, the heavy lift, but within the whole body. Okay. All right. So, if you don't have difficulty, then you can do it. Thursdays are a relatively light day for the council, correct? Yes, usually. It's a good day for me. So, today being September 3rd, scheduled for my life and scheduled for my life, could we meet two weeks from today? Thank you so much. Two weeks from today at 4 p.m., Thursday, September 17th, that is Constitution Day. Are you available that date? We have saturated, which is five days. What time are you? Four o'clock. Yeah, no. I couldn't do that. Okay. What date? Thursday, September 17th. What about September 24th? I think I'm good. I'm not a calendar. Yeah, me as well. I got the 17th. You're available the 17th. Kevin, are you available the 17th? Yes, sir. I think I am. All right. You make it? You're not. All right. So, we'll meet the 17th. All right. That's it. Two weeks from today. Can we meet two weeks after that on Thursday, October 1st, which is Consolidation Day? I might have a doctor's appointment at that time, but I'll let you know. I'm sorry. Today, Thursday, October 1st? Maybe. Maybe I'll have to let you know. And then we will come back and convene as the full commission in a regular meeting on Thursday, October the 8th. So, we will have two special meetings of the commission. Yeah. Actually, our first regular meeting would be October 1st. No, because that's the fifth week, I think, the 8th. Oh. Usually, during fifth week, there's no meetings. Yeah. Oh, I got you. I got you. During fifth week, there's no meetings. At all. No. Because during the fifth week, we don't usually have meetings. Right. Because that's when staff takes off. Gives you some downtime. Okay. So. October 1st and then October 8th. We're not going to meet on October 1st. I'm sorry. October. You're correct. We would meet regular meeting on the 8th. How about adding digital 17th then? Just two weeks from today, September 17th. And then we will come back on October the 8th, discuss our findings at that point. October 1st meeting, we have the guest, Phillip Peterson, our council auditor, is coming, so that'll be helpful for this discussion as well. So we'll keep Phillip on the agenda. And then what is October 22nd like for everybody, which would be two weeks after the 8th. That's a Thursday? No. 22nd, you think? Yeah. Yeah. October 22nd. Oh, October 22nd? Yeah. We would meet September 17th, special meeting, October 8th, regular commission meeting, October 22nd, special commission meeting. I'm out on the 22nd. You're out on the 22nd? You're not available. Not available. That's the reality. You're only available the first Thursday of the month? Is that your limitation? Yeah, so I work on Thursdays from 9 to 10 p.m., so I have to take off to 9 a.m. to 7 a.m. So I have to take off to come here normally, which is fine, perfectly fine to do once a month. But yeah, it's going to be hard. That's like the only day that I have to work that long, by the way. Is it locked in concrete on meeting on the first Thursday of the month? Could we meet? Tuesday would be amazing. Yeah, but that's always a council day. That's either committees or a full council. Yeah. Do any committees meet on Wednesdays, Collin? There's a special committee meeting on Wednesdays sometimes, and there are rescheduled meetings. If there's like a holiday or a change to the calendar, then things get bumped up. So that's the case for election week. That will be the impact of Columbus Day on October 12th. Yeah, we don't really do Columbus Day, but we do election day. We postpone the meetings that are slated for election day. The city's not off on Wednesdays. That's a northern thing. It's fifth week, and there are no meetings during fifth week. So, question. Could you investigate, and I'll ask Nick for special dispensation, if necessary, for us to meet on Wednesday, September 16th, and Wednesday, September 30th? Do you see any confidence with that, Collin? September 30th is the fifth week. You're right. You're right. I said September 30th is the fifth week. So, how about Wednesdays, October 7th, are available? Is this Wednesday? No, this would be a Wednesday, Wednesday. Oh, I can't. Seventh. No, you're not available. No, I teach a class from 4.30 to 5.45, so I will not be available on any Wednesdays. Okay. All right. Then I think we're just back by default. We need to go back and try to do this on our regular meeting days of Thursday. I'd be willing to come in earlier if that's available to the rest of the commission. That's a problem for me. I mean, I'm pushing it to get out of my office at 3 o'clock to get down here. Sure. Well, we can only do what we can do. Yeah. All right. That's why it's going to put a lot of burden on us individually to look at this in great detail, to look at city budget, to be familiar with. To the chair, why don't we do this? I think everybody said they could be September 17th, right? That's in two weeks? Correct. Pretty much everybody? Yeah. Why don't we go with that? Blake cannot. Blake can't either. Blake or Kevin, you either? I can't. Except Blake. Stephanie cannot. Then why don't we do that? And then at that meeting, come up with another date. Like I'm old school. I have a day planner. I'm old school. I don't do it on my phone. I'm looking at dates trying to remember. So for me to confirm all these other dates, it's hard. All right. We will have our next meeting on Thursday, September 17th. And then after that meeting, we will discuss any future meeting, any future special commission meeting. But we will be meeting in regular session on Thursday, October the 8th. But that's a regular meeting, and Mr. Peterson's going to present. And then we will simply continue meeting as the commission, and we will be discussing the topic of the Amendment 3. Mr. Chairman, has the mayor's office or council put together any ad hoc committees to do this same? Is there anything that's currently being done to review Amendment 3 and its impacts? Nothing. To my knowledge. There were some portions of the budget that they put into a specific contingency, dependent on the outcome of the referendum, referendum contingency. But no, there's no special committee or ad hoc. Do you know the total amount of those contingencies? Would it be enough to absorb? No. Two million? Why bother? All right. See? It's going to come up to us. And if anybody, if any member of the council criticizes me, I'll say, you have to talk to Jeff. It was his idea. I don't like anything we say anyway. No. But, you know, that's why we get paid the big bucks. All right. Can't cut your way out of it either. No. No. That's the sad part. And I was wanting us to get to a flat 10 mil. So I do want to say something. Sure. Just ask a question. So with the Amendment 3 committee, whatever we end up doing, so when we get the information, I guess my question earlier was really like, what are we using the information for? So is that going to give us direction of what we want to go after? Because just like in business and in government and everything, there's this famous saying, if you don't spend it, you'll lose it. And that is one of the places where I feel people don't really pay attention to in city departments. That we could really, that's that one-on-one asking them questions. Like, for instance, are you maxing out your budget because, hey, I needed these things and I wasn't really budgeted for everything I really actually needed, but I was budgeted, you know, 10 million. I really only needed eight, but I spent 2 million more for things I really didn't need. And that does happen. And so I think part of the Amendment 3 committee would be to identify maybe some departments that are spending more than they probably should have. So here's an approach, throwing this out as a concept. All right. So Avalorum taxes would go from $1,248,000,000, and we're just going to use the $248,000,000 number to make it a nice even billion. The, so total non-departmental revenue would go from $1,932,000,000 to roughly $1,007,000,000,000, which is under $1,000,000,000, and then departmental revenue would stay constant at $94,000,000,000. There would be no constitutional mandate to reduce those revenues. The only revenue that gets hit is the Avalorum revenue. Okay. So that's the revenue side. Now let's look at the expenditure side. So one approach is you hold the sheriff, fire and rescue, the $1,000,000,000,000 portion between the public safety, police, and fire. So you would hold, and we can add all this up, so you would, out of that remaining revenue, which would be in round numbers $1.75 billion, you would fund all elements of the sheriff, all elements of JFRD, and then a proportional allocation of the remaining line items. That's not terribly complicated. Except for your increase of the millage. No. We don't change the millage. The millage will stay whatever the millage is, because what's changing is the homestead exemption. There's no millage mandate in the amendment to the Constitution. It just increases homestead exemption to $150,000,000 the first year, and then $250,000,000 the second year. I think that's how the mechanism operates. Is that right? So tell what I'll do. I have a long weekend this weekend. I'm not working tomorrow. If the weather is good, I will be at the pool where I ordinarily am on the weekends. If the weather is not good, I will be inside with my computer, and I will build an Excel spreadsheet with these scenarios, and I'll pass it out. I'll send it to Colleen on Tuesday, and she can distribute it. That would be a – that's a starting point, okay? Is that a conceptual starting point? Do you have a laptop, Chairman? Uh-huh. Well, can you take that to the pool? Nope, because I can't see the screen. I can't see the screen because of the glare. It's an apple, and I'm not really sure, but for some reason, I do well just to make it work. Is that a workable framework? It's a start, okay. That's what James Madison said. Here's an idea, and then everybody started piling up on him, and that's how we ended up with the Constitution, which really is the same way that we ended up with the Charter because the original proposal, the sheriff would have been a figurehead elected. The JSO would have become the city public safety department. We would not have had a property appraiser, tax collector, or supervisor of elections. They would all have been abolished. I'm sorry. They would have become appointed positions because it just has to do with how consolidation is treated in the Florida Constitution. The Yates Manifesto. No, no, that was how – no. No, 1934, the Florida legislature passed a resolution calling for consolidation if approved by the voters. That was 1934. It took 34 years later before they actually held that referendum, or 33 years later, and that's what happened in 1966 or 67. But we are authorized under the Florida Constitution with an amendment called the Butler Amendment because J. Turner Butler was a state senator, and he authored that amendment, and the Florida legislature adopted it in the 1933 session, I think it was, yeah, 1933 session because the legislature only met every two years back then, didn't meet annually. They met in the – even – they met in the odd year following elections. I mean, read it. It's fascinating reading, only about a page. It's just convoluted constitutional language. But that's how we came to be. We were conceived in 1933, and we were born in 1968. It's a long gestation period. Silent revolution. Yeah. Okay. All right. Anything else? So, real quick, because we can actually incorporate what I was going to talk about in our deliberations because it impacts spending, so I will hold off and will present that within the context of our efforts to modify city spending because we would yield some reduced – we would yield some savings in spending if my ideas were adopted, and they fit into this, so we'll hold off. So, that brings us down to – Actually, through the chair, we were actually at – Aren't we on Commissioner Comments? Yeah, Comments. Only comment I have is I want to welcome Commissioner Youngblood. That's it, Chairman. Well, if you were here last month, you could have done it in person. Forgive me for not being here last month. I feel like it's been forever, but welcome aboard, sir. We've been missing you. It's just not the same without you here. Yeah, I bet. Thank you. All right. Any more comments? Stephanie Kishan? Kishan, I'm sorry. Chandler's Hardwell. No, not at this time. Okay. All right. None more comments. Well, on that note, it's 531. We're adjourned. So, we have our work cut out for us.