Welcome to the City of St. Petersburg City Council Meeting. Your elected officials are Mayor Ken Welch, District 1 and Council Vice Chair, Copley Gerdes, District 2, Brandi Gabbard, District 3, Ed Montenari, District 4, Lisette Hanowitz, District 5 and Council Chair, Deborah Figg Sanders, District 6, Gina Driscoll, District 7, John Muhammad. And District 8, Richie Floyd. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. We are now calling our April 4th Council Meeting to order and we're going to begin with a roll call. Hanowitz. Here. Rick Sanders. Here. Driscoll. Here. Muhammad. Here. Lloyd. Here. Curtis. Here. Gabbard. Montenari. Here. Thank you. We will have our invocation given to us today by the Reverend Ethan Cole, Rector of St. Barth. I'm saying this right. Wrong. Bartholomew Epistocle Church. I wanted to make sure I pronunciate that correctly. And then that will be followed by a moment of silence in honor of our fallen officers that will be followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Will everyone please join me in standing? Almighty God, you created us and formed us to be in community and fellowship with one another and with you. You taught us to pray for all those in political authority. Send down upon those who hold office in this city of St. Petersburg the spirit of wisdom, charity, and justice, that with steadfast purpose they may faithfully serve in their offices to promote the well-being of all people. Righteous God, in your word, you gave us a vision of what is a holy city. Behold and visit, we pray, this city. Renew the ties of mutual regard which form our civic life. Always give us honest and able leaders. Enable us to eliminate poverty, prejudice, and oppression, that peace may prevail with righteousness and justice with order, and that people from different cultures and with different skills and aspirations and needs may find with one another the fulfillment of their humanity. In your holy name we pray. Amen. Please join me in a moment of silence as we honor fallen police officer James A. Krupp. End of March, April 15, 1964. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you so much for that invocation. Council members, we have an agenda before us. If there are no changes, I entertain a motion to accept today's agenda. Move approval. Second. Oh, sorry, I didn't see you. I'm sorry. Oh, no, I didn't. Sorry, I didn't. Respite somehow. Sorry. I didn't see that either. Well, thank you for that. Now that we have a motion and a second to approve the agenda, clerk, can you please open the machine for voting? Now that our present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, a motion to approve the agenda passes unanimously, with council member Gabbert being absent. Thank you. Council members, we have a consent agenda before us. Do we have any public comment on consent? Madam Chair, we do not. Thank you. With that, I entertain a motion for approval. Move approval. Second. Now that we have a motion and a second, can you please open the mic, council members? Now that all present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, a motion to approve the consent agenda passes unanimously, with council member Gabbert being absent. Thank you. Next, we'll have open form. Clerk, can you please read the rules? If you wish to address city council on subjects other than public hearing or quasi-judicial items listed on the agenda, please sign up with the clerk. Only the individuals wishing to speak may sign the open form sheet. Only city residents, owners of property, business owners in the city, or their employees may speak. All issues discussed under open form must be limited to issues related to the city of St. Peasworth government. If you are speaking to an item on the agenda, you may only speak once during the open form or when the item comes up on the agenda. In order to provide an opportunity for all citizens to address council, each individual will be given three minutes to speak and after which the microphone will be muted. If you wish to address city council through the Zoom meeting, you must use the Raise Hand Feature button in the Zoom app or enter star 9 on your phone at the time the agenda item is addressed. When it is your turn to speak, you will be unmuted and asked to state your name and address. At the conclusion of your comments or when you have reached the three-minute time limit, you will be muted. All raised hands will be lowered after each agenda item. Regardless of the method of participation used, normal rules apply, including the three-minute time limit on comments. The requirement that any presentation materials must be submitted in advance of the meeting and the rules of decorum. If live public comments is disrupted by violation of the rules of decorum, the chair is authorized to accept public comments by alternate means, including by email only. And, Madam Chair, we do have a few speakers. The first two speakers is Jane Cooley and Kathy Philateli. Please step up to either podium, state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address counsel. I'm the Reverend Jean Cooley. I live at 160 56th Avenue, South St. Petersburg, 33705. As a clergy and a guardian ad litem volunteer, I know families whose parents work two to three jobs on minimum wage. I know they are those who are living in their car or crammed into a small motel room or the spare bedroom of an elder relative. They need to know that their elected representatives are working as hard as they can to create at least 5,000 units of affordable housing for those making 80% of the annual median income. I'm asking the mayor and all council members to attend our Nehemiah Action at First Baptist Church on April the 30th, Tuesday, at 7 p.m. to celebrate the work that you are doing and your commitment to creating a significant, at least 5,000 units of affordable housing within the next five years. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, City Council and Mayor Welch. My name is Kathy Filippelli. I live at 58 36 30th Avenue North in St. Petersburg. My congregation is St. Matthew's Catholic Church. We worship in Largo, so I do a little road trip over there to them. But our congregation of St. Matthew's has been a member of FAST since its beginning almost 19 years ago. You have seen me before. We're here. We said we are committed to continue to encourage each council member and our mayor to make affordable housing a priority. On the back of our shirts, it says housing affordable for whom? You know that we advocate that it needs to be 80% AMI or less. That is the type of affordable housing we are looking for and in perpetuity. Thank you, Pastor, for your prayer. We should have had you at our prayer vigil last night. If you felt the jolt around 545, it's because the mayor did not come to meet us last night, and so we had a prayer vigil for him. So we're hoping that he felt the jolt of needing to make sure his calendar is clear and that he comes to the Nehemiah action. Why do we focus on him? Hello, he's the mayor. He's the decision maker. The people who have voted for him, the people who reside in St. Petersburg, along with all of Pinellas County, need to see his leadership in affordable housing, need to see his plan, his exact plan of executing affordable housing within the city within his term. He has a limited amount of time to make it happen. We believe in his ability to do that. We want to celebrate with him. The woman that I drove from our parish last night is a grandmom. She served as a nurse. Her son served in the Marines. She's helping to raise grandchildren because of the amount of money for affordable housing. She helps to pay their water bill. She buys them groceries. She drives them different places. It's important that our average and everyday citizens, all of us, have a safe place to reside. That helps in the ability to function as a whole person. I'm expecting to see each of you, and thank you for those that have committed. Do we have anyone on your own? We have one Zoom speaker, Madam Chair. Do you want to take the Zoom speaker, or we still have in-person speakers, Madam Chair? Oh, I thought we only had two cars. No, we have none. We have none. Okay, fine. Carrie Mueller and Pat Fling, I believe it is. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address Council. Good morning. I'm Pat Fling. My address is 1201 86th Avenue North, St. Pete. Good morning, Madam Chair and Vice Chair and Council members. Do you know that in St. Pete, there are at least 16,000 people who are living under 80% of the average median income? Who are these people? No, they're not lazy or lacking in ambition. They are working even two or three jobs. They're employed in our service industry, their nursing assistants, their medical assistants, medical billing specialists, landscapers, and even some city employees. We need to make sure that we can set a goal for building affordable housing that's ambitious and prioritizes hardworking people who need it the most. Some of the council members have committed to attend our Nehemiah Action on April 30th. I urge the rest of you to please consider joining us as well as Mayor Welch. Last night, there were over 60 people present across the street calling for increasing affordable housing in St. Pete. Please join us. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Carrie Mueller. I live at 12th and James, and I recently served on the Community Benefits Advisory Council for the Historic Gas Plant District Redevelopment. I'm licensed as a professional engineer in Florida, and I have 20 years of experience working in public-private partnerships. After serving on the Community Benefits Advisory Council, I stand by my no vote that the community benefits are grossly inadequate compared to the amount of public investment in the form of publicly owned land and tax subsidies for a baseball stadium. The following are promises that have been made about this project that are not true. One, the mayor has stated that the project will not be paid for with property taxes. This is not true. The current stadium proposal is going to cost city taxpayers $704 million. The $287 million in city funds for the stadium, as well as the $130 million contribution toward infrastructure for the development of the gas plant, will have to be borrowed, resulting in a total debt of $704 million. The bonds to pay back the debt will be paid for out of the in-town CRA. The in-town CRA includes some of the most valuable real estate in the city of St. Petersburg, including all of the high-rises on Central Avenue and Beach Drive. 50% of the property taxes from these buildings will be diverted into paying back the bonds of the stadium for 30 years. The services like fire, police, and schools that the residents of these buildings pay for with their taxes will be underfunded, as half of the property taxes are siphoned off, leaving a poll that other taxpayers will have to make up. These higher property taxes will be passed on to future homeowners and to renters, making the cost of housing that much more expensive. The CRA should not be extended in 2032 for a stadium, since the downtown is no longer economically blighted or disadvantaged. Two, the promise that the Tampa Bay Rays care about the city of St. Petersburg. Rays-Hines have repeatedly said that they will not make any concessions or improvements to the current draft development terms and constantly threaten to leave. Three, the promise that 1,200 affordable housing units will be built. The developer can currently pay $25,000 a unit to get out of building the affordable housing. Four, the promise that the African-American museum will be built. Currently, only $10 million will be contributed toward the construction of the museum. With a cost of approximately $30 million, the remainder of the museum's costs will have to be raised with fundraising. The raise should fund the entire cost of the museum. Five, the promise that Booker Music Hall will be built with this project. Brian Old told the League of Women Voters that they were not building the Booker Music Hall. He said they didn't have to build anything. Six, the promise that a convention center will be built. City administration has confirmed that there will be a convention meeting space within a future hotel, but there will not be a convention center. Seven, the promise that this time it will be different. City Council, please vote no on the current terms of the stadium deal. Thank you. Madam Chair, the last speaker is Jeremy Tolberg. My name is Jeremy Tolberg. I live at 417 Lido Way in St. Petersburg. Good morning, everyone. I'm sure everyone on Council saw the news over the weekend about the bridge collapse that happened in Baltimore. That alone should serve as a reminder of how quickly a serious, costly emergency can strike a city. At the same time, there was a less publicized emergency happening in the same town. I don't know if anyone saw this item in the news, but last week there were only three police officers able to patrol one of the largest neighborhoods in Baltimore. That's a district of 61,000 residents, three police officers. I mention this because Baltimore also happens to be paying roughly $1.3 billion for the Camden Yard Stadium complex and almost $850 million for the Ravens football stadium. And no one here is going to say with a straight face that a single one of those city residents in a dire moment of emergency would rather have a stadium instead of a functioning police department or a working bridge. If we proceed with agreeing to this giveaway of public money, we're steering our city towards the same kind of dangerous future. It could be a falling building or infrastructure. It could be a hurricane or it could just be a slow creep of bad decisions that consign our city to a point of financial and fiscal collapse. Let's also remember, by the way, that our federal government is busy racking up more than $34 trillion in debt this year alone. That's over $100,000 owed by every man, woman, and child living in the nation. It would be reckless to add the cost of a stadium to that amount and an absolute disgrace for a public official to endorse. I looked this up also. Billionaires make up just .0002% of the U.S. population. We're being told now, though, that giving billions of public dollars to one of those billionaires without any strong legal protections to safeguard or repay our investment is a good deal for the city. If there's anyone in this room who thinks giving huge sums of their money away is a sound financial decision, please meet me outside with your checkbook. I'll even offer the same terms as the Rays, which are all non-binding and based on extremely questionable data. No one would think to do that with their own money, and we shouldn't even consider doing it with money from the pockets of everyone in this city. The good news, also, is that cities around the U.S. are finally standing up to this time-honored shakedown routine from pro sports teams. In just the last two weeks alone, Virginia and Kansas City have flatly rejected colossal new public funding requests to build new stadium complexes in their cities. Kansas City. Kansas City! Forget about low attendance excuses. Even winning a Super Bowl championship does not prevent owners from demanding public handouts before the next season even starts. We can't fall victim to abandoning our reason and our ethics to support something that will only make money for someone who does not need it. We have one, two, three, four. Okay, thank you. Lynn Wilkinson, once you enter into the meeting space, please unmute, state your name, address, and you have three minutes to address City Council. Good morning. Lynn Wilkinson, 534 22nd Avenue Southeast. I'd like to thank Graham Brink for his Tampa Bay Times editorial this morning, where he clearly spells out the choice before the City Council and the Mayor. What are we willing to pay to keep the raise in St. Petersburg? It is a well-known MLB strategy to play on fan emotions, so personally, I am unconvinced they would leave if this proposed upward transfer of public wealth to a private corporation is ratified. I am convinced, however, that the St. Pete citizens' right to vote on this, quote, transformative redevelopment was deliberately taken from them in the worry that we would make the same choice as the voters of Kansas City did just a few days ago. So, using the lowest city cost number quoted in Graham's editorial, $1.4 billion divided by 266,417 residents in St. Petersburg equals $5,250 per person. Do you all and the mayor really think if you go door-to-door in St. Petersburg, every person in the city will give you $5,250 to keep the raise in St. Pete? I don't think so. Thank you. Madam Chair, no more speakers. No more speakers. So, at this point, we will close open forum, but because it's not 930 and we can't have our public hearings as of yet, we're going to go ahead and move into item F1, which is our court item, the resolution approving a second amending to the funding agreement between the city and Namaste 616. And joining us is our Special Projects Manager, Mr. Mark Van Loon. Good morning, Council Chair and Council Members. Before you this morning, item F1 is a second amendment to the funding agreement between the city of St. Pete and Namaste 1616 LLC on the 16th Avenue project. And I do have a brief presentation on this. No presentation. There we go. So, a little bit of background. The original agreement and resolution was adopted on November 19, 2020 for the project. There was authorized a partial assignment via resolution on July 8, 2021 to include Opportunity Zone funding partner. And the original contract from 2020 was first amended in July of 2023, which extended the timeline to January 31, 2024, increased city funding commitment to $1,056,000, reduced the maximum buyer AMI from 120% AMI to 100% AMI and delayed payment of city funds from originally at Certificate of Occupancy to a qualified sale to a qualified home buyer. Since that time, construction completed on the 11 units in the original project in December of 2023. Unit sales are underway. And at last report, I believe there are six of the 11 units. There are buyers who are approved and or under contract to purchase those units and several more who are going through the qualification process. There is one unit that is rented for one year to support a replat of the additional lot just to the north that Namaste plans to build two additional townhome units on. So, the developer needs to maintain some ownership in the property through that replat process. And once that rental agreement expires, then that unit will be sold as well. So, the second amendment before you today is to extend the timeline of the agreement through March 7th of 2025. What this does, it allows for the completion of sales of 10 of the original units, 10 of the 11, with the 11th being rented for a time, and allows for time to complete the replat of that north parcel for an additional two units to be built there and also allows time for the sale of that 11th unit that is currently rented once that rental period expires. And that's my presentation. I'm available for questions, as is the developer, if there are any for them. Member Provolt. Second. Seeing that there are no requests to speak and it's been properly motioned and seconded, can you please open the machine for voting? Seeing that all present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, a motion to approve agenda item F1 passes unanimously, with Council Member Gabbert being absent. Thank you. It is still not 930, so we still cannot hold our public hearings. Can we possibly go ahead and do our council committee report? Okay. Council Member Hennowitz, are you prepared? Yes. Thank you, Chair. Respectfully requesting city council approval of a motion to refer the business item regarding the city council vacancy filling process to a committee of the whole to address the following proposed amendments to the current process. Number one, increase the voting threshold to require supermajority, and number two, leave the vacancy unfilled if it occurs close to or during the regular election for the vacant position. In the meantime, I think you all received an email from Attorney Pettigrew regarding an additional issue that he found, of course, while reading the charter that he thinks it's appropriate to discuss at the time, so it was just kind of giving notice that if we're going to have this discussion, we should also discuss the issue of a mayoral vacancy. And with that, I move approval. Second. Okay, and just a reminder that we are holding the May 18th date for this particular item, so we're aware that it's coming and it's already scheduled in the plan. So now that we see no one having any discussion and it's been properly motioned and seconded, clerk, can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please cast your votes. Now that our present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda item I-1A passes unanimously with Councilmember Gabbert being absent. Thank you. And with that, we're going to have a resource for five minutes until 9.30 when we can actually open public hearings. Filibuster. Thank you. Now y'all are usually talking on it. Respectfully. Calling back to order the April 4th, 2024 council meeting. We're now going to move into our public hearings and we're going to be hearing E-1 in ordinance submitting chapter 5 of the city code related to works of art in the city and joining us, well first of all I have to have the clerk if you can read the title for me. Absolutely. Proposed ordinance number 576-H in ordinance amending chapter 5, article 3, division 1 related to works of art in the city. Expanding where works of art acquired with monies from the art and public places fund can be displayed and expanding ownership options for such work of art and providing for an effective date. And Madam Chair, we do have a card. Good morning. Joining us is our arts and culture and tourism tourism director, Ms. Celeste Davis. Good morning. Thank you. Good morning everyone. I have a presentation. Good morning Chair Faith Sanders and members of city council. This morning I'm presenting additional information regarding the request to amend chapter 5, article 3, division 1 of the city code. The intention. The intention is to be to ensure that public art can be installed on the proposed historic gas plant redevelopment site should city council approve the plan. From the first reading, we have further narrowed the request and the language change now is limited to public property and nothing else. The current city code dictates that public works projects exceeding $100,000 must contribute to the art and public places fund for the purpose of installing public art. A part of the requirement is that the work must be placed on land owned by the city at or near the public works project and the city must have title and ownership of the work of art. An example is the oneness sculpture that will be installed at the new sanitation building. I have included a schedule of required fund contributions based on the public works project budget. The requested change. The requested change would one, permit installation on public property that contributes to the art and public places fund allowing for flexibility in the installation of public art. Two, provide city council the ability to waive the requirement that the city have ownership and title to the art acquired through the art and public places fund provided that the works of art be acquired in the name of a government entity and title shall vest in a government entity. In addition, we have further defined that if art cannot be placed at the public works project facility that the money would be used to acquire art to be placed on city-owned property. Amending, that is an amendment from the original request. The proposed redevelopment of the historic gas plant infrastructure project and stadium development would each add $500,000 to the art and public places fund. Public art installation on the stadium site is currently restricted because Pinellas County, not the city, will own the land. The proposed ordinance change would allow public art to be installed on the contributing redevelopment site, permitting public art installation within the historic gas plant redevelopment. Insurance and maintenance. The city currently ensures its public arts collection and the public arts commission is responsible for insurance and maintenance of those works. The requested change would ensure that should the historic gas plant redevelopment go forward, that public art will be a part of the redevelopment. Without this approval, public art would not enrich and deepen the stories of this historic community. Thank you. And I'm available for questions. Thank you. We have cards on this? Yes, Madam Chair. We have one card. Princess Liani Brown. And so she's speaking in the next item. Oh, the next item. My apology. Thank you. Councilmember Hanowitz. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Celeste, for that presentation. It was much more in-depth and really gives an idea of what we're doing here with the ordinance. I have to tell City Council I met with, actually, James Corbett contacted me and administration has been wonderful in terms of making sure that there has been a narrowing of the language because it was pretty broad before. And now it's more limited to public or in public places that is owned by a public entity. And so I feel more comfortable with the changes as they are. I also had asked them to provide information on the language in the stadium agreements just in case City Council has any questions regarding that. So I appreciate the changes. I just want to verify. I know there was an additional change to make sure that we kept City-owned in the Section 3 allocation of funds. If there is a motion, do we have to make sure that we note that amendment? Is that what the Clerk's Office has? I can't remember what we have now because what I have in my book is the old one. It's in the second page. The top. That's the first page. Does that have a back? It's in the back. It's in the top. Correct. Well, good. Okay. And I mean, with that, I'd be happy to move, but I'd be happy to hear other City Council members. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Driscoll. Thank you. So I think you mentioned that if the money, if this doesn't go through or if there isn't the opportunity for public art as part of a public works project, that that money would still be collected from the developer, but it would be put into a fund to go to art in a different location that is on city property. Is that correct? What I was referring to is there is, and I hope I understand your question, there is a section of the ordinance that if works of art cannot be installed at the location where the project is taking place, that the money can be then put forward toward works of art on city-owned property. Okay. So it doesn't just go away and it instead would go to art in a place where we do have control. Yes. One of my concerns is that we're changing a longstanding ordinance for one project, and we're not creating, by keeping things the same, we're not eliminating opportunities for public art to be placed. It's just about placing it in this one spot. If we don't change this, would there, does that mean that there would be no public art at all in the historic gas plant redevelopment or on the stadium site? It just means that we would not be able to use the public works funds for that. Right. So if there was public art, if we kept things the same and there is public art, and I imagine there would be because that's who our city is, and I believe that the county and the Ray Sainz group is very, very much a huge supporter of the arts. So there's no doubt in my mind that there would still be public art even if it was not paid for by city funds. So I don't think we can really say that there will be no public art at all if we don't change this today. That's correct. We could not say there would be no public art at all. What we're saying is that if the ordinance is not changed, there will be no public art from the contribution of the public works project on the stadium property. That would not be allowed. Right, right. It means that we could use that money somewhere else. Potentially. Right, right. And we're talking, for this project, and I know it's an ordinance change and it could apply to other projects, but again, we're changing this for one purpose, for one project. And we're actually paying for it. It's not actually coming from the developer, right? Because we have $500,000 built into the city's contribution to the stadium project that is in turn going to be put back, given back to us in the form of going into this fund. So it's really just a pass-through. And so I have a bit of an issue with that because we are handing the developer a half million dollars so that they can hand it back to us to cover the cost of the contribution to this fund. So I would view it a little different. What we're doing is no different than any public works project. Essentially, there is a portion of the project that's set aside for public art and then we have a decision to make where that public art can go. So the only change that we're making, everything stays exactly the same except for the public art will now be allowed on the stadium site which is owned by the county. But other than that, this arrangement is no different than any other project. But since we know that there will be public art, that there will be art on the site as part of the redevelopment, this is money that actually could go to another city project. It could, but I also believe that the intent of the ordinance was to have the public art as on or as close to the contributing site as possible. Right. There are plenty of places that are close to the contributing site where we could actually enhance the neighborhood by putting it on city property and keep things the same. Then we have control over it and we can continue to maintain it. With this change, having that art on the other site, would the public arts commission still be responsible for the insurance and the maintenance? It will be in the public arts collection so the public arts commission will be responsible for the maintenance and insurance regardless of the location. The other thing I would say though that this site is a 20-acre or excuse me, approximately a 14 or 15-acre site so the contribution of the million dollars towards public art, although there will likely be other public art, it seems to make sense that we would want to have additional public art on the site from this fund just due to the nature of the size of the site. Given the history of the Rays and the county of being very supportive of the arts, I don't have any doubt that there will be some wonderful displays of public art throughout the redevelopment regardless of this change. Neither do I, but this would allow for more. Right. But we're paying for it and we're talking about a pretty hefty price tag as it is so I'm thinking that we're paying for something that we may be able to get anyway. We're going to pay for it regardless. This is really about the location. We're going to pay for it no matter what. So really all we're talking about is where to go. If we approve it. Right. Thank you. It's not a non-issue or you wouldn't be having a public hearing about it. This is giving with one hand and then taking with the other in a way and changing an ordinance to allow for it and this is for something that we know we will, we don't have to pay for. It's not necessary for us to do this and in fact if we keep it the same we could actually go back and reduce the price, reduce the amount of our contribution to the stadium project by $500,000 because that's the money that was going to go in. I know right now we're in the heat of everything and we want more, more, more, more because we want everything to be perfect. We can't afford everything and we can't go changing ordinances just to satisfy one project to have more of something that we know that we're already going to get. I of all people sitting here saying we don't need to have this money from our public art as much as I am a supporter of the arts. It means that I'm also trying to be responsible with the way that we use our money and the way that this deal is coming through. I don't have anything else to say. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Council Member Floyd. Thank you. I have some questions just about logistics first. So first, when we, let me just make sure it's clear. When we go to have public art on publicly owned property that's not city owned property, every time the city or council is going to have to vote on whether or not that's okay based off this ordinance? The vote would only be required if the city is not going to own the art. Okay, okay. So I'm not sure if I understand the question correctly, but any time where we use art in public places funds to acquire art, that's always subject to the city council approval. Okay, yeah, that's true. That's true. That's true. Okay, and so in those conversations then surrounding that vote it'll be part of the conversation that like, hey, this isn't going to be on city owned land but county owned land instead. Yeah, so we'll still... Right, I mean, if this ordinance doesn't pass, you would never get to the point of having that conversation. Yeah, I got that. I just wanted to make sure that we still have an opportunity to vote on each one and make sure that it was clear. And then, okay, so let's hone in specifically on the stadium deal with the county and the art that could accompany it. I'm assuming we would just have like an agreement with the county that says like, okay, y'all own this but we maintain it. Like, there'd have to be some sort of written agreement for that. Yes, we would definitely have something in writing. Okay, all right. Just wanted to make sure that was clear. Another question about the historic gas plant project and not... that just kind of tangentially relates is how's the public art going to work on the properties that aren't county-owned? We're going to have a pretty significant contribution to the broader development as well. And a lot of it's we're selling the land so it's going to be private. How's that contribution going to go? If you're referring to the private development that money also goes into the art for public places fund and there is a scale similar to public works that dictates what the developer contributes or the developer has the option of doing a piece of public art themselves. Okay, okay. And so they contribute to the fund. Let's say they choose that and then it's on us to place it somewhere else. So place it somewhere else or spend the money. Correct. Yeah, okay. It becomes a part of the fund. Okay, so that's interesting because it's like sort of a similar situation. It's like land we don't own and now we're not able to put public art on it because we don't own it. I'm not making any sort of judgment. I'm just saying that that's interesting because it's kind of like what's going on with the stadium but it seems like we're going out of our way a little bit to put art at the stadium site for sure which I understand. Okay, and then just a couple of things to Council Member Driscoll's point. You know, I mean, it's, I understand like where you're coming from but it is one tenth of one percent of the project costs like less than that and every time we do a public art project it's the city's money like going to fund the public art project. Also, one quick point is that if the art is privately owned it's not public art anymore. It's private art, privately maintained. We don't know like what the longevity of it will be. We don't know what the quality of it will be. We have no say in what it is either and so that's why I'm a supporter of public art. It's a, you know, the public gets to have their input as to what it could be. And I agree with your criticism of like, all right, now we're giving this money and a big chunk of it comes back and so it's just a pass-through thing but that's literally like how the CBA ordinance is written and so, yeah, I got some like quandaries with that, moral conundrums as a whole but that's sort of how we've been operating and if we wanted to have a broader conversation about that I think I'd be happy to sometime in the future but I just wanted to get that out there. So, anyway, for this change today that's, you know, it's fine. Like, I do think it would be nice. I'm on the public arts committee. It would be great if the public arts committee could have money come in so that we could decide on an artist to come and do public artwork at the stadium site. I don't like changing an ordinance for one project but, you know, it happens. having said all of that I have talked to the people in the room who are at the public arts committee and my intent is to pretty much review the entire ordinance here soon. We had a report done on all arts and culture in the community and it gave us some suggestions about how we're spending significantly less on public art than some of our peers and the public arts committee's had some issues with funding for things like maintenance so I do intend to bring this back in the pretty soon future next few months for us to have a broader conversation about how we're doing it and I wanted everybody to be aware of that because I think there's some opportunity for more public art and for us to maintain our public art better in our city so just that's a little preview for you some work to do before a new business item comes but all right I'll stop talking now thanks for your time so much Vice Chair Gerdes thank you Madam Chair I'll be brief just two quick things Council Member Floyd had mentioned the stadium compared to the broader development I think the original ordinance or the original proposed change would have allowed us to do that right but I think that through Council Member Hanowitz's discussions with administration we've got a little bit more strict there right correct government entities so originally you would have been able to do that piggybacking on that I appreciate your work with administration to get it to a point to where we can get this through and you're happy I'm perfectly fine with the more stricter the more stricter the more strict language and so I just appreciate both administration and Council Member Hanowitz getting together to a point where it sounds like there is support and so but I just wanted to make that point originally that wouldn't have been an issue which is why I supported the original ordinance change but I'm happy to support this one too and I'll move approval thank you Council Member Hanowitz thank you so first of all I just want to say I really appreciate all the comments on this issue I brought this issue up and I was pretty upset about it and everyone listened to me because I was concerned at how watered down it had become and Council Member Driscoll I definitely share your concerns on the issue of the monies and I will tell you just because I am fine with kind of giving that flexibility on this that does not mean that they should not be doing something with the agreement to make sure that these issues are addressed and maybe ensuring that they're putting money for public art because that could be negotiated it doesn't have to be in an ordinance and my vote on this is not an indication of my vote on the agreement or on the 130 million dollars for the infrastructure or any of it so my vote on this is because I understand it's county owned land and that money is public works money you have 130 million that money is coming from that portion of it and whatever may happen may happen but I think if it's publicly owned it's okay because I can't predict what's going to happen in the future but I think we've kind of dealt with some of the real concerns of making sure that it did not end up on private land so I really do appreciate councilmember Floyd and councilmember Driscoll for your comments on it because I do still have those concerns just like y'all so thank you councilmember Floyd thanks I'm going to be real quick and just to councilmember Gerdes' point about where we can place the art that will be part of the conversation in the future too I don't know about private land but we've had a conversation in the public arts committee about right-of-ways and stuff as well so that'll be part of the conversation yeah thanks thank you just my two cents thank you for the consideration of the administration to councilmember Hanewitt's request and to all of the comments that have made at this point but I just wanted to remind and when I hear words saying that to satisfy one project we've never had a project like this before so it is it is singled out because we've never dealt with anything as extreme as this before and then there are certain parts of our ordinances we've never had to examine in detail like this before so of course you're going to uncover some things that we've never had a conversation about so I don't want us to utilize the discoverance of new things that we normally have not had to address historically to what we do have to deal with moving forward and I look at that as an opportunity for us to move forward progressively and understanding we know we're not going to have a new stadium that's going to be built you know if this is approved but this is the first time we've had to deal with this so you know the bright side about this is that we're starting to look at other ordinances and some things that we've done in the city of St. Petersburg that we now can put more of a lens on it to prepare for something that may be as extreme coming forward so this has already been properly motioned and second seeing no other further request to speak clerk can you please open the machine for voting council members please place your votes and seeing all present council members have voted can you please tally and announce the votes madam chair motion to approve agenda item E1 passes 6-1 with council member Driscoll voting no council members Vic Sanders Floyd Gurdas Hanowitz Montaneri and Muhammad voting yes and council member Gabbert being absent thank you thank you thank you thank you so much we appreciate that next we'll now have E2 clerk can you please read the title for us proposed ordinance number 575-H in ordinance of the city of St. Petersburg Florida amending chapter 28 of the city code relating to housing amending section 28-1 to update the definitions of new construction and special circumstances providing for severability and providing and providing for an effective date and madam chair we do have one card you have cards thank you good morning again we have cards oh sorry Princess Liane Brown please step to the podium state your name and address for the record you'll have three minutes to address council I would just like to thank you all for allowing me to speak today I'm a student at St. Petersburg College Ms. Brown would you please state your name and address for the record I'm sorry my address is 2532 15th Avenue St. Petersburg Florida and my name is Princess Liane I'm a student at St. Petersburg College in the public policy program and I chose this agenda item today because I just like to express my support in establishing the definitions of new construction and special circumstances I think that with the the cost of housing and the overall I'm sorry the cost of housing is definitely skyrocketing especially with me as someone who is looking to eventually move out of my parents house and just have a place to call my own in St. Petersburg I'm not able to necessarily find that place so for one I think that the housing definition as listed in the original ordinance of being an affordable unit which is based off of the annual medium income and with that I think that having the annual medium income in St. Petersburg is almost $65,000 from what I saw and as of I believe January the amount of money that you need to live comfortably in St. Petersburg and Tampa is almost $100,000 and with that I feel like due to us having specific definitions on how much affordable housing would actually be having definitions for the new construction and having definitions for the special circumstances would help with other people or residents finding places to call their home and also just overall allow for I'm sorry I'm very nervous allow for everyone to have a clear idea of what to expect and how to move forward when it comes to designating properties as affordable and that is all I have to say thank you so much I absolutely love that thank you so much and joining us now he's back again our special projects manager Mr. Mark Van Loo good morning again before you is the second hearing on the amendments to the property tax abatement that was passed in November of 2023 this is really kind of cleaning up and clarifying a few things about the bill being one of the first out the door in the state with the ordinance and the implementation of that ordinance and having five applications in for this first year of abatement we've learned a lot about and gotten some good feedback on how this can work better and be more clear so the amendments proposed are to refine the definition of new construction which happens to align with what the state has put out for the missing middle tax abatement program and it clears up an issue we kind of created where projects that are two to three years old really can't qualify as new or existing so this allows projects up to five years from certificate of occupancy to be considered new construction under the tax abatement law and projects that are over five years old would come in as an existing project and would need to meet two of three special conditions or circumstances to qualify for new construction projects that are eligible and have 100% of their units affordably restricted they get a 100% abatement from city property tax and it's renewed year by year for projects new projects that are less than 100% affordable they get a 75% exemption on taxes and for existing projects that meet the two of three special circumstances they receive a 50% abatement on city property taxes the other two items that provide clarity are that the 15 years of additional affordability which is one of the special circumstances for an existing project to qualify is additive to any existing affordable restrictions that may be on the site up to a total or maximum of 99 years and that if they are using the 50% or more increase in insurance costs in the previous three years as a special circumstance that that has to be for substantially similar coverage they can't just dramatically increase their coverage to meet that special circumstance so those are the amendments proposed today to the ordinance and I'm available for any questions thank you vice chair girdus thank you madam chair I just wanted to thank princess for coming out and talking to us today I think we were all smiling I'll speak for me but probably all of us during college I wasn't coming to city council meetings and my dad was on city council at the time so I wasn't even coming to hang out with him so just very very proud I think we were all smiling and I just wanted to thank you for doing that you're way ahead of I'll speak for me way ahead of where I was in college so great job great job don't be nervous move approval thank you and I concur with that miss princess thank you so now that we have a motion and it's been properly seconded Mr. Clerk can you please open the machine for voting council members please cast your vote saying that all present council members have voted can you please tally and announce the votes Madam Chair motion to approve agenda item B2 passes unanimously with council member Gabbert being absent thank you so much and thank you Mr. Van Loon for that before we move into open form for the record I do have to make a correction for the item presented by council member Hanowitz the cow was scheduled for that is not May 18th it is April 18th and I wanted to make sure that that was corrected for the minutes it is April 18th so moving into open form do we have any cards or any speakers on Zoom no no no no no no no no we're zooming on by so now we have no cards for speakers for open form anyone have any announcements okay council member Montaner thank you Madam Chair Saturday is Petwalk in North Straub Park City Council has a team once again and I urge my colleagues to come out and support the SPCA a great organization that does wonderful things in our city and support our pets thank you good thank you seeing that there are no requests to speak and no other announcements we are officially adjourning our April 4th meeting have a great day everyone thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you