City Council - Aug 03, 2023

Welcome to the City of St. Petersburg City Council Meeting. Your elected officials are Mayor Ken Welch, District 1, Copley Gerdes, District 2, and Council Chair Brandi Gabbard, District 3, Ed Montaneri, District 4, Lisette Hanowitz, District 5, and Council Vice Chair Deborah Figg Sanders, District 6, Gina Driscoll, District 7, John Muhammad, and District 8, Richie Floyd. Good morning, everyone. We will call to order the August 3rd, 2023 City Council Meeting, beginning with a roll call, please. Floyd, Gerdes, here, Gabbard, here, Montaneri, here, Hanowitz, Figg Sanders, here, Driscoll, here, Muhammad, here. We will begin our meeting this morning with an invocation given by Reverend Lewis Murphy, Sr. from Mount Zion Progressive Missionary Baptist Church, and this will be followed by a moment of silence to honor a fallen officer. Please remain standing afterwards for the Pledge of Allegiance. Everyone, please stand. Good morning. Let us pray. Heavenly Father, creator of the heavens and the earth, creator of all mankind, all praises is due to your holy and righteous name. Thank you for our laying down last night and our early rising this morning. With new mercies, great is thou faithfulness. Thank you for the privilege of prayer to approach your holy throne and offer our petitions. We are so grateful for the sunshine city of St. Petersburg, Florida, which gives us a vibrant mix of tropical weather, arts, culture, shopping, dining, sports, all along a stunning shoreline. We are so thankful for our mayor, our chair, our council, the staff, all the workers of this great city. We pray for this administration vision, a city that will be diverse, vibrant, guided by principled progress and intentional inclusivity with innovation, partnership, and ingenuity for all of us. God, we pray for those who are less fortunate. We pray for those that are homeless. We pray for those who are marginalized, those that are suffering with mental illness. God, we need you. We need you desperately. We need you, O God, to unite our city, our state, our nation. There is divisiveness, but we know that there is unity in you. We pray, O God, that we would set aside our differences, our parties, political parties, and come together, one nation, under you, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. In your holy name we pray, amen. Please join me in a moment of silence as we honor fallen police detective Herbert R. Sullivan, end of watch, August 18, 1980. Thank you. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. You may be seated. Thank you so much, Reverend Murphy. Thank you for being with us today and for that beautiful invocation. Council members, we have an agenda before us today. I'll entertain a motion for approval. Second. And we have a motion and a second to approve the agenda. Seeing no request to speak, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. The motion to approve the agenda passes unanimously, with council member Floyd and Hanowitz absent. All right, and next, council members, we have a consent agenda before us. Clerk, do we have any public comment on the consent agenda? No, we do not, ma'am. Okay, and with that, I'll entertain a motion for approval. Move approval. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Seeing no request to speak, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. The motion to approve the consent agenda passes unanimously, for Floyd and Hanowitz absent. Okay, so I'm actually going to go ahead and skip down just a bit, and we are joined today by our mayor, Ken Welch, for a special proclamation. Mayor Welch, and Mayor Welch will be joined by Councilmember Copley-Gerdes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, council. Good morning. To all our members of the public and our great St. Pete team, happy August. I hope you're staying hydrated and staying cool out there. I know I'm not usually with you for presentations on the first of the month, but we have a very special recognition, and due to time and travel, we had to do this today. It's an honor to join you this morning with a special recognition for someone who represents the spirit of public service, commitment to family, community advocacy, and principal leadership. And with all due respect to my good friend, Councilmember Copley-Gerdes, I refer to this person as the original Westside OG. Original Councilmember Gerdes, and that is formal Councilmember Charlie Gerdes. Can you join us, Councilmember? Sure. Now, I understand that he has retired, so I'm told, and in recognition of a lifetime of service to our community, I'd like to represent the following proclamation. And it reads, whereas Charles W. Gerdes is a loving husband and father, proud grandfather, deeply committed community servant, and faithful member of Cathedral of St. Jude. And whereas, affectionately known as Charlie, he received a Bachelor of Science degree from Florida State University and a Juris Doctorate degree from St. Thomas University of Law. And whereas, Charlie's professional experience includes a career at East Systems Incorporated, now Raytheon, work as an attorney including his own private practice and the city of St. Petersburg as a contracts compliance coordinator. And whereas, what could be recognized as Charlie's most impactful work beyond raising four devoted sons is his public service as a Councilmember for District 1 from 2012 to 2020. And whereas, former Councilmember Gerdes served with compassion, conviction, and humility. I think we've all had a hug and an I love you from Charlie at some point, even after disagreeing. He's been described as the conscious of the Council during times of debate on difficult issues. And whereas, Charlie Gerdes is a consummate public servant with a legacy of community service, including fundraising, volunteer recruitment, and pro bono legal work for numerous organizations. He's given his time, talents, and treasure to organizations like St. Jude Cathedral, Christ Renews His Parish, Carter G. Woodson African American Museum, Homeless Leadership Alliance of Tampa Bay, Northwest Baseball, Family Promise, Brighter Day, and Boy Scouts, just to name a few. Now, therefore, I, Kenneth T. Welch, Mayor of the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, do hereby proclaim Thursday, August 3rd, 2023, as Charles Charlie Gerdes Day in St. Petersburg. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Chair, colleagues. I can tell you what's about to happen. My dad's about to blame it on my mom. And like me, I know I have told my story, and my wife is the hero of my story. My dad's wife, my mom, is the hero of his. Growing up, she has been his rock. And I can say this because she's my mom, sometimes his thorn. And growing up has been, in the Gerdes household, has been the joy of my life. Trying to emulate that household has been the race of my life. And I know I usually use baseball analogies, but I also swam a lot. And I've won a lot of races, and I've lost a lot of races. The best race, other than trying to raise my family, as my family raised me, has been trying to catch up with my dad and the service he has given to this community. My dad is 6'3". He casts a big shadow. It has been the joy of my life to try to live up to that. And I am so blessed to have been a part of this. I know he doesn't like it. Sorry. You'll hug and kiss me later. Don't worry. But one special moment I did want to quickly share. This is the first time all eight of his grandchildren have been in the same room. And so the Lord continues to bless this Gerdes family. My dad, if you know anything about him, when he does something, he doesn't mess around. He goes full bore. And if he screws it up, that's okay. That's where I learned where it was okay to mess up. It was okay because your heart was in the right place. I try to bring that to council every day with you, my colleagues, Mayor, Rob. And it's my joy to have a small part in celebrating what I think has been a life well lived thus far. And I hope he enjoys the hell out of the next 20, 30, 40 years, whatever the good Lord gives him. So, colleagues, thank you very much. And, Dad, congratulations. So, Copley's right about Luann. And so he's already told you she's the hero of my life. So I'll leave it at that because I'll start crying if we start talking about anything else. But there's going to be some people that get a talking to after this. Starting with Stephanie Swenson and Tom Green who invited me to a meeting this morning to talk about some serious stuff. And we actually did have a meeting. But here's the good news. In order to come to this meeting, despite the fact that August 1st in Oracle I was disconnected from the city of St. Petersburg, I have kept this thing. And I brought it with me today. Knowing nothing about this. But let me tell you, the mayor went through kind of my resume. I've worked at a lot of serious places. Raytheon is a serious place. I worked at Holland and Knight, one of the largest law firms in the United States. And I worked for the city of St. Petersburg, a serious place. And I'm going to tell you at the top of my mementos list of plaques and pictures and not to dismiss this at all, but proclamations. At the top of the list of my mementos is this badge. When I first came to office, Ed, I think you feel the same way. Brandy, Gina, those of you that I served with, one of the first things you start to understand is that from the staff on the second floor on the city council side to the janitors, to the people in the printing office, to the people that help you every day get prepared for doing what you do, everybody is pulling on the oar and wanting the city to be a great place. And it's just, this is the honor of my life to have this badge that says, I was a city of St. Petersburg team member. I will treasure it. I will never give it back. I probably won't be able to get into any doors with it anymore, but that's okay. But I just want everybody to know from, you know, from stormwater to water resources, to sanitation, to parks and rec, to everybody. I'm a team member of yours. I always will be a team member of yours. Thank you for what you do every day. Thank you for making our city the best that she can be and for desiring to be more. And I'll keep doing that. I'll just keep doing that with a smile on my face. And you guys keep up the good work. St. Petersburg, I love you. Thank you very much. Councilmember Montaneri. Thank you, Madam Chair. What a great way to start a day to honor just a great man that comes from a great family that has a heart for service. And that is just so clear to anybody that ever meets you and meets the rest of the Gerdes family. The Gerdes family is all about giving back. And you all do it so well. Glad to see so many members of the Gerdes family here. I kind of wonder what West St. Pete is looking like right now. Very empty. I'm sure some people are hoping that everybody took the Sunrunner because the ridership is going to spike today. Charlie and I, we really got to know each other. We both did the Citizens Police Academy together many, many years ago. And that was a great, I think it was a six-week course. But we got to know each other very, very well. And then when we served on city council together, we used to have a little, it wasn't really a contest, but on city council days, we would both arrive very early. And we would usually figure out, okay, Charlie got there first, and I'd get there first the next day, and we kind of go back and forth. Charlie, we don't have that thing with Copley anymore. Just one of the things that I learned serving with Charlie, Charlie is he's got a photographic memory. He would, we would get a, we would have a PowerPoint presentation with slides and slides and slides of numbers and budget issues, and he could zero in on a slide and a number and ask why, how do we get to this figure? And for me, I need paper and post-it notes and all kinds of help, and I wish I had that memory. But you are very good at being prepared and making the best decisions for the city. When you left city council, you were chair, and I was the chair afterwards, and you left me a note, and I still have the note. I keep it by my Bible in my office, and it's a reminder. I said I wasn't going to cry. It's a reminder of you, Charlie, and I want to thank you for your service to the city of St. Petersburg, and I want to thank the mayor and Copley for stepping up and recognizing a great man that's done great things for our city. Thank you, Charlie. Thanks, Ed. Well, Charlie, when I heard that the mayor and Councilmember Gerdes wanted to put this on the agenda, I absolutely said yes because it's so fitting. It's probably overdue, if anything, because when I came on to council, I really looked to you to be that guiding light on our council to really show me how council members should lead. You are wicked smart. I mean, there is no doubt about that, but you come at everything with such a kindness and a humility and a love for our city that I don't believe will ever truly be replaced. Just the way that you lead your family, the way that you live your life, I have always looked at you as a role model for a life well lived. And, you know, we didn't always get along. And I can remember one particular time that right here on this dais, we did not get along. Actually, I think we were in the Sunshine Center, now that I think about it. I'm remembering it, too. Now that I think about it, we were in the Sunshine Center. That didn't help, right? Like, wasn't the best environment either. But we didn't agree. But you made sure afterwards that regardless of the topic, regardless of what we were voting on, that we still moved forward, were able to work together. And you didn't have to do that. You know, you were a senior member of our council. You didn't have to reach back to me and say, I want us to continue to move our city forward. But you did. And that right there spoke volumes to me about who you are and who you will always be and who you've always been. This family that we have here in front of us is a shining example of that. And you have raised a wonderful man in Copley. We are so fortunate to have him sitting here today. And I know that the way he leads, because I see it, comes from how you raised him to be. My note that you gave me when you left hangs on my bulletin board in my home office. And I see it every single day. Because the words that you put on that card really keep me and all of the work that we do in perspective every single day. So thank you for your guidance, for your kindness, for your love of our city. And just for being you. I hope you have a wonderful retirement and many, many years of joy. And thank you, Gerdes family, for letting us have him for all these years. Thank you. Thank you, Charlie. I love you. I love you, too. I remember that meeting like it was yesterday. And after that meeting, I couldn't live with myself. And I picked up the phone, and I called you, and you said, I was just dialing your number. That's what you said. And we had a great conversation. And I'll always respect you and love you. Thank you. Thank you for your service, Brandy. Councilmember Driscoll. Thank you. It is absolutely wonderful that the mayor and Copley have put together this moment for us to celebrate you. And I hope that that continues as we all continue our work. You are one of the people that we should all always keep in mind because you embody what St. Petersburg is all about and also how we should approach our work and treat each other. My first year on City Council, I was on the Budget, Finance, and Taxation Committee. One of those people who tries to take the tough 8 a.m. math class in college, you know, just to try to tackle that. That was the thing that I had the most challenge with. Because no matter how much budgeting you've done in the private sector, when you get into government and you're talking about how the financials work, it gets really complicated really fast. And I was so in the weeds, and I finally admitted that I had a problem. I had hit rock bottom. I was like, I've been at this for three months, and I don't know it yet. It took me three years. Right, so that's what you told me. And immediately I felt so much better because I'm like, well, if Charlie had trouble with it, then, you know, maybe this is kind of normal. And, you know, you inspired me to really look at how I could manage that better and get better at it. And that's when I started having regular meetings with Tom Green before the meetings to discuss the topics and anything else I wanted to know about. And I really got on such a better track. And it was just because you're willing to share that you're human, too, and that you had some struggles with it at first. And everything that you've done throughout your life, but particularly on city council, is really shining through your family now, even this guy over here, you know. The entire family is a reflection of your leadership. And I can only hope that even though you've retired, that you will stay visible, that you'll always be in my mind and in my heart. But please stay out there because we need leaders like you to continue standing up, speaking up, and making sure that our city continues to move in that beautiful direction. So I hope you enjoy any free time. I can't imagine that you're truly going to have any free time, knowing you. But, yeah. You don't need a gymnasium. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. But enjoy. And thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Gina. Council Vice Chair Fick Sanders. Thank you. And good morning, everyone. Hey, Mr. Charlie. How are you? I wasn't going to talk because I shared your sentiments about the tears. Um, but I never served with you, but I have served with you. Um, getting here was not a first-time wake-up, all-of-a-sudden decision. We've been out there. Um, and I knew you before I even ran for office because I watched what you do and how you've done it. And when I heard that line that you have been the voice of reason or you were the voice of reason, you really, really were. People that didn't even like politics like Charlie Gerdes. People that didn't even care for council members loved Charlie Gerdes. And I was one of those that loved Charlie Gerdes and still do. I don't think you're retiring. You're going to, we're going to find you on somebody else's board, somebody else's count, somebody doing something else. We know that. But you have eight beautiful grandchildren. That's a whole lot of time. You still have left to do a whole lot of devotion to your family. And I want to congratulate you so much. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you. Council Member Muhammad. Thank you. Like, Council Vice Chair Fick Sanders, I wasn't going to say much either. But I want to absolutely take this opportunity to thank you for your service. Thank you for the way that you've shown up for me over the years. Again, prior to being on council, I spent a lot of time in council chambers and in council offices. And I can remember meeting with you at your office around the New Deal for St. Pete. And just the way that you laid things out for us, one of the few times that I saw changes to the budget be made on the dais was with you, with a pen and pad saying, okay, well, what if we did the, and I haven't seen it before or since. But your immediate response to the pleas and the cries that were coming from the audience at that time for funding and resources for a particular area. And you were able to corral our colleagues and the colleagues on council to make those changes in real time, get the city on board, was just a phenomenal feat, you know, to see. And being here, I have a better appreciation for the, what it took to actually make that happen. Because by the time we get this stuff, it's like, wait, we can't do it. But just to see how you navigated that and was able to rally the other council members to make those changes in response to what you were hearing from the people. It's something that I'll never forget. And your line, I can't remember it verbatim, but we were debating another issue in the committee. And you said, just because it's law doesn't mean it's above reproach. And we started talking about how we can make some changes to city policy in our current environment. So I just thank you for your leadership. There's multiple examples that I can give, but it's been an honor to work with you as a private citizen and now as an elected official, so a public official. So thank you so much, and I appreciate your service. Stay engaged, Brother John. Stay engaged. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Administrator Gerdes. Thank you, Chair. I'll try and be brief because I think I cried all my tears when he had his last council meeting. But, you know, I just wanted to say, first of all, I didn't get a personal note, so I don't know what's up with that. And, you know, I just wanted to say in all seriousness, my brother John's here today, too. And, you know, 30 years ago, Charlie, when the three of us were sitting at Clancy's, nobody thought there would be a Charlie Gerdes day. You know? Eh. And you've listened to God's call, and you've followed his voice, and I love you so much. Love you, too. Thank you. All right, so because we have this momentous occasion of all eight grandchildren in the room, we are going to take a recess for a family photo. So please take those photos, get that done. We will recess for five minutes. Thank you, all. Thank you. We'll reconvene City Council, and we will now move into our good news item for today, report item F4. And this item was actually pulled by Council Member Floyd, so I'm going to go ahead and turn this over to him. Thank you. Yeah, I don't really have much to say. I just thought it was a good idea for us to have this off consent and let, you know, the PD and the provider speak a little bit about what's going to go forward in the future with these changes and this continuation. It's for the Community Assistance Life Liaison Program, a program that's been very successful in helping people during crises and helping our police departments load be a little bit easier. So with that, I'll let you guys say whatever you'd like. You're always good for good news. Yes, absolutely. Now I'm joined here by Megan McGee, who's our Assistant Director, who's really been instrumental in ushering this program forward for the last couple of years. So she's going to speak to it for a few minutes. Chief Holloway said no more than four. I told her we're trying to keep it at three. But no, it's all positive and it just shows that it's an opportunity to kind of change things and change it up and embrace new ways of doing it. And this is just another step forward to be able to kind of expand the time frame and just offer more services to people by individuals that can understand them a little bit better than maybe the police officer would. So I'm going to turn it over to Megan McGee and she can go over a few points. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. It is an absolute pleasure to be here this morning to talk about the Community Assistance and Life Liaison Program. Probably my favorite thing to talk about, to be honest with you. So to go back in time, Chief Holloway and I stood right here on January 8th, 2021, and we sought Council's approval to move forward with a nine month pilot. We wanted to reimagine police response for nonviolent and noncriminal calls for service. And we wanted to provide a better behavioral response to those in need. So Call has been changing lives in the city of St. Petersburg for 912 days because of your support. Call responds to live dispatches from our emergency communications division. They respond to referrals from our law enforcement officers and other staff within the police department. They operate a 24-7 crisis line for clients that they are already working with to give them an additional resource to reach out to. Our partners at Gulf Coast JSCS could not be here today, but they would like to come back very soon because we are approaching a milestone of 10,000 contacts in the community, and we would very much like to be able to share that, and we're very close to 10,000 contacts in the community. Today we are seeking a renewal of the contract to move into a three-year agreement with the opportunity to expand hours, increase staffing, and current hours are 8 a.m. to 12 a.m. seven days a week. So this would allow us to expand hours until 2 a.m. all seven days of the week. About 80% of the live calls and the referrals received by the program involve mental health, they involve clients of all ages, and they involve clients all over the city. People actually request the call team now when they contact emergency services. Within the agreement, we had several measures that the call team has continued to exceed. 91% of the calls that they are assigned, they respond to without law enforcement accompaniment. This was one of the large goals of the program, to be able to successfully divert nonviolent and noncriminal calls from law enforcement. 86% of the clients who they are working with attend follow-up visits and appointments, whether it's medical, mental health, or simply meeting at the DMV to assist that individual with completing paperwork. 86% of those clients are attending those follow-up appointments. And 93% of calls response results in a diversion from a crisis unit, a hospitalization, or a police response. We've had national and international recognition. Chief Holloway has been asked to serve on the Council of State Government's National Expanding First Response Commission, which promotes civilian diversion programs. Call and PD were both recognized by the Florida Police Chiefs Association, and we've been featured in the Vera Institute for Social Justice's Law Enforcement Toolkit. Which helps other law enforcement agencies adapt a civilian response program that works in their communities. Call was also awarded an NFL-inspired change grant that has allowed them to employ a youth engagement specialist to work specifically with youth. And in a few days, call will be highlighted at the International Crisis Intervention Team Conference in Detroit for our success and our equitable implementation. The workshop is called Civilian Crisis Response Promoting Equity and Collaboration in Program Planning. But I think in closing, the best way to highlight the success of the program is to share the words of our neighbors, our friends, and coworkers. There's been over 4,300 who have been impacted by the program. Call was a game changer for my recovery. I am extremely grateful that it exists in St. Petersburg. People who are equipped to deal with mental health issues are able to respond to me. I hope programs like this spread across the country. My brother was admitted to a mental health facility. The only bright spot was your navigator. She worked just as hard as I did to get him what he needed. I truly hope your program continues as much needed in our community. Strong communities can do so much to help each other. I witnessed one of these calls while I was at work. The call team did a wonderful job. They arrived, they de-escalated the situation, and they helped the person with the mental crisis. Thank you for allowing me to share some good news about the Community Assistance and Life Liaison Program, and if you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you, and thank you so much for the information and all of your hard work on this program. We just really appreciate you. I don't know that words could tell you how much, so thank you. Councilmember Muhammad. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Megan, for the presentation and the overview. So you went back to 2021. I want to go back to the summer of 2020, and I was looking forward to seeing the chief here because I'm reminded that this was in the uprisings and, you know, the wake of the George Floyd incident and murder. And there was, I think it was maybe day three of the St. Pete Peace protest. And there was an assembly and a meeting of, you know, community leaders and stakeholders. And during the course of that meeting, we talked about, the conversation was like, okay, we got, you know, hundreds of people in the streets. And one of the things that was said was that, well, these, a lot of them are from out of town. They're outside agitators and they're not from here. And our Sunshine Ambassador, one of our Sunshine Ambassadors, Mr. Edmond said, well, that's what they said about Dr. King and Selma and the marches that they led. And it shifted the room to saying, okay, well, wait. Instead of trying to figure out how to stop the protest, how can they be supported? How can we ensure public safety? And that conversation led to other conversations about reimagining policing and how we can be safe. And it was during those conversations where we start talking about models for a call. And it was just amazing to see, again, the responsiveness of our chief and his willingness to listen. And then when we laid out the case, again, our Sunshine Ambassador, Mr. Edmond, told the chief, he said, man, you got to be bold. And you got to do something innovative. And we actually have a chance to lead the nation in something that has never been done. And it was in the era of defund the police when that was being said. And we were saying we need to reimagine. We're talking about the budget and how we can redo things. And so being able to navigate those waters, again, I applaud the chief for the way that he worked with the community, worked with advocates, worked with us, worked with those of us who were on the ground, and then being able to see how the leadership at Gulf Coast Jewish Family Services really took it up, really embraced the mission, understood the assignment, as we would say, and really happy to see the direction that we're going. And for those who are advocates and champions that are watching, I think this is definitely a good news item. It's a moment where we can see a silver lining because a lot of times you fill a room and we see it time after time where you fill a room and the vote doesn't go your way. And so we've been asking for increases in funding for call for several years and since it started. And so if you're watching this, if you're paying attention, this is an example of how local government and our police force is responding to the things that are coming up from the community. And so I want to applaud you all and appreciate that. Also looking forward, I saw a report that came out about some gaps and follow up and some disparities in the follow ups. And so looking to see how we can continue to close those gaps in those who actually receive the follow up services along racial lines and income lines. But other than that, I'm really pleased with the program. And again, I think it's a great example of how advocacy and organizing when it meets with responsive leadership and responsive government can actually make some changes to our community that improves the quality of life for everyone. So thank you all for that. And I move approval. Second. Councilmember Montaneri. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chief Kvassev, Megan, thank you for the update. I remember when this program came forward, we had a press conference at the police station and the chief was supportive of it. The command staff was supportive of it and the PBA was supportive of this program. And public safety for us here in St. Petersburg is job number one. And this is a tool that we have to allow the call navigators to deal with non-criminal calls and free up our police officers to concentrate on the criminal calls. I'd like to just make sure that people that might be watching this kind of understand where we're going with this program. And how since this program was implemented, our police force, our sworn strength has continued to increase. At the time, we were at, I believe, 575 officers in our sworn strength and now we're up to 602. So we continue to grow the sworn strength of our police officers. Can you all talk a little bit, when a call comes in, how do you dispatch somebody? How do you know to send somebody from the call program or send a police officer to respond to a call? Absolutely. Calls can come from the 911 or our non-emergency line. Our call takers have been extensively trained in vetting these calls. They look at particular call types that we've determined that are appropriate for the program. So that's mental health, substance abuse related, youth related calls involving disorderly juvenile or truancy related. Some unhoused individual related calls and also neighbor disputes. So those are the identified call types if they are non-violent, non-criminal that can be vetted. The call taker will look at prior history associated with the address or if there's any cautions or alerts in the system. If the individual discloses that they have a weapon, it will not be dispatched to the call team. We have over the time in the program been able to be flexible and pivot. If it's a situation where law enforcement responds to initially and they've secured the scene, but they feel that it would be beneficial for call navigators to respond with, to assist with family members, other individuals, we can do that as well. So they have the ability to co-respond if it really meets the best needs of the individuals who need that service. Okay. All right. Very good. And I know that we all had a lot of questions when this program was being implemented, because we wanted, we always want to make sure that our law enforcement officers are safe. And then these new call personnel were safe also because we didn't want to dispatch them to a situation that wouldn't be safe for them. And, you know, I just so admire our police officers and it makes sense that we have this program to free up. It's a force multiplier for law enforcement. And I want to make that clear. Council member Muhammad, he mentioned his remarks about defund the police. I just don't want that statement to be out there because we continue to increase our police budget and the capabilities of our police department every year. We did not go there. This was an additional tool to supplement the work that our police department does. Yes, absolutely. We're able to have an appropriate behavioral health response for our citizens in St. Pete. And we also have a strong police force as well. We can have both. Okay. Well, very good. Well, thank you all for being here. All right, council. We have a motion and a second. Seeing no further requests to speak. Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present, council members have voted. Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Motion to approve agenda item F-4 passes unanimously, with council member Hanewitz absent. Now we'll move on to open forum. Clerk, will you please read the rules for open forum? If you wish to address city council on subjects other than public hearing or quasi-right judicial items listed on the agenda, please sign up with the clerk. Only the individual wishing to speak may sign the open forum sheet. Only residents, owners of property, business owners in the city, or their employees may speak. All issues discussed under open forum must be limited to issues related to the city of St. Petersburg government. If you are speaking to an item on the agenda, you may only speak once, during the open forum 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 raised 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 reach 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 a three minute time limit on the comments, the requirement that any presentation materials must be submitted in advance of the meeting, and the rules of decorum. Live public comment is disrupted by violations of the rules of decorum. The chair is authorized to accept public comment by alternate means, including by email only. And we do have two speakers. Okay. Please call both cards. John Schroer and Dylan Dames, please go to an open podium. You have three minutes to address city council. Please state your name and address for the record. John Schreiner, 250 58th Street, North St. Petersburg. St. Pete City, I'm talking about public financing right now of the stadium that may or may not happen. City council approved the gas plane redevelopment in 1979. St. Pete wanted a professional sports team after Tampa got an NFL team. St. Pete City floated a bond issue in 1990 for $130 million. That's comparable to $233 million today. In 1996, $70 million in 98, excuse me, in 98, it's worth about $131 million today. $35 million in 2006 upgrade is worth about $35 million today. Altogether, excuse me, $52 million. Altogether, that's $483 million in today's dollars. Publicly financed sports stadiums, if you do just five minutes of research, there is not any legitimate survey or study that shows that publicly financed stadiums make sense. And by the way, those are just three expenses. That's not including the numerous city services, police, fire, EMT, streets, sanitation, traffic control. It doesn't include any business tax breaks, tax and other subsidies, all kinds of grants, low interest loans, and whatever infrastructure they had to put in for the city. And it doesn't include the massive interest payments over the last 30 years, and the city still owes several million. And this process has not been transparent at all. I believe there's ongoing discussions. Nothing's in writing, so the city has been avoiding the sunshine laws. And I've been requesting the financials from the Christman Administration, Freedom of Information Act, the Welsh Administration, and a few months ago from city council. How can you guys even consider voting for a stadium if you don't have the financials, i.e., the balance sheet, since you started spending money on this in the 80s, and the income and expense statement? That's the financials. And what I get is 30 years of your annual report. You expect, I guess, me to dig through 12,000 pages to come to it. I ask that the city council provide the financials to the people of St. Petersburg. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Please. My name is Dylan Dings. I live at 12001, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Street North. I'm with Faith in Florida, and I'm here to urge city council to do everything in its deciding power to ensure affordable workforce housing remains a priority in the redevelopment of the historic gas plant district. Thank you for your commitment to democracy and holding open forums and public comment. Our mayor and the city have made public your commitments to affordable housing, but my neighbors and I don't believe that's enough. Proposals for redevelopment that consider residents making wages at or under 120% of the area median income as workforce housing are not earnest proposals because those are not earnest numbers. The history of displacement of families here in the city as well as the current reality of price gouging does not give me hope that our developer partners will have the best interest of working class people at heart. People making 80, 50% of the area median income. I gather that these negotiations come to you after most of the decisions have already been made. And I also know that, you know, you and the mayor have supported a community benefits agreement process and that's important and we're grateful for that. But you're still city council and as the ones with approving and deciding power, the people see you as the ones that will ultimately determine the future of the gas plant. So I urge you to put us first and honor the memory of the original residents. Thank you. No more speakers. Okay, we will close open forum and we will now take up our public hearings. We are going to start with item E1, which is a resolution approving the FY2324 Annual Action Plan. We are joined by Housing and Community Development Director Joshua Johnson. Good morning, Chair and members of City Council. I have a PowerPoint, but I think it'll probably be best if I just give you a brief overview. Sounds good. Okay. The administration presents to you a request this morning to approve the FY2324 Annual Action Plan. The plan is an element of the consolidated plan, the five-year consolidated plan that was approved in fiscal year 2021. What it allows is for the city to receive funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Grant Program, the Home Investment Partnership Program, and the Emergency Solutions Grant Program. And in the plan we are to address affordable housing needs, homeless services, public services, infrastructure improvements, and public facilities and improvements. The annual action plan process began December 21st where we announced in the Tampa Bay Times the meeting at the Enoch Davis Center on January 10th to meet with the general public and subrecipient agencies to discuss the previous annual action plan accomplishments by the city that ended September 30th of last year. And to ask for them to provide priority needs that they saw that we may need to include in the upcoming annual action plan. That meeting then segwayed into a meeting at the Jet Jackson Community Center on February 1st, I think it was, February 1st. At that meeting, we met with all of the subrecipients who were going to submit applications for funding. We advised them how they can prepare the applications for funding and to be successful in receiving a grant application. That meeting resulted in the following meeting, which was the consolidated plan review committee, which many of you sat on with private citizens, reviewed those applications that were received. And recommended funding for those applicants that are in the proposed plan today. And we subsequently met with the housing, land use and transportation committee in June. And at that meeting, we went over a PowerPoint presentation to discuss how the consolidated plan process works from start to finish. And we also asked that the housing, land use and transportation committee authorized publication of the proposed budget. And after that, we placed an ad in the paper like we're supposed to do per the citizen participation plan of HUD to advise the citizens that there will be a meeting today to discuss the consolidated plan. And if citizens have anything they would like to say, we are here to respond. And as such, administration recommends that you approve the proposed annual action plan for the third year of implementing the city's consolidated plan. Move approval. Second. Second. Very good, we have a motion and a second. Do we have any cards on this item? We do not, Madam Chair. Okay, and I don't see any request to speak. So, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present, council members have voted. Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Motion to approve agenda item E1 passes unanimously with council member Hanowitz absent. All right, very good. And Mr. Johnson, the next item is yours as well, item E2. This item is one that administration brings to you to approve a substantial amendment to the FY 2021-22 annual action plan to add a new community development block grant project for phase one of design and pre-planning services to determine the annual, the actual cost for the replacement of the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system at Jordan Park School and to transfer $140,700 in undesignated FY21-22 CDBG balance to Jordan School. And we were made aware of this after the city completed rehabilitation assistance to the facility in January. We spent about a little over a million dollars replacing modular classrooms and rehabbing the one-story classroom to the site. And we were then advised by Lutheran Services that the HVAC system was on the brink of basically failing. It's a system that was put in place in 2008, so the useful life is probably, you know, reach its peak. And you have over 200 children that are served by that facility in a head start capacity that could be, you know, in peril of having to sweat out this all summer long, all, you know, for the rest of duration. So we met with engineering, engineering determined that the cost to have this study done will be $140,700. And as soon as it's completed, we will then meet with the economic development department in housing and economic development. We'll put budgets together for whatever the cost to put in place the HVAC system. And it's not a regular system to, so that the building can be put to, or kept in good use and provide services to the children, you know, in need. Move approval. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Do we have any cards on this item? We do. We do not. Okay. And seeing no request to speak, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Thank you. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present, council members have voted. Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Motion to approve agenda item E2 passes unanimously. With council member Hanowitz absent. Very good, and thank you so much, Mr. Johnson. Good to see you today. All right, we are going to move on now to item E3, which is an ordinance. And clerk, can you please read the title, please? Proposed ordinance 547-H. An ordinance amending the St. Petersburg City Code to remove Chapter 28, vehicles for hire in its entirety, creating a new article IX. Non-motorized and low speed vehicles in Chapter 26, amending Chapter 12 related to fees charged for public vehicles, providing for severability, and providing an effective date. And we have no speakers. Okay, and we are joined today by Assistant City Attorney Heather Judd, and I believe Chief Kvasik is around to answer questions if needed. So, Heather? I can go a brief overview of the program and what this does, again, if the council would like. I know that Evan is not here with us today, but Keith Glasgow is, so we can- Move approval. Second. All right, sounds like we're good on the presentation, so motion and a second. Any cards on this item? No, Madam Chair. Okay, seeing no cards and no request to speak. Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present, council members have voted. Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Motion to approve agenda item E3 passes unanimously with council member Hanowitz absent. Okay, very good. Thank you. Thank you all. Item E4, which is another ordinance. Clerk, please read the title. Proposed ordinance number 548-H, an ordinance of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, removing Chapter 20, Article VII of the St. Petersburg City Code, known as the Tenant's Bill of Rights in its entirety. Repealing all ordinances which codified the Tenant Bill of Rights to comply with state law, making findings, and providing an effective date. And we do have some speakers. Okay. We are joined by Assistant City Attorney Brad Tennant. Hello, Mr. Tennant. Good morning, City Council. I'm happy to answer questions. It's pretty straightforward. It's repealing the existing Tenant Bill of Rights based on new legislation that was passed by the state, and I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you. We'll go ahead and go to public comment. Okay. First two speakers are William Kilgore and Dylan Dames. Please go to an open podium, state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address City Council. Good morning. Hi, everybody. Thanks, Chair. William Kilgore with the St. Pete Tenant's Union and reside in the Apostolion neighborhood. Yeah, so, yeah, I'm just here to speak on this item. Wait, you know, I was here two weeks ago to talk about everything. I'm happy to see that some of those issues that we had brought up are moving forward. Just to, you know, reiterate, you know, what we're asking for. Obviously, this is, you know, tied up with these other things that are preempted. But just to remind you that there's a couple things in here that aren't preempted that pertain to fair housing and source of income discrimination specifically. You know, so what the Tenant's Union, what we want to see, you know, is these things, a new ordinance drafted, you know, and done as quickly as possible, you know, to get that back on the books and have, you know, fair housing source of income protections. You know, because those are really important, probably the most potent aspect of this Tenant Bill of Rights, honestly. You know, I mean, the noticing requirements are very important, too, you know, that we had in there, and it's sad to see those go. But, you know, really the source of income, you know, as you folks know, I mean, we came here, we had filed complaints with codes. I mean, it was actually something that is happening. You know, we've demonstrated, we brought people in to speak about their experiences. And, you know, we've seen it just looking at the rental listings so that the fact that we still have that possibility to, you know, to protect these folks. You know, so we want to see, you know, as it's worded, there was all this stuff with loopholes and things like that that were written in. We kind of got those, helped get those tweets, you know, and we want to see this. We don't want to see something come back in a different form that's, you know, kind of watered down or milk toast or, you know, weaker than whatever we have now in the wording we have now for protections for source of income. So, you know, that is really important that we see that. And, you know, I know Councilmember Floyd, thanks to Councilmember Floyd, too, for taking action to get that rolling. You know, but as he pointed out last time, you know, it's, there's, you know, things like the Apartment Association. You know, these groups, these business groups, special interests, 501c6 groups, you know, who come in and are meddling with our, you know, protections for, you know, workers, tenants. And then they go up to the state level and get these things preempted. You know, it's just, I think the city really should not take into consideration anything at the Apartment Association reaches out and tries to say, oh, you know, whatever, you know, about this and getting a fair housing ordinance passed. So, you know, appreciate your time. Thank you all so much. Have a great day. Speaker. Dylan Dames. I'm at one two zero zero one. Dr. Martin Luther King, junior street north. I'm with faith in Florida. I'm here to urge city council to remain creative and crafty about how we can hold on to whatever we can hold on to from the tenants. Both rights. I stand with all the organizations and the tenants unions that have been urging for this for the past few years. And I understand that this is more of a, how are we going to do it? Then what are we going to do? But like I said earlier, our residents see you guys as the people that will be making the final decisions. So I urge you to remain creative and crafty about how we can hold on to tenant protections in St. Pete. Thank you. Any other speakers? No. Madam Chair, we do have someone that wants to speak through Zoom, but this is a public hearing and they cannot. No, they cannot. Okay. Councilmember Gerdes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to publicly thank Councilmember Floyd for leading on this item with the discussion about fair housing and discrimination. I appreciate the leadership on that and I'll move approval. We have a motion. Second. Motion and a second. Councilmember Floyd. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Gerdes. Nice of you. I just wanted to, I said everything I needed to say last time we talked about this. I just wanted to repeat, I'm not happy about it. I don't think many people up here are happy about it. I think the Tenants Bill of Rights is one of the few things that cities across the state have been able to accomplish to help tenants. And it's very frustrating that we're in this situation. But I believe that us as the City Council will continue to try to do everything we can for affordable housing and tenants rights in the city. So that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no further requests to speak, we have a motion and a second. Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Councilmembers, enter your votes. Seeing all present, councilmembers have voted. Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Motion to approve agenda item E-4 passes unanimously. Councilmember Hanowitz absent. Okay, we will close our public hearings and go to our report items, go back to reports, and take up item F-1, Citywide Pilot Rebates for Residential Rehabilitation Program. Okay. I'll just get us started, Chair. Okay, thank you. You have already approved this program to go citywide. We are aligning it with the same process as the CRA, so as not to confuse residents. So the changes that are before you really do that, but we're here to answer any questions. Move approval. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Councilmember Driscoll. Thank you. I understand aligning it. I'm just wondering if this is enough, if we're making this even with what we do for CRA. This is a program that's, you know, strongly supported. It's, you know, I'm excited about the expansion of it, but. When you say, is this enough, do you mean the funding? Right. You know, we were out of funding on the second day of advertisement. Right. So, you know, we will bring back a future request to have additional conversation about that. In the meantime, we also heard your discussion and feedback when you approved this for the CRA. And so we're taking a look at what changes may we bring back for next fiscal year that may speak to some of the things you asked for. So, are we able to lower the AMI to 100% and not break the program? Are we able to provide, instead of it being first come, first serve, some incentives for people who are preserving their housing and staying in their home? You know, putting them higher up in the priority list than an investor creating a new unit. So those are discussions we're having. We'll bring to you at an HLUT whenever staff have some recommendations, but we're hopeful to bring those changes back quickly to you. Okay. Thank you. I just want to make sure when we find something that's working that we have, you know, that we support it financially so that it can be as effective as possible. So I look forward to hearing more and finding out what what enough looks like. I don't think we're there yet, but it's exciting that we're moving in the right direction. Thank you. Well, I just want to take a second to thank Mayor Welch and Ms. Foster, everyone that's worked on being able to expand this program. It's something I went back to all of my budget requests since the beginning of being here on council. This was an item that I have been for for a very long time and so I'm just very happy that we found a creative way to begin funding it this year. I agree we have a lot more work to do to make the program as robust and impactful as it needs to be to address the need. It's one more tool in the toolbox and I mean preserving housing is just as important as creating housing. So I completely support whatever, you know, we end up moving forward to look at maybe a preferential matrix that would give preference to people trying to preserve their housing. I know there's a lot of residents in my district who need help and they don't know where to go for that help. So I really want to thank you for your creativity and for making this a priority this year and I'm very excited to support the item today. So thank you. All right, we have a motion and a second. Do we have any cards on this item? We do not. Okay. Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present, council members have voted. Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Motion to approve agenda item F1 passes unanimously with Council Member Hanowitz absent. Okay, thank you very much Ms. Foster, Mr. Johnson, appreciate your work. Okay, we're going to move now to item F3 and we are joined by City Development Administrator James Corbett. Good morning. Good morning. Morning Chair and members of City Council. I'm here to present to you a presentation regarding the Third Amendment to a Development Agreement of City on Land located at 1300 First Avenue North, also known as Orange Station. Thank you. First, I'll provide a summary of the original development plan that was approved in August of 2020. The main elements of the original plan was to develop 100,000 square feet of Class A office space, 56 market rate condominium units, 22,000 square feet of retail space, and 30 workforce apartment units. There were 600 parking spaces in a parking garage of which 400 of those spaces were to be purchased by the City to be used as public parking. Additional terms in the original agreement, it was the developer was to provide up to $100,000 for Courageous 12 public art and that the 400 parking spaces that were to be purchased was at a cost of $8 million or $20 million per space. Additionally, the City will provide a $2 million mortgage at 1% interest payable as an interest only loan during the 20 year affordability period. So moving on to the amendments, the first amendment happened in April of 2021 and this simply was an amendment to extend the due diligence period to May of 2021. In June of 2021, Council approved a second amendment which tied the number of workforce units required to the total square footage of office space. Essentially in this amendment as the square footage of office space decrease, the minimum required number of workforce units increase. Additionally, there was a credit that was provided to the workforce units so that the combination of the actual cost of demolition and the credit for the workforce units would not exceed $1 million. So for now, I want to go into detail on the third and from my perspective, the last amendment to this lease agreement and lease development agreement. So as we discussed the terms of the amendment with the developer, we wanted to make sure that we didn't lose ground on any of the elements of this development, which were a priority for the administration. And those key elements as we identified was new class, a office space, public parking and workforce housing. And it's my position in this third amendment that all of those items were either the same or more favorable for the city. The office space in this third amendment has been increased to a minimum of 115,000 square feet compared to a range of as low as 50,000 to up to 100,000 square feet in the second amendment. Second amendment, the workforce housing units have been increased to a minimum of 42 compared to a minimum of 30 in the original agreement. And the workforce housing unit must be affordable to households who earn 120% of area median income or less. And approximately 20% of the units have to be available to households who earn 80% of area median income or less. And I have some information if I can locate it here. I got a question about, I know often we talk about area median income and the question is, well, what does that really mean? So for 120% of area median income, for example, for a household of two, that would mean that the, let's assume it would be two working adults. That the, they can make no more than $83,520 or for two adults, for example, that would be an average of $41,760. At 80%, that would be a household of two could earn no more than $55,600. So in that instance, it would be an average of 27,800 per adult. If you look at a household of four, so let's say two adults, two children, at 120% of AMI, that household could earn no more than 104,200, which would be about 52,000 per adult if there were two adults in the household. And for 80% of AMI, that would equate to 69,500 or approximately 34,750 for if there were two working adults in the household. Just to give you an idea of what the actual income restrictions would be on those units. The public parking spaces will remain the same. There will still be the 400 public parking spaces and the contribution from the city would remain the same as well at $20,000 per space or a total of $8 million for those 400 spaces. The developer has agreed to increase their contribution for the Courageous World Public Art from $100,000 to $250,000. And the city's contribution remains the same. Additionally, the city would increase the mortgage for the workforce housing from $2 million to $4 million. The terms will remain the same. It would be a 1% interest rate, interest only payable at the end of the affordability period, which would be 20 years. And lastly, and probably the most significant part of the change in this development is that the 56 market rate condos have been removed from the development. The timelines and the third amendment have been adjusted as follows. The developer will have into October 30th of this year to submit site plan and building elevations for administrative approval, as well as written verification of a firm funding for all improvements related to the construction. A comprehensive revised building permit package must be submitted no later than April of 2024. And just for council's knowledge, the parking garage and the workforce housing, the design, the plans, those don't need to change. So they actually can commence construction on those elements of the development immediately. The change is required as it relates to the office building due to the elimination of the market rate condos. And the last thing I want to point out, which I think is probably most important to ensure that this project is completed in a timely manner. In order for the developer to exercise the purchase option, 25% of the project must be complete by December of 2024. So we've defined 25% completion to include the entire parking garage to be complete certified by a certificate of occupancy. And that actually has to be done by October of 2024. Additionally, all the structural components for the workforce housing must be complete as certified by the architect or engineer of record. And that must be done by December of 2024. And just to give you an idea of what that means by structural components, that would mean the foundation, exterior walls, support columns, and roof would all have to be complete prior to December of 2024 to meet the definition of 25% complete. And finally, the office building must be prepared for immediate pouring of foundation footers and pilings. So just to kind of give you a summary of what the deal is, again, that the purchase price has not changed. It's $6.4 million. There is a credit of $1 million that will be split between $323,670 towards the actual cost of demolition. There is another $676,000 that will be credited towards the workforce housing, which works out to be about $16,000 per unit. And then the city will hold a mortgage for a period of 20 years that will be payable as an interest-only loan due within the 20-year affordability period for $4 million. So at closing, the developer would pay the $1.4 million with the balance due no later than the 20-year affordability period. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. We also have the developer here to answer any questions that council may have. Okay, thank you, Mr. Corbett. Okay, we have cards on this item. All right, we'll go ahead and go to public comment then. When I call your name, please go to an open podium. State your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address city council. Jayne Miller and Will Conroy. Gentlemen, did you both fill out a card? Both? Then, Mr. Conroy, if you want to go to the other podium. Mr. Miller? Good morning, city council members. I want to thank James Corbett and city staff for the collaborative support and a great presentation. With your approval today, we will be under. Mr. Miller? I need your address, please. Happy to give you my address. I live at 723 17th Avenue Northeast in St. Pete. My office is also in St. Pete at 248 Mirror Lake Drive North. Thank you. All right. Good morning again. Sorry. And again, I want to thank James for a great presentation and the collaborative support of city staff. With your approval today, we'll be under construction in 2023, which is exciting news. I'm joined today by all of my partners in this project. Will, Bowen Arnold and John Schilling of DDA Development and our new partners from Ellison Development Corporation, Sam and Casey Ellison and Jordan Starr. We're excited to have them join our team. Orange Station has become a labor of love for our local team during the past two years. Since we last presented to Council, we've completed demolition of the old police station building at our cost, as promised, and we've prepared a complete set of construction documents and obtained permit approval last spring. The process took quite a long time because Orange Station is a complicated project with four separate buildings which don't include the hotel. During this planning and permitting process, the financing market changed dramatically, thus the need to modify our use mix and financing structure. As I said, with your approval, we'll start construction in the fourth quarter of this year, led by the public parking garage and the workforce housing components, which already have building permit approval. I want to briefly mention various public benefits of our project and remind you of the project's origin. The city selected Orange Station as most responsive to a formal RFP process issued by the last administration. The RFP was not an offer to sell to the highest bidder. It required that the project include a minimum of 300 public parking spaces, and our project will include 400. It required a minimum of 50,000 square feet of office space, and with these changes, we'll now have 115,000 feet and incorporation of an outdoor civic space for the Edge District. And it expressed a preference for a mixed-use development with retail office, mixed-income housing, and possibly a hotel. Many, if not most of these uses, require some public financial support for viability. Orange Station in its final form today includes the following benefits that specifically address goals outlined in that RFP. It is a mixed-use project, which includes retail and office space, affordable and workforce housing, and a hotel. It includes a 400-car public parking garage, and further, with the elimination of the condos, we'll construct another 75 spaces that will be available for public parking when not used by our hotel or office use. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Conroy? I'd just like to emphasize what Jay has said. Oh, I'm sorry, name it. Will Conroy, 158 Ramon Way Northeast. My office is at 248 Merrill Lake Drive. I'd just like to, again, reemphasize our thanks for all of your support, some of your predecessor's support. We will be underway with your approval today in the fourth quarter of 2023 with residents moving into the workforce apartment building in early 2025. We believe this is a job creator, not only construction, which happens on every deal, but permanent jobs. With the hotel, it will be more than 100 full-time permanent jobs and an equal or greater number of part-time jobs. The office, as we all know, is also a job generator and a job creator, and so are we needed for the city. We are also thrilled to be a part of bringing the Courageous 12 public art to life in the city. We are residents of the city. We live here. We shop here. We coach baseball here, and to honor our city's illustrious history in that way is something that's very meaningful for us. I'd like to, again, thank the administration team, James, Aaron, Ms. Foster, Brad, and all the others that helped us get to this point, and we are available to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Next speakers. Roger Curlin and Jason Mathis, please go to an open podium. State your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address city council. Roger Curlin, 4535 6th Avenue North. I am the executive director of the Edge Business District Association, and I'm here to give the support from the Edge Business District Association for this project. We are extremely excited about it, and I'm going to echo a few things that Jay said. There's really four keys. It's the valued addition of inventory of parking for our district, and to have that flex additional parking is going to be great on the nights and the weekends when we really need it in the district. The second key is that workforce housing. You know, the growth of those units is so important because I've seen the change of one apartment for one person and what it can make for them to have affordability, and so that's really important to have that in the heart of a growing district. The third key is the addition of a quality office space. So St. Pete is very unusual in that we have a very low vacancy rate compared to a lot of the rest of the country, and this is a huge economic driver for our local community. To have that office space is super critical, and we're excited to have it in the Edge District. And last but not least, the addition of hotel space is an amazing driver of our local economy for our small businesses. So when we have our restaurants, our retail, our bars, our services, they immediately see an influx of revenue and involvement when we have some of those great hotels coming into our district. Again, thank you so much, Council, for all the work you've done for multiple years to help bring this project forward. Thank you to Jay and your team because I've seen the care that you have given to this project, and the Edge District supports it. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Mathis? Good morning. My name is Jason Mathis, and I am the CEO of the St. Petersburg Downtown Partnership. I live in beautiful Bahama Shores, 115 62nd Avenue North in Councilmember Fig Sanders District. I am here today to speak in support of this project. When you think about cities and urban centers, they really are systems, and every city needs certain things to be successful. This project hits four very specific goals that St. Petersburg needs to be successful. The first is the creation of office space. As I think many of you know, we have not had new office space built in our urban center in decades. It's very challenging to build office space, especially spec office space. This could be a game changer for our economy and for St. Petersburg. The second is workforce housing. We all are very aware of the crisis of housing that we have. I'm really grateful that James was able to talk about what 120% of AMI means. Sometimes people hear $104,000 and think that that's one person making a six figure salary, but most families have two people making that. So those are people making $50,000 a year in that 120% AMI. That's very important, as Roger mentioned, really, really important for this district, really important to have that proximity to the urban center. The third thing really is honoring the history. I'm so proud that this project will help to support the memory of the Courageous 12. It's a really important point of pride that everybody in our city should have for the incredible heroism of those officers. And knowing that they will be memorialized in an appropriate way, I think, is important. And finally, the parking. Anyone who's tried to park in the Edge District on a Friday or Saturday night knows it's very challenging. So having 400 spaces is going to be a game changer again to help benefit the vitality of the restaurants, the shopping, the retail. And it can even make the Edge District really one of the points of pride for all of St. Petersburg. So those four things are very important parts of this project, and we urge your support. Thanks very much. Thank you. Next speaker. Next speaker is Chris Steinacher. Please go to an open podium. State your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address City Council. Good morning. I'm Chris Steinacher, President and CEO of the St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce. I'm a Crescent Lake neighbor at 18th Avenue North. I work at 102nd Avenue North at the Chamber Building. First of all, I just want to say thank you to everybody. This morning has been a beautiful community effort. We've allowed ourselves to align and love each other for what we're doing. Today, again, we see some alignment and some appreciation for understanding. The City Council has advanced itself to really understand that these projects are difficult and complex. But somehow our city team, led by James, was able to get everything we were actually wanting out of this project and more. So I want to say thank you to our city staff for working that, and I want to thank our development team for taking critical land and making sure that we had what we needed. You heard all my partners at the Edge District and our downtown partnership identify what we needed, and you're coming through with that. So thank you all for that. Let me remind you, we're at 94.7% occupancy rate. So that's about 5% that we have available. That means that we don't have anything available. We have about 40 open projects. As an executive member and founding CEO of our EDC, we have about 40 active projects, probably more, all looking for space right now. If you pause for a second, allow the room to go quiet, you can hear. We're creating 60 jobs a day. 60 jobs a day just in Pinellas County. If you had Hillsborough County, we're over 140 jobs a day. People are looking every day, walking our streets, trying to find that space. You're doing that for us. And that affordability of those units, I don't see a long line of people asking for more luxury condos here this morning. Fighting for that today. Everybody's fighting for the same thing. We're fighting for the people who are going to work those jobs. Rinalytics, Codex, Hattie, Blue Innovation Group, Phospholutions, Wellbull, Relic. Those are just eight businesses that have recently relocated here. Founders, founding industries that are going to continue to grow here. If we send a message that we're willing to continue to grow that space, we're going to send a message that we're willing to grow those jobs. When we grow those jobs, we grow our economy, and affordability becomes an issue that we don't necessarily have to deal with. We have to deal with prosperity. We are going to get out of this affordability mindset and get into a prosperity mindset. It starts today. Thank you for approving this project. Thank you. Is that the final speaker? Yes. Okay. Council Vice Chair Fick Sanders. Thank you. Again, good morning, everyone. First, I want to thank Mr. Corbett for the extensive one-on-one on this because when I saw it, I was like, okay, here we go again. Another amendment to this project. But I'm glad of the changes and the things that actually came out of the negotiations. Everything, you know, I was happy with, especially eliminating the market rate housing. And thank you for providing because I always ask, when we say affordable workforce, to me are not the same thing. And then when we hear workforce, what does that mean? And even with two adults working in a household, they still have to make more than $50,000 apiece. And how many of our housekeeping in the hotel are going to be able to afford to live there? So then I started thinking about the tier process of that as far as how applications are taken and how are we really being impactful in providing the housing for that. So that was my first question. So actually, thank you for providing those numbers. The second part that I am urging us to be mindful is that we have one member remaining of the Courageous Twelve. And we have been prolonging this project for the longest. Mr. Jackson, bless his heart, I want him to have as many years as God has decided for him, but I want him to see this. It's one thing to talk about it, but it's another thing to have the one remaining member of the Courageous Twelve to be a part of this. And I don't want us to wait until it's done. So you have truly entertained my request and I want to make it public that I'm asking that we do something to ensure he sees us as a sitting, as a collaboration to make such a grandeur of what they've done. That's why they were called the Courageous Twelve, because they were truly operating during the time when it took more than courage. It took bravery. It took commitment. It took them to band together to do what was right for our city at that time. So I am asking, hopefully we can do a mock-up or something for Mr. Jackson to participate in this. And lastly, again for the actual office space itself, I still want to know, I know we need office space and I'm all for the office space. And I'm still trying to get to an understanding of how that is going to roll out and what that looks like. But I am so good and so thankful and thankful and glad to have you a part of my district, Mr. Mathis, District Five Rocks. But I wanted to make sure that we follow through and thank you for your timeline, Mr. Corbett. Thank you for your timeline. And I'm going to say that again. Thank you for your timeline, because this has been going on way too long. But I really do appreciate the elimination of the market rate housing, the increase of the housing, and really wanted to pay attention to the developers and your additional donation for the art piece. But can we please get that done? Can we please do something while Mr. Jackson is still here? Thank you for that, Chair. Councilmember Floyd? Thank you. I just want to start getting some clarification at first. So this is an amendment to an existing agreement. So as it is right now, the previous agreement is in place. That's correct. Yeah, so really we're just voting on whether or not we want to change the agreement that we already have into this new one. So that means that when I'm voting on this, I'm going to be considering only the changes, which I think are exciting. More office space, I think everyone agrees. Yeah, no one's like, we need more market rate condos. That's a very good point. So to get more office space, which I think people do say we need, I think everybody agrees we need, is exciting. And that's really the biggest selling point for me on this. But I do want to make a comment that I think needs to be said out loud about just the contours of the entire deal in general. We're going to get 42 units of workforce housing with, you said 20% at 80% of AMI? Approximately 20% is 19 point, but I'm rounding to 20%. So eight units is, yeah, what we're looking at. And another, the rest of them at 120. I mean, two bedroom 120 is $2,300 a month. That's significantly more than my mortgage for a three bedroom house. So it's just a difficult situation to be put in. But I just want to say overall, I'll say this. I like the amendment, but I do have a problem with the initial deal. But I know I'm not voting on that today. But I think it needs to be said that between the land value, the new estimate that we got back at 28.4 million when you sold for highest and best use. The subsidy being provided on the mortgage, which let's say we could get 4% per year on that money instead of the 1%. We're looking at over 20 years, over $3 million there. We're pushing $25 million in subsidy for this development. That is immense. Like, with that $25 million, not to mention the actual cost of the land that they're getting it for, we can build hundreds of 80% of AMI units. So I want people to have that in their head when they go to vote on this. Now again, we're voting on the amendment. It's already going to happen, so I'm going to vote yes on the amendment because I think the amendment is better. But I hope that going forward when we're doing deals for city land, we're considering some of this stuff. Because if I was here for the first vote on it, I guess the land value has gone up recently. I'm just here to express my frustration as usual. But I do agree that the amendment is good. I just, you know, want us to be cognizant of how much of a subsidy we're giving out for these kind of projects. So I'll leave it there. Thanks. Councilmember Driscoll. Thank you. Thank you. I actually have questions for Mr. Miller, if you don't mind. And Mr. Conroy, if you have any, but Mr. Miller, I know you had reached your maximum time as you were speaking. So I wanted to give you an opportunity to, you know, complete your thoughts. I wish you had actually been part of the presentation so that we could hear a little bit more. But I was here for the vote on the initial agreement. And we did go back and forth a lot. It was these mixed use projects can create enthusiastic debate over what that mix needs to look like. But I had faith in you and what your group was doing. And I was supportive. And I've remained supportive since then. This third amendment is actually an improvement over the second one. And I do understand that, you know, over time with financing, things like that, and our needs, that things can change. The office spaces of what I saw start a little higher, then go lower, and now it's back up there. And that has become a big topic with us recently as we all understand that not only do we need housing, but we need to be working on job creation at the same time. We need to make sure that our economy is strong so that the housing can grow with that. And I just appreciate that over all of this time you've been so communicative. You and Will have kept me posted through all of the ups and downs, and that means a lot to me. But it has been a long time. And, you know, we get excited about these new projects, and then we wait and wait and wait. And although I understand because of our conversations, I want to make sure everyone understands what's different now. What's going to make the difference this time and really show some progress? I think that what's different now is, first of all, we've made quite a bit of progress by completing the plans for the original package of uses. And we're in a position to move forward with the garage and the workforce housing. We are changing what was originally a mixed-use building, including condominiums, and converting that building to 100% office. What's going to enable us to move forward is that we have a new partner. Our new partner is Ellison Development Company. They have a long track record here in the Tampa Bay area. They own a construction company, which is a tremendous asset for the project. And they have the financial resources to enable us to start construction immediately without a loan, if necessary, on the portions of the project that are permitted. So that's the significant change. We were obligated to seek a new investor partner when the financial markets changed. And traditional commercial mortgage lenders started requiring substantially more equity in order to provide any financing at all. So we're very excited to have Ellison join us. They bring a tremendous wealth of experience to our team. They also are the developer of the Marriott Autograph Hotel, which is going to be part of the project in which is how we started our collaboration together. So that's the primary difference, which is going to enable us to get going now. Excellent. And looking at the timeline here, I mean, things really do start, these deadlines start coming up rather quickly. You know, starting with, you know, the funding has to be shown in the city by the end of October. And, you know, a year later, the garage has to be complete. By December of next year, the entire project has to be 25% complete. Are you and the new partner, are you comfortable with this? Because it gets harder all the time to accept delays. We are comfortable with it. And I can assure you we're not going to start construction on the parking garage and the workforce housing unless we're 100% sure that we can meet those deadlines. Okay, good. You know, the deadlines sound great, but I want to make sure that you're going to be able to check those boxes. Yeah, I mean, we're obviously not going to make a major investment and start something and take a risk that we can't complete it. Right. That doesn't serve anybody, including us. Okay, thank you. Is there anything else that you'd like to add or share with us that maybe you didn't get an opportunity to say earlier? I think most of the other speakers pretty much completed my presentation. I do think, and I want to reemphasize that the jobs that will be created by this project, over 600 jobs, a combination of full-time and part-time jobs at different income levels, are really a very important part of the benefit of the project for the city. Those new jobs are going to help support other businesses downtown. And when we compare this mix of uses and this project with the type of project that's justified by this most recent appraisal, which is 100% market rate apartments, those are the projects that are paying these high land values. That type of project generates virtually no jobs. And I think that's a really important distinction. Right, right. And I think as we move forward with some of these, more of these decisions, we do have to, everyone could stand to learn more about what an appraisal looks like versus what you can really get. And, you know, especially with projects like this one and what you would expect to be built for that amount. I'll talk to you some other time about that. Yeah, exactly, exactly. And I hope that there's more conversation out there about that. And I just appreciate that you've spent a lot of time also working with the Edge Business District. When, when, when Roger, when the District Association stands so strongly behind you from day one and sends a, you know, shows up here to support this change. We don't always get that. We don't always get that. We don't always see that community support and it's because you've been so engaged with them and, and have made them part of the process too. And listen to what they, what they wanted. So this is a project that will truly be celebrated and beneficial to everyone in that District. So thank you. Thank you for recognizing the value of that. The success of the Edge District is, is going to be the success of our project. And that's why we feel it's really important to be engaged. I'd also like to address, um, Council Member Fick Sanders can, uh, comments and frustrations about the Courageous 12 artwork. Um, I appreciate your words. Uh, we'd like to help you, uh, celebrate this art during the lifetime of Mr. Jackson. And we're happy to work with you and, and, and city staff to find an appropriate way to do that, whether it's at the groundbreaking for the project or in some other venue. And we'd be happy to talk to you about that. All right. The questions. That's all. Thank you. Thank you for taking the time to, to answer and respond. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Montaneri. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, I do have some more questions for you, uh, Jay. And Council, I'll just remind you that, uh, Mr. Miller's three minutes ended. Um, so please only, uh, comments going forward that are questions are going to be allowed. So thank you. Oh, it's good. Good to see you. Uh, thank you for being here. Uh, well, it's good to, good to see you. Also, I want to thank all the, uh, the speakers. This is one of these, uh, uh, exciting projects that, uh, that we need here in the city of St. Petersburg. Uh, I'm very, uh, supportive of this project, but I do have some questions. I'd like to start with the hotel. Can you tell us a little bit more about the hotel? Uh, because it's not in the backup material. This project started three years ago. I'm sure we have new residents in our city that have never heard or don't know that much about, about this. So can you talk about the, the hotel, how many rooms it's going to be? Give us some back. Yeah. And I'm also happy to invite our partners from Ellison to answer detailed questions. If I can't, uh, the hotel will be 160 room boutique or lifestyle hotel. Uh, it will include a lot of really exciting features, um, such as a, uh, a full health club, which will also be available to other community members and the office users in the project. It will, uh, have a complete, uh, food and beverage presentation, including sit down restaurant, uh, uh, meeting space. Um, there's study going on of including a, uh, a theater space on the second level. Uh, and there will be a rooftop deck also available to for meetings and, and, and other uses. I know the Ellison team is, is really excited about the synergies between the office space and the home. And the hotel and thinks that they synergistically support each other. Okay. Good. Good. Then that's the level of detail. I, I, I need, I don't need, uh, anything more than that. Um, I did want to ask, uh, James about the mortgage, uh, in the backup material talks about increase the city mortgage from 2 million to 4 million. Um, can, can you, uh, give us a little more detail about that, please? Sure. So essentially it's a, it would be a note, uh, would be a note against the property. It's not a mortgage in the sense that we're not writing them a check for $4 million. It was originally a $2 million mortgage, uh, that would be a note against the property taken out, um, that would be payable in 20 years. In this instance, we're increasing that amount, but essentially all it does is it decreases the amount that they have to pay us at closing. It's not, it's not an actual, we're not loaning them $4 million. It's essentially reducing the amount that they have to pay us at the closing when they purchase the property. Okay. All right. All right. Thank you. Um, we discussed the parking and the, uh, the, the parking issues that we have in our city. And I'm glad that there's a substantial parking, uh, component in this project because, uh, that just, that's just so much needed in this, this, uh, area of our city. The, uh, office space is something I also want to, uh, just talk about. So we, uh, there's a little bit of, uh, just a difference between the numbers in the PowerPoint presentation and the backup material. The PowerPoint presentation has 110, I'm sorry, 100,000 square feet to 115. And in the report, it, uh, has, uh, 115 to 125 since 10,000 square foot difference, which, which is the right number. So I, I, I, the reason why I didn't cover the hotel, for example, is I wanted to talk to the council about what's required. What, what are the expectations? What are the things that the developer has to do to be in compliance with the development agreement? And the hotel is not required. We are requiring a minimum of 115,000 square feet of office space. It is the developer's intent. They've told us their intent is to actually construct 125. But because the, the plan is still has to be made and revised, we wanted to be sure that we included the amount that we would require. So Jay or Will can speak to more about, um, what, what they actually believe will be on site. But there has to be a minimum of 115. It could be, and very likely will be more than 115,000 square feet. Okay. All right. That answer your question. And yeah, it, it does. Can you talk a little bit about a class a office space? Because I've spoken with some business leaders, uh, here in the city of St. Petersburg that are in what's, uh, defined as class a office space. And they, they share with me that if you go to large cities like New York, that, uh, a lot of what we call class a office space here in St. Petersburg, theirs is much, much nicer. So can you talk a little bit about the, the office space component? The nature of office space changes over time and evolves pretty much like any other use. Like residential, you know, what, what's standard in, in, uh, in, in the residence Brandy could talk to you about this, uh, is a lot different than it was 30 years ago. So, you know, we haven't had a new office building constructed here in St. Petersburg since the 1990s. So what's defined as class, what was class A in the 1990s is no longer class A. And the differences may be ceiling heights, uh, may be amenities such as common meeting space or, or health clubs, uh, may be the types of, um, air conditioning systems, whether the building is green, you know, has green design features or not, uh, door heights, you know, these are all things that evolve over time. And so when people say that we no longer really have any class A office space, it's because the last building was constructed in the 1990s. Uh, and even if the common areas are upgraded to, to, to current standards, if the doors are seven feet and the current standard is eight feet, it's no longer really class. A. Okay. Well, good. That just provides a level of detail that I wanted to hear and, and that the public wants to hear when it, when it comes to this. And class A, uh, class A office space, especially in downtown St. Petersburg is a big problem for us. And we've had multiple, uh, meetings on trying to fill this need for, for class A office space. Let me just close with this. Uh, I, uh, I refer to our, uh, vision 2050 plan, which is a plan that looks to the future and where we think the city of St. Petersburg is going to be in, in the year 2050. We're right now experiencing a, the highest growth scenario that we, we had. And when it comes to four different components, how much office space we need on a yearly basis, residential retail and hotel that's in this plan. In this plan, this development hits a lot of those criteria and that's exactly what we need in our, our city is we need that office space. We need the retail, we need the, the, the residential and the hotel space. And, uh, this development, uh, hits all those, uh, marks that, uh, we, we put into this, uh, vision 2050 plan. So I'm very supportive. Thank, uh, thank you, Jay. Thank you, Will. Thank you, uh, Chris for being here and, uh, everybody else, uh, and, uh, James and, uh, uh, everybody else here at the city. Thank you, Madam Chair. Council member Floyd. Thank you. I did want to ask you a question, uh, quickly. You mentioned for council member Driscoll's comments, not, you may not need a loan. What was, what was that about by bringing on a new finance partner? In terms of commercial mortgages these days are, are, are very difficult and not very attractive. And we're evaluating whether it may make more sense to finance part of the project just with all equity. I, I think it's unlikely that this is a very big project, so we're going to need a loan at some point. Um, but it's very possible that we'll proceed initially with the garage and the workforce components without a loan yet in place. And it will later when we move forward with the office and the hotel structure overall financing for the project. Okay. And, uh, if you could just speak to a little bit, uh, I just, you know, I talked about the broad deal last time, but I want to talk more specifically about the amendment. Um, the, uh, it seems to me like, you know, some of the most substantial things in the amendment. The most substantial thing from my perspective when it comes to, uh, the city subsidy is the increasing of the mortgage. Um, which looks like a, uh, you know, to you all, we're doing 1%. I mean, I don't know what your rates are like, but I know they're not 1%. Yeah. Uh, and I'm guessing they're not even like four or five, like, uh, you could, we could go out and, uh, find on certain things. So, um, it's a increase in subsidy over, uh, in order to basically what it looks like is eliminate the, um, the condos for more office, uh, and to accommodate for, um, some of the changes in costs and whatnot, which I agree are, uh, getting higher. Um, but, you know, we, like I mentioned the appraisal before, I know we necessarily can't get everything for that occasionally, but I was very conservative in my estimates. If I said everything, it'd be more like over 300 units of affordable housing. Um, so I just want you to speak to that a little bit, because to me it appears that you're getting a larger subsidy. You're going to own this property, that's got to be part of your calculus in the end. And you could sell it for a significant, significant sum, um, and getting decreased land costs, um, over the years. I just hope you could speak to that a little bit to try to assuage some of my concerns, yeah. So the nexus of the additional $2 million has to do with increases in construction costs since we started working on the project and specifically for the public elements. So the parking garage, uh, will be owned by the city and the city's contributing $20,000 per space, which would have built the garage when we started the project three years ago. Now the cost of building parking spaces are is will be over $30,000 per space. So the delta, uh, for the parking garage alone, uh, I believe is it's about $6 million. So we started a discussion with James and his team several months ago about that and asked, are there additional TIF dollars that can get us back to where we started on the parking garage? There weren't any, and so this was a way of helping us fund that gap. We're going to pay for the difference. So that's on the parking garage. The same is true for the workforce housing. Uh, the, you know, the construction costs have gone through the roof over the last three years. They're probably up 50 to 60% relative to where they were, uh, pre COVID, uh, and the supply chain issues that, that the economy has struggled with. So the same is true, uh, for the housing, uh, a market rate apartment today that the ones that are being built all over downtown, uh, a two bedroom apartment today, market rate is, is, is being rented for 3,500 to $4,000 a month. So the $2,300 that you mentioned is a 40% discount. The costs are the same and the, you know, and, and the fact that these particular units are being constructed downtown. Uh, where we have to build structured parking, you know, makes it that much more expensive to build the housing. Uh, we could argue whether or not this is the right location, you know, to build affordable and workforce housing, given the fact that we have to do structured parking downtown. But I do believe that it's important that there be opportunities for our downtown workforce to live and work downtown, because those folks might be able to, uh, to actually live downtown and not need a car. Yeah, I, I do. And I do agree with everything you've said. I mean, I do need to point out that you all agreed to this deal previously. So, the fact that things change is how it is. So, and I want to also put on the record for everybody, this is my last thing. You know, we have invested significantly in our transit right around this area. The fact that we're feeling the need to put a ton of parking there is going to actually decrease the amount of transit usage. I use the bus to get to this part of town, almost exclusively now, and there's a parking spot I might not in the future. So, I'm not super sold on all of that. I think it might have been, made sense before there was a Sunrunner, but it's more complicated now. I appreciate you answering the questions. I want to point out this, my concern is not about you all and your deal, but it's about just the way that we've been doing things in the city for a while. I want to make everyone aware that, like, the level of subsidies that we're providing for a lot of these deals don't always line up to one-to-one to, like, the values that we purport, and so I get frustrated. But, again, this is about the amendment. I think the amendment is good, and so I'm looking forward to what gets created in the future. But I hope you don't come back asking for another amendment. That's all I can say right now. I appreciate that. All right. Well, a lot of what I would have asked questions on has already been addressed by my colleagues. So, I'm just going to keep it pretty general in my statements. You know, it's been a long journey. I tried to go back and find the original RFP for this property, been so long, I couldn't even find it. It has been archived away. But this project and your proposal from day one was the one I was most excited about, and I still remain excited about and hopeful that we finally get to where we need to be. I've been critical along the way because that first RFP had a lot more workforce housing in it than where we ended up with our original agreement with you. And then as we moved forward, and I was very critical in those moments because I wanted that workforce housing. Now, because I couldn't find the original one, I'm not quite sure where those numbers would line up today. But I am very happy that this amendment increases those units because that was the goal from day one, was that those units would exist on that site, regardless of anything else. I have a deep desire, and I've been very vocal about and have passed a new business item to discuss how we leverage our city-owned land for an increase in our affordable and workforce housing stock. Because for me, that is the basis of kind of where we start with meeting the need. And so having more units on there definitely gives me a lot of relief because had that not been part of it, but I think I might have been in a different place today. The parking, I think, you know, it is a double-edged sword like you talk about with BRT. It's my hopes that the additional parking will complement and not take away from. We'll give people other options, maybe as a starting point for being able to get on the BRT to go to other places. And I'm listening to the Edge District when they say this is what we need. They have been continuously supportive of this project. The fact that you're here today and the fact that we have a letter from you speaks volumes to me. And I want to support a project that the community that surrounds it supports. So that really helped to ease my concerns over any parking or conflicting transportation issues. I just want to, I guess, thank you for sticking through it because I know it's been tough. I mean, since the days of 2019, I think, was the original proposal, 2018, 2019. We've had COVID. We've had construction increases, financing issues, which you mentioned. You continue to hang in there because you believe in the project. And I do appreciate that. I know sometimes I've probably been a little bit of a thorn in your side, asked, you know, probably a lot of questions. Or kind of, you know, we've had some great conversation that, you know, maybe you left there kind of wondering if I was supportive or not. But I just really admire that you've stuck in there, that you've continued to try to bring something forward that's a project that makes sense for this particular area. I also want to thank Mr. Corbett because you inherited this project. And I feel like with this amendment, you have tried to put the metrics and the accountability measures in place that will get us to a great outcome. So I want to thank you for that work because I know that hasn't been easy either, especially when we take on a project or something that, you know, had a lot of history behind it. So thank you for that. As far as the last comment Council Member Floyd made about another amendment, I do just want to say and go on the record, I will not be voting yes for another amendment. I am voting yes today. And I am going to say my prayers at night that I attend ribbon cuttings and that I do not sit here again having to look at another amendment. Council Member, I'm getting too old to come back for another amendment. We've all gotten old while this project has been going on. So I'm a yes today. I am going to hope, pray, and plan for future ribbon cuttings in the future for this very important project. Thank you. All right. We have a motion and a second. I'm saying no. I'm so sorry. Council Member Floyd. I understand if I'm out of time or anything. No, no, you're fine. Go ahead. And you did a great job summing up at the end, too, so I feel bad for that reason. But I feel like I glossed over one thing in my last questions. You know, we are increasing your subsidy, and we talked about this and why and whatnot. But we didn't talk about how, and I asked, but it didn't get clarified, how you all feel about the fact that the value of the property has increased significantly since you started this project. And you haven't purchased the property yet, so that's an increase to your subsidy as well. So I would just like to hear what you have to say about that, because I think that's going to – I want to support this, but I think that's important for me to hear before I can totally feel confident. So the increased value of the land doesn't affect the economics of what we're developing. I mean, you're going to – you can sell the property later on. We can't sell it. You cannot sell it. But no, the way that the agreement is structured, we can't even buy it until we've completed the parking garage, where we've topped off the workforce housing, and we've started the foundations for the office building. So, you know, we are committed to building this project with these economics. I see your – The administration's been very skillful at making sure that we cannot sell the property to someone who would go build a market-rate apartment complex. Yeah, and when I was saying you could sell, I mean, like, after the project is developed, yes. Yeah. Again, the economics of our mix of uses will determine the ultimate value of the project when it's completed. Okay, okay, and so you feel that the – whether or not you can complete the project, it doesn't matter. The finances and the dollars that you have are dependent on the development of the project, not its future use, or not its potential use 20 years from now. We are tied to this project. We are not able, nor did we ever have any intent, to acquire this important property and sell it to somebody else. Mm-hm. Okay. Thanks. All right, we have a motion and a second. Seeing no further request to speak, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present, council members have voted. Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Motion to approve agenda item F3 passes 6 to 1. Council member Driscoll, McSanders, Gabbard, Gerdes, Montaneri, and Mohammed, voting yes, and council member Floyd, voting no, and council member Hanowitz, absent. Thank you. Thank you all. All right, council, we've been going at it for a little while, and we've probably got another hour or so, so why don't we take just a 10-minute recess, and then we will come back and take up our CRA items. City council will come back into order, and then we will actually recess as city council and convene as the St. Petersburg Community Redevelopment Agency and take up item CRA2. Mr. Corbett, welcome back. Good morning, right? Still morning? Still morning. Still, yeah. Thanks for having me back, James Corbett, City Development Administrator. This one, in my opinion, is a good news item for the sale of land on 18th Avenue South to Habitat. We have Sean King and Mike Sutton from Habitat here, and I'm actually going to turn it over to Aaron Fish, our Director of Real Estate and Property Management, to go through the presentation. Good morning, Mr. Fitch. Good morning, council chair, members of council. The item before you this morning is the disposition of a city-owned property to Habitat for Humanity of Pinellas and West Pasco Counties. The subject property is parcel of land, approximately 2.18 acres, located at 2100 18th Avenue South. This property was acquired by the city as part of phase three of the Tangerine Avenue redevelopment area. In December of 2021, the city received an unsolicited proposal from a developer offering to acquire the property and develop it for affordable housing. In response to the unsolicited offer, in January of 2022, the city provided a 30-day notice offering the city's intent to dispose of the property in accordance with CRA guidelines for the city's disposition of a CRA property. Upon the expiration of the 30-day notice, the city did receive four additional proposals. One of those proposals was from Habitat, and through the review of the proposals, the mayor did select Habitat for the development of the property. Subsequently, real estate obtained two appraisals for the property, which indicated a value of $1,640,000 and a value of $1,230,000. In conjunction, the city started discussions with Habitat on the disposition of the property and the terms of the disposition. Ultimately, the city developed an agreement for purchase and sale, which includes a sale price of $10. It provides Habitat with a 60-day due diligence period, and it provides, upon the expiration of the 60-day due diligence period, Habitat will have 180 days to obtain site plan approval and governmental permits approvals and rezoning if necessary for the property. Closing on the property would occur within 60 days after the approval period, and Habitat is paying for all the costs associated with the closing. That includes the surveys, environmentals, appraisals, inspections, title commitment, owner's title policy, and closing fees. Prior to the closing and transfer of the property, the city will record a restrictive covenant on the property, which will limit the sale, the initial sale of each unit to 80% of area median income or below. Subsequent sales would be limited to 120% AMI. The affordability restrictions in the restrictive covenant will be for a period of 15 years. The restrictive covenant will require Habitat to commence construction by September 1st, 2025, and it will also require the construction to be completed by April 1st, 2028. The restrictive covenant also includes a provision in which Habitat will be liable for liquidated damages to the city in the amount of $1,430,000, which is the average of the two appraised values in the event that they don't develop property. In addition, if the initial sales do not occur at or below 80% AMI, Habitat would be responsible for reimbursing the city $50,000 per unit. And with that, I'll open it up for questions, and as James mentioned, we do have Mr. Mike Sutton and Mr. Sean King from Habitat available with us today for questions as well. Thank you for the presentation. Cards on this item? No, Madam Chair. No, Madam Chair. Okay. All right. We will then go to Council Member Montaneri. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Can you talk a little bit about the timeline? Construction beginning in September of 2025 and completed in 2028. Why so long? Sure. This timeline was what Habitat was comfortable with and committing to. I would have to be happy to have Habitat explain. Mr. King or Mr. Sutton? While they come up, Council Member Montaneri, one of the things that we've heard loud and clear from Council is the number of amendments and, you know, how we start out these deals. And we come back and we ask for more time and there's changes. And one of the things that we wanted to do in this agreement is make sure that we started out in a manner that we as a city as well as the developer was comfortable that we would not have to come back and ask for more time. Mr. Sutton and Mr. King can give you more details as it relates to why this timeline they were comfortable with. But, you know, there is liquidated damages if they don't meet certain requirements. And this was the amount of time that they were comfortable with. But I am, we are all hopeful that this is the worst case scenario and hopeful that it wouldn't actually take the full amount of time. But this was to ensure that we're, you know, not coming back saying, well, you know, we're not ready. We need more time. But I'll turn it over to Mike and he can give you a more detailed answer. Awesome. Thanks, James. Good morning, everyone. Mike Sutton, President, CEO, Habitat for Humanity. I think James summed it up. We wanted to have a little bit of a buffer there in the timeline so that we did not have to come back to council and ask for any sort of amendments to the contract. The beginning of the contract, you know, the first year is pretty tight for us. But we do feel pretty confident that we can get the site plan approval all completed and get ready to go horizontal with infrastructure within that approximately year time frame. And then from there, and I think most of you all know, we do move pretty fast at Habitat. So the goal here is to finish the project on time or even before the end of the 2028 period. And can you explain, Mike, why three years to construct these townhomes? It's a long time. Sean King, Vice President of Government Relations, and I've been working on this specifically hand-in-hand with the administration and specifically on the timeline. So the initial timeline is really tight of eight months effectively to get site plan approval. 60 days due diligence and then six months, 180 days for full site plan approval. So that's really getting us motivated and moving. To James' point and Mike's point, there's liquidated damages here. So if we're not meeting those timelines, it's 1.5 million, almost 1.5 million in liquidated damages. So we wanted to provide some buffer. There is really no, there's limited ability to go back to administration. There's a 90-day period that we can ask for a 90-day extension on some of these timelines. So we wanted to make sure we were going to, we were confident in hitting our goals. It aligns, our incentives align to get this project moving, specifically to what you're talking about, which is the vertical construction. Why is there a three-year period for vertical construction? So once we get the horizontal construction in, that money is already in the ground, literally. So we are incentivized to get the vertical construction going because as we sell each one of the units, we're then recouping the dollars. And we're not going to recoup that last dollar of infrastructure until we sell that last unit. So it's a line, we just wanted to provide that buffer in case, supply chain, so on and so forth, so we didn't have to come back here. But our goal and intent is to under promise and over deliver, is that the saying here? But, you know, once we get the infrastructure in, we're going to be wanting to go horizontal for no less of the fact to serve the families and to recoup the dollars put in for infrastructure. Okay. When I read about townhomes, I'm thinking like one building with a bunch of units in it and just the amount of time that you had in there just raises some questions. Last question, has Habitat built townhomes before? Because every time I've been to anything, you all, usually it's a single-family home. Yeah, our sweet spot is single-family residential, you know, construction. We did a 19-unit subdivision in downtown Dunedin that we finished probably about five years ago, and then we completed nine townhomes in Lealman. So we have done some smaller projects, but, you know, there's obviously a lot of pressure around density. And so, you know, we've done a lot of research and a lot of work, and we've learned from those couple projects on how we can do things a little bit differently and a little bit better as we move forward. So in addition to this project, you know, we will be, you know, starting construction very shortly on Shell Dash on 16th Street. And then we also have a 54-unit subdivision townhomes in Largo that will be going horizontal very soon. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Vice Chair Fick Sanders. Thank you, thank you, thank you. First of all, I want to say thank you. I'm so glad you guys know that I am always a fan of being able to equitably provide home ownership, especially in here in the city of St. Petersburg. And I am so glad that we are finally going to the multifamily business model. You know, we've been talking about that for a while, and I'm so glad that we're actually doing this, because there are some homes in my neighborhood that I think you all tried to make multifamily, but that thing about sharing a wall for some people just didn't seem to be appealing. But now with us having the large request for housing, and we are now trying to acquiesce to that need with these townhomes, I kind of understood what the timeline looked like and why it looked that way, and I'm appreciative for that. So I just wanted to say thank you for opening your activity, you know, spanning, going down to multifamily, because multifamily housed my family when they couldn't find single family. I do know that, you know, yes, single family homes are your thing, and I appreciate you for that, but I thank the city for continuing to see what you offer other than just home ownership to those homeowners, and that's the piece that we're missing in regards to the education and the land being legacy and understanding what generational wealth looks like. You put us in a closer step to that journey for a lot of those communities that would not necessarily have those opportunities and options. So I want to thank you for that, and thank you to the city for actually wanting to work with you and to continue to encourage what you are offering to our community. And with that, I also move approval. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. So we have a motion. Council Member Muhammad? Thank you, Madam Chair. And just a couple questions, some for Habitat, but I guess the first question will be the affordability period. Why are we only doing a 15-year affordability period? So essentially, after the first purchase, which has to be to a buyer of 80% or less, the affordability really falls into the Habitat's equity model. So essentially, the longer they stay in the property, the more equity they gain. So this is really about, you know, home ownership is about wealth generation. That's typically the way that most people generate the largest part of their wealth. So as time goes on, the longer they stay in their home, they're able to realize more of that wealth. So really, after the initial sale, we're deferring to Habitat's equity model as it relates to the affordability. It incentivizes the homeowner, obviously, to realize that wealth and the equity, they would stay in their home longer. Thank you. Is that consistent with the lot disposition model? Do we do 15 years on that program? Because I know Habitat also builds on, like, some of those programs. Do we do 15 years? Is that consistent, I guess? Yes, sir. It is. Okay. All right. Thank you. And then these are some other general questions around Habitat, home ownership, and about generational wealth. So, but before I do that, so if you have a 30-year mortgage and this 15-year affordability period is there, how does that affect the homeowner? Like, what considerations does a homeowner have if I have a, it's set to be affordable for 15 years, but I have a 30-year mortgage? Sure, sure. So the Habitat model is unique in the fact that we provide a zero-interest mortgage. That's really what makes the mortgage payment affordable for the homeowner, and so because of that zero-interest mortgage and to protect equity for Habitat's long-term investment in the property as well as the communities, all of our homes, as part of their mortgage documents, they actually do have, we have a shared equity agreement. So the longer they're in the home, their equity increases, as James said. I'm going to take him on the road with us, by the way. He's got it down now after lots of conversations. So the homeowner's equity increases and Habitat's equity decreases. So at the end of the 30 years of paying off the mortgage, they're able to tap into 100% of the equity. There's also encumbrance provisions in their documents so they can't go out and take, like, a line of credit against the house, line of equity. So there's a lot of protections there. But the homeowner is able to sell their home at any time. It's just there's some equity provisions that would ensure that, number one, it remains affordable, but number two, that they're not in the house for a year, and then they cash in, so to speak. Okay, thank you for that. Continuing that line about the mortgage and the equity, do homeowners own the land? They do. Or just the house? In this case, they'll own the home and the land. Okay. But are there cases where they don't own the land? The only time they would not own the land is if we did something that was part of the housing land trust. Okay. And we try to stay away from that because of the purpose of, you know, they're paying 100% taxes on the land, but they don't own it, so. Got it. And then another question, if a person who was approved through your program, if they pass away and they still have a mortgage, are they able to, are the family members able to assume that mortgage and keep that in their family? 100%. Part of the education that our homeowners go through, we actually teach them about, you know, will preparation and afterlife, so that it definitely can stay in the family. Okay. Same, maybe a same question. If they pass away, so they would, because this, and these are all questions that are coming up as I'm talking to people about this property and basically giving away the land to the habitat, they want to make sure that, like, it's truly generational and that, you know, there's not something on the back end that is not publicly advertised. So that's why I'm just going to take this land. For all intents and purposes, the only difference between myself and the folks that will purchase homes here is that they'll have a zero interest mortgage and there will be an affordability period on the property and the shared equity agreement. Got it, got it. And again, that's what's publicly, you know. Oh, we've heard it all. We've heard it all. Yeah, and then the other part of, I mean, again, the stuff that's not so public that I'd like to make public today for those who have those concerns is when we talk about generational wealth. So there's not this contingency where, you know, if something happens to you, it goes back to Habitat and then Habitat is like the property, because that's what I've been hearing. No, no. We always have first-right refusal on the property for the duration of the mortgage. So if the family did decide to sell, the first thing they have to do is contact Habitat. We would determine whether it was financially, you know, reasonable to purchase the home back. But in today's market, ideally, we would encourage them to put it on the open market. All right. Thank you. That actually is a lot of questions that I have. Thank you, Madam Chair. Council Member Driscoll. Thank you. In the memo here in our backup, it states that during the initial sale of the townhouses, it's restricted to those at or below 80% AMI. But it doesn't say how long that initial sale period is. It's the first time each unit is sold. So it would be the very first buyer for every time. Oh, initial sale. Initial. Okay. The initial, so the first person to buy each unit has to qualify at 80% of AMI or less. Okay. And then after that, so if they sell, it has to be to someone at or below 120. For the first 15 years, correct. Right. Okay. So in your experience so far with Lelman, with Dunedin, how does that go? How long does it take to, how long will it take to sell these out? And are you seeing, it may be too soon, but are you seeing those turn over to the 120 AMIs? No, so kind of loaded question. But first thing, when it comes to resale, you know, I've been in this role for almost nine and a half years. And I think of the over 550 homes we've built during my time with Habitat, we've seen maybe seven or eight sell. Okay. So especially in today's market, where are they going to go get a zero interest mortgage, right? So we do a lot of education around that. And Habitat is not a first-time homebuyer program. It really is that intergenerational wealth driver. And so folks do purchase the home and it typically stays in the family. So we don't see a lot of that happen. And when someone does sell, it's typically because they've moved out of state. Or they kind of have the Brady Bunch effect, where it's a single mom, she gets married, and now they have a ton of kids, and they just don't fit in the house anymore, right? So in terms of, what was the other question? I'm sorry, Gina. Just asking, well, now that I know that by initial sale it means the first time each house is sold, I was, I had been wondering about how quickly. How quickly, well, it's the same question, but now I'm looking for a different type of answer. On the front end? Yeah, like, so it's 80%. How quickly do you expect that we'll get these sold out? So our plan is that as soon as we start going horizontal with infrastructure, we will start matching families with the units. So in the typical Habitat model, we don't construct a home until a family's matched with the project. So we don't spec build. It will probably be a little bit different with these in terms of, you know, we'll have six units going vertical, and we may only have a few matched. But we've, I mean, from the moment that this project was awarded to Habitat, our phone's been ringing off the hook about people that are interested in townhomes on 18th. And so we don't anticipate it being an issue at all, finding the residents and, you know, the future buyers. Yeah, yeah, that's what I was thinking. I mean, there's been a lot of excitement around this. Personally, I'm thrilled that you all have offered that where we started off looking at apartments and rentals. What you all are offering is the opportunity for homeownership, and I love the townhouse model. It helps us to get more families on that path. How does the grounds maintenance and all of that work? Do you all help them set up an association? They will have an HOA, and they'll have a small payment each month that we will escrow. And they'll go through a series of training. You know, they go through a series of 32 homebuyer education classes now. Part of that will be HOA-focused. So we will teach them all about what it's like to get along with your neighbors. And so they will go through a series of education around the HOA and how to manage it, how to properly staff it. And then we will have a staff member who will serve as an ex-officio member on the board for the first 15 years. Just to kind of keep an eye on things, answer questions, and that kind of thing. Yeah. Excellent. All right. Good to know. Thank you so much for the proposal that you put forward. I think this is a good news item. Look forward to supporting this and looking forward to seeing the progress. I'm glad you built in some buffers. That's always helpful. It's quite proactive, and I, for one, really appreciate that. So with you guys, you know, when things start moving, we know it's going to progress efficiently. So thank you. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Muhammad. Thank you, Madam Chair. Another question that just popped up around AMI, and it was mentioned earlier when we talk about AMI at 120%, 100 plus thousand. My question is, does your model cater to the Brady Bunch, or is it mostly single family? Yeah, about 75% of the families we serve are single moms. And so, you know, we do a lot of 3-2 models, but, you know, if they qualify based on the family size and they're under 80%, you know, we will serve them. Right, and I just wanted to have an idea in my head, because as we move forward, when we're talking about AMI and the increase in the dollar amount of AMI at 80% or 120%, we can opine that, you know, okay, that's two people. But 75% of the people that you're serving, and you're one of them, you know, the best to do it, the one that's doing the most volume, are not two people in the household, it's usually one person. 75% of the time, correct. All right, thank you. Thank you. All right, well, I'm so glad that we have this item on our agenda today. I've been excited about this project since the proposal first came forward, so I'm really happy that we're here today. Homeownership, as I'm sure no surprise, I'm very excited that those opportunities are going to exist and that Habitat will be our partner, because we align so well on those missions. And so, as far as the affordability period goes, it's interesting how things have changed over the years, because, I mean, when I first started here on council, and we were doing the lot disposition program, and we were talking about affordability periods, I think then it was like seven years was the average. And now it's 13 is the average number of years that people stay in their homes, and that has changed dramatically for many reasons, but mostly in our area because of the lack of inventory. So I think that that 15-year affordability period, while that may not have been different many years ago, the other metric has moved closer. So now it is much more aligned with kind of what we're seeing for people, and the ability to build that generational wealth, build that generational opportunity, I think we, it's just really kind of checked all the boxes on that. As far as, you know, kind of the questions about, you know, the townhomes versus what you typically do with single family, I can just speak from a real estate point of view that townhomes are a perfect opportunity for buyers who don't want all the maintenance of a property, right? Like, especially, I mean, I grew up with a single mom, like mowing a lawn every Saturday by yourself with your kids, like running around, isn't really always ideal. And then the cost of paying someone to do that for you, I mean, hopefully whatever ends up being the monthly that they pay for their maintenance, I'm sure is probably also going to cover reserves that would hopefully go into different maintenance issues, pest control. So, I mean, all of these things that add up so heavily for an average homeowner that will be able to be absorbed with a much easier footprint to take care of. So, I don't really look at townhomes like multifamily. It's an easier way of having, like, a single family property, right? So, I think it's brilliant that we have this extra opportunity in our community. I had some questions about the HOA, but that was covered. And then my only other question is, do the buyers on these properties still have the same sweat equity contribution? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, so they'll have to do the classes and the sweat equity. Sweat equity will also look different because the majority of these units will be built by contractors. But with the contractor we're talking to about potentially building those, they know that we want to incorporate some of that volunteer work into things like installing baseboards and cabinets and countertops, windows, doors, all that's the finishings. Yeah. Correct. Because, I mean, I can imagine it's very different. You know, when you're building the firewalls between each unit and all of that, obviously, you're not going to have. These are three-story. We're not putting volunteers on the roof. Yeah, exactly, exactly. But, I mean, you know, they can put some baseboards in to your point or something like that. So, all right. Well, I agree. Good news item. Very happy to support today. And I just want to thank the two of you, as always, for your many, many years of dedication to our community and for bringing us another great project. So, thank you both. I appreciate you so much. Thank you. And, if I may, just a thank you to the city administration. Amy and James and the whole team have been phenomenal to work with. And we really do appreciate how we're viewed as a partner within the city. Oh, and Rob, too. Very good. Thank you, gentlemen. All right. So, I believe we have a motion and a second. So, seeing no other requests to speak, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present, council members have voted. Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Motion to approve agenda item CRA2 passes unanimously, with council member Gerdes and Hanowitz absent. All right. And then we are going to now adjourn as the CRA and reconvene as city council and take up item F2. Move approval. Second. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Seeing no requests to speak, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present, council members have voted. Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Approval of agenda item F2 passes unanimously, with council members Gerdes and Hanowitz absent. All right. Let's go through our new business items, and we will start with item H1. Council member Montaneri. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm respectfully requesting a referral to a committee of the whole for a discussion on the mayor's FY 2024 recommended budget on August 24, 2023, and I'll move approval. Second. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Council Vice Chair Fick Sanders. Thank you, Chair. I just want to ask, first of all, this was the easiest budget process that I've ever gone through when it comes down to it. The Cal, how soon are we trying to get this done? August 24th. So are there some bits and pieces that we need to pay attention to to have a global conversation with the Cal, or, I guess I'm just trying to understand that. Yeah, just the whole budget. Administration, maybe, if you don't mind, Vice Chair. I don't, I guess because I'm confused as to why. Administration, so would you be prepared to give an entire presentation on the budget again? I mean, it is a short time frame, so I guess, would that help to answer your question? It does, but I know that we've had this conversation. I know we've had extensive one-on-ones, and unless there's something in particular that we want to address, and I know how short a time we have on cows and information that needs to be discussed, I was okay with it. I guess I'm just trying to get an understanding as to why. Right, and that's a perfect question that the Chair asks. What would be the difference between having it in two weeks versus before it goes to come back to Council? Thank you for the question, and let me preface my remarks with, you know, whatever Council would like to do, we certainly will be ready. But, you know, from the perspective of what we'd be prepared to share, I mean, I think we would do what we would potentially do at the first public hearing, do an overview of, you know, the total operating budget, you know, have some tables, graphs, charts, and, you know, go through the general fund budget, and then the CIP, kind of high level. I wouldn't expect to have, like, our operating cow where we have each department director in the room and, you know, have a full discussion of each individual department. I mean, that would be very taxing at this point. But, you know, so is it doable? Absolutely. And I will offer a couple other issues that just for consideration. You know, our normal process is that we, and I think we're scheduling those now, one-on-one discussions with each of you to kind of look back at, here's what we heard in January, and we have that spreadsheet of all the issues that came up, and we try to identify exactly where in the budget we've tried to address the issues that each of you raised individually. So that is going to continue regardless of the decision to have a cow or not. Okay, and thank you for that. And that was the clarification that you gave me is that we're not going to be ready in April to give those one-on-one details that would cause a full-fledged cow. We still won't be able to get those answers at that time if we're looking at individual departments because you're not going to be prepared to have that information. I guess I'm just trying to understand why August and why so soon before we've had a little bit more time to actually. I have not fully gone through each department. I like the budget proposed so far as it is, and I guess what I'm looking at, every time we want to bring something, we always say our cows are packed, our cows are packed. And if I'm going to go over the budget, I'm going to need a whole cow instead of bits and pieces of a cow. And are you going to be ready to give us, and I guess the intent for you, Council Member Montaner, is are you looking at each departmental discussions as to the budget breakdown for this cow? No, and what Tom just outlined is what I'm looking for, but I think we, you know, the budget is our main job, and I want to have a public discussion on the mayor's recommended budget and get the answers out there in the public. And the one-on-ones, I'm looking forward to the one-on-ones also. So, but that's my, that's what I want to do, and I spoke to Cindy about this and administration, and it's pretty straightforward. Okay, so when you say a public, you mean get it out there in the public, because public can't participate in cows. It's a public meeting, that's what I'm talking about. Okay, gotcha, gotcha. Okay, I guess I get it. I'm still not sure of the date and why, but that's my questions. Thank you. Council Member Driscoll. Well, thank you. I know this isn't the first time that we've done this. I was trying to find on the calendar. It's the last time we did. Yeah, and we've done it as early as like end of July to give time for those adjustments before we start the public hearing process. This will be the last time that we are able to discuss the budget together as a group in the sunshine before the public hearings begin. There are, I mean, we have precedent. I don't think the outline needs to be given. I understand Council Member Montaneri might have some things in mind, but I have come to look forward to these when we do it, because it's like the dress rehearsal before the public hearing begins. And the more we can have those in public, even if the public doesn't get to speak, they get to hear our discussions. And I think it's incredibly important. Also, our one-on-ones can create questions about making some small changes to the budget before it goes to public hearing. And I'd rather hear about those things in a committee of the whole meeting rather than wait until the public hearing and be surprised about any changes that are made. So I'm good with this, and I actually look forward to it. Thank you. Council Vice Chair Fick Sanders. So as Chair of Cal, and I don't have the schedule in front of me, because I do understand the concerns of being able to, we may identify some other things in regards to the budget. And I respect that. I do understand that. I'm looking at timing, I'm looking at purpose, I understand if we're going to address some things as a council that you might not want to do it before public hearing. But I'm also in agreeance of being efficient with time and where we are with other issues that need to be. Because we get the opportunity before the public council to have these conversations with you, right, Tom, about things that we actually have for the, I guess, you know, I don't do meetings just to do meetings. And if there's individual conversations that need to be had, then we need to do it. And as us having it with a group, I get it, but we do have the opportunity before the public hearing to make changes, right? And to provide the updates and have a conversation prior to public hearing without a cow, if I'm understanding this process. I guess I'm just confused, Council Member Martinieri, as to why we're having to have a whole new cow. And every time we try to add something to a cow is we don't have room for a cow. The budget is our number, not number one priority, but it's a huge priority. And I'll just leave it at that. I'm not really gung-ho in having it just because we've done it before. This is how we have to do it. If administration is not going to be ready to give us those detailed informations, I don't want to have to burden you with trying to provide us that information. We're not going to get the answers to the questions we're asking for anyway. And when I saw this, I was like, okay, anyway, Chair, I won't be supporting this right now without us trying to get better information. You tell me one-on-one what you profess for us to do, but I just don't want to have a conversation without having an opportunity for the one-on-ones. Would that come before the August 24th date? I think our one-on-ones are scheduled for after the 28th, I think they start. So that's my point. The very end of August and into early September. Okay. That's how they're currently scheduled. Those are my questions, thank you. Council Member Muhammad. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought I had it and then I'd lost it. So just indulge me for a second just as I can kind of repeat this back out loud to get clarification. So the first question that I had is, will there be information presented at the cow that will not be presented at a public hearing? I don't think so. No, sir. So in essence, it'll be the same presentation at the cow and then we get that again at the public hearing? So what I would think, so at the first public hearing, we would have slightly different information potentially than what we would have at a cow. And just in the event that there were some potential changes, we would do what's called a summary, a recap of changes. Okay. But there may be some recap of changes that would be presented at the first public hearing that may not be ready on the August 24th date. Okay. So it could potentially be different. Okay, so it wouldn't be the same meeting essentially, it may be some potential. But the high level summary that I talked about a moment ago, that would effectively be very similar to what we would present at the first public. Okay, got it. And then I was thinking that the one-on-ones would be happening before the cow and that we would be able to discuss what happens or if there's any changes that are a result of our one-on-ones, we would be able to discuss that during the cow. Is that the timeline that we're on now? No, sir. And Liz may be able to help me out here. But my understanding is that we've scheduled the one-on-ones beginning on the 29th of August. So we would have already had the cow. Yeah. And then any changes that come up during our one-on-ones, would those be presented or discussed during the public hearing? Is that the space that we presented? Okay, because I was, again, just, I was thinking that we would do one-on-ones and then talk about that at the cow, which makes sense. But if we're having one-on-ones after the cow, then essentially any changes that come as a result of our conversation will be had during the public hearing. Is that right? Am I saying that right? I think I follow what you're saying. So as I understand it, administration is not yet prepared to do one-on-ones earlier than the week of the 29th. That is what I was told when those meetings were requested. That's correct. I also understand that Liz is actually out of town on the 24th. So that is another problematic issue because we don't want to have a cow about our budget without our budget director. We have another item that is on the agenda already that has been waiting for quite a while with the BP funds, and that item is going to be taken up on the 24th. So I want to be very clear that if we do move forward with this item, that there is another item, and it may not be as comprehensive of a conversation as what some people may be looking for because, A, our budget director will not be here, and, B, we aren't going to have those one-on-ones beforehand. So I just wanted to kind of level set that so that everyone has the same information here in the sunshine that I have. The last thing I'm going to say is that we have only done this twice, once in 2020 because of COVID, once in 2022 because it was a new administration. So I just want everybody to have all the same information. Thank you, Madam Chair, and that's helpful, being the newest one on council and not going through this full process before. And so, yeah, with that in mind, I don't really see the benefit of having a budget conversation on the 24th at this time, so thank you. Let's see, where are we? Council Member Driscoll. Thank you. I will, I'm open to having it at another time or on that date. I had requested that my one-on-one be prior to the 24th, even if it is not because I, and I thought we were going to be having them before that because it makes sense to do it that way. So we've got a little bit of a challenge here with the timing. I propose, I think we should, as a group, we should consider in the future that we hold space and build this into the process, taking it out if we, if one year we decide we don't need it. And this has been an easy process, thanks to you, Tom, the administration, everyone in the budget department. It's been fantastic. But this is still, you know, the biggest job that city council has, and I really value the opportunity to speak about it with my colleagues present and so that the public can hear what we're talking about and understand how much we are listening to them. It's a transparency thing. It's also, it's also fiscally responsible to make sure we've got this right before we go into public hearing. So however we can work out the scheduling, if this needs to be on the 24th, fine. If there's a way it can be worked out, I don't know if we have to vote on a date certain for this or if something else can be arranged. I support the spirit of this and I'll vote yes, but I would like this to have a little bit better order in which these meetings occur. Thank you. Councilmember Montaneri. Thank you, Madam Chair. This was not supposed to be this complicated of a request. I mean, we are, our main job as a body is to approve the budget. The mayor presented the budget to us. We usually have these sorts of meetings. They're very helpful for me to talk as a body about the budget. And, you know, I've got my own issues within the budget that I concentrate on, but every other council member has their own way of looking at things. And people in a meeting bring up items that I hadn't thought of and that we need to adjust and talk about and discuss. And that's why doing a committee, the whole meeting was something that I thought about. I didn't know that the budget director was going to be out of town when I worked with Cindy on this date. And I know there's another item, the BP item, on this committee, the whole agenda. But after talking with staff, it seemed like, okay, we can do both of these things in one day. And I did have a conversation with Tom about this meeting. I'm not looking for a full-blown discussion where we bring every department in. But I did want to follow up after that meeting where the mayor presented us with the budget and schedule a discussion on the budget in addition to the one-on-one meeting. So I really didn't think that this was going to be that big of a deal at all. But I think it's something that being a responsible city council is something that needs to be done to make sure that we're making sure that the budget is the right budget for our city and our residents. Thank you. Vice Chair Vic Sanders. Thank you. And I totally agree with you, Council Member Montaner. You don't know how many times I've sat in this seat and said, I didn't think it was going to be that big a deal. And it ended up being a 30-minute conversation. So with that being said, and hearing the timeline and being the most impactful, and thank you, Chair, for reminding me that Liz wasn't going to be here on that date. Is there any way that we could find a more appropriate date than August 24th? Because I would not move forward, not knowing that Liz wouldn't be here, whether we're sharing it with BP or not. If she's not going to be here, August 24th would not be a date of my preference. And to have that additional conversation as a council full body, I don't know what other options or dates would be available. And I guess we would have to leave that to our Cal Chair to provide that information, if that is a possibility, and how that would impact us moving forward with the public hearings. But I completely went over my head that Liz wasn't even going to be here, whether we're sharing it with another topic or not. But again, I just want to be efficient and effective with the meetings. And if we have not had our one-on-ones yet, I've had one or two on a couple of items that I've had that have answered my questions. But I think if we have those additional conversations, I just wish we would not take another Cal to do so, if that is not something. And I always hate for us to say that that's how we've always done it, without making exceptions. Of course, you have to step outside of the sandbox every now and then to get some things done efficiently. But again, that date, I completely forgot Liz wasn't going to be here when I initially pushed my button. So for that, thank you, and for that same reason, I still won't be supporting that date. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Mahon. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to echo the Council Member Driscoll's sentiment around supporting the spirit of it and the intent. Again, as a novice on council and being one of the newest members here, I always appreciate these conversations. I look forward to having as many opportunities to engage around the budget, understanding the priority of our role and where it fits. It's just, the considerations for me are the timing, the timing of it. Again, knowing that it will be before our one-on-ones, not seeing anything additional or any new information. I'm just kind of seeing it almost redundant at that date. And then having the information that our budget director won't be here are drivers of my decision. But I'm definitely open to if there's another opportunity, another date before the public hearing that we could have that conversation. I'd be open to it. We spend time talking about the budget and every time we talk about it, I learn something or I think of something. And so I'm definitely happy to engage, but just the date of this particular request is something that I'm not comfortable with supporting. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Council Member Martin. Go ahead, Madam Chair. Looking at the calendar, we don't have another Cal after the one on the 24th until September 28th. So, that obviously being too late, the morning of September 7th, because we don't have committees that morning, we have City Council at 1.30 that day. But my question for administration is that the first budget public hearing is the following week. So, if there were conversations that came up that posed changes that administration might be open to, does a week give enough time to be able to juggle things around to possibly accommodate requests? Because I don't want what happened last year to happen, right? We sat down at that particular meeting, and we had a conversation, and we all talked about a bunch of things that hadn't gotten funded. But, ultimately, all we ended up being able to do was really move a resolution forward that Council supported things. There wasn't really time to be able to get anything moving forward. And we had to kind of back some of that stuff up into this year. So, I guess I'm just asking the practicality of if you have it the week before, because there is not another date. And that is the only date that I see that would make sense without having to juggle our entire schedule. But I just don't know if there's enough time there. So, that's, I guess, to Council Member Mohammed's point, like, the timing, right? And so. Yeah, I mean, to your point, Madam Chair, that on the 7th, we would have to deliver to Council the information for the first public hearing on the 14th. So, that information would already be completed by that date and submitted to Council. And we may even have it done two weeks before. Okay. So, we would have it done by, what is the, August 31st. You'd have it done by the 31st. And we generally like to give Council more time to look at any information with respect to the budget. So, yeah, it gets jammed up, obviously. All right. Council Member Montaneri. Thank you. So, lost in my thought. So, I don't want to sit there and try to go over the calendars here on the dais. So, why don't I amend my request to refer to a committee to hold for a discussion on the mayor's FY 2024 recommended budget, and we'll just take the date out. I'll move that. And did we already have a second? I didn't catch a second. Okay. Second. Okay. So, second on his amended motion. Okay. So, seeing no further request to speak, clerk, please open the machine for voting. One moment, please. H-1 to amend. It's H-1 as amended. Okay. Seeing all present, Council Members have voted. Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. The motion to approve agenda item H-1 as amended fails. Council Member Driscoll, Floyd, and Montaneri voting yes. Vic Sanders, Gabbard, and Muhammad voting no. Council Member Gerdes and Hanowitz absent. Thank you. So, legal, I'd like to ask a quick question as a follow-up to this item. Seeing as how this is not standard procedure to have a cow in this time period, but there is some precedent that it has been done a couple of times in recent history. If a council member wanted to amend our current process and make sure that going forward that there was an additional cow as a standing meeting that always happens in that time period, what would be the process for that? Would that be part of our policy and procedures? It could happen a couple different ways. So, it could be a request to administration and build that into the calendar more informally. Or, it could be an amendment to your city council policy and procedures manual that the council member would submit that proposed amendment as a new business item. Typically, those, they can either come straight to council or it could be a referral to a committee, for example, PS and I, to discuss an amendment like that. Could it be included in our conversation that we have in December as to the annual policy update? It could. That's the other way. You could do it then. And depending on what came out of that meeting, then it would go on, if approved, go on a council agenda to formally make that amendment. Well, and I think the reason I ask is because I think that, you know, there is a lot of validity to the request to continue to have these conversations and have these conversations in the sunshine openly. But timing and administration being available, having the information we need, knowing that expectation, holding that August cow, like, in reserve, if you will, I think makes it easier of a process going forward. Much like we've kind of done with the way we discussed utility rates, right? Like, we don't have a formal process for bringing that second hearing here, but it's kind of been a request for, you know, the administration to do that, and they have responded and been prepared for that. And I think that's what it's all about, is making sure that if we're going to have these conversations, that they're productive and that they happen in a way that the flow of the information can actually get us to the end result of progress and whatever that looks like to each person with the budget. So, I'd just throw that out. May I just interject, and sorry for the interruption. Yes, sir. I agree with your statement. I would like to be part of that conversation, because I would like to have the opportunity to explain kind of the impact to the administration on creating another meeting as a permanent part of our process. But, you know, we would be happy to participate in those conversations. Right, and I bring it up because I respect the process you all go through immensely and how challenging that process is, but I also respect that it is the number one thing that we do. And so, I just want us to come up with something that is a balance that makes sense so that council members going forward can feel like they've been heard, that they've had those conversations, but that us wanting to do it in the 11th hour doesn't kind of muddy up the works on your end of everything, because what you juggle is immense. And I respect that, so I just wanted to kind of see if we can find a path forward that makes sense. And so, I just kind of wanted to level set that a little bit. Council Member Montanary. Yes, so I want to talk to legal about this also. I do have to say that having a vote to discuss the budget in a public meeting after the mayor and administration has presented their recommended budget, and we have city council members that don't want to have a public meeting on that before we get to the public hearings, is just not logical to me. And this isn't a last minute request. To me, this is just good governance, corporately talk about the budget of the city of St. Petersburg. So, I'll have the conversation with legal, I'll move this forward, but this is the most important thing we do as a city council. I'll leave it right there. Okay, let's move on to item H2, Council Member Floyd. Thank you. I am respectfully requesting a referral to the Housing, Land, Use, and Transportation Committee for a discussion on discrimination citywide, including in housing. Move approval. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. I think I saw Council Member Driscoll? Yes. Yes. Thank you. I was just wondering if Council Member Floyd could just explain, and not take too long, but just quickly explain, is this an NBI on discussing discrimination or discussing discrimination in housing? Because it's going to HLUT, but just the way that this is worded, sounds like we want a broad discussion on discrimination in HLUT and housing will be part of that. So any additional information would be helpful. Yeah, absolutely. So this came out of the conversation around the tenants bill of rights repeal. I think that the reason it's phrased this way, I spoke with legal about it, is because, and Brad's here and he might want to say something, is because I think the idea is we're working on a housing issue, but that because of the way state law is written it's going to be a broad conversation about discrimination. And I would love for Brad to take over and mention a little bit about that as well. So what I would envision presenting is kind of an explanation of the various layers of discrimination. This is something where there's federal, there's state, there's county, and there's local, and all of these different authorities interact to try to prevent discrimination. And then that would be a way to inform what options the city has in that regard. And because some of this deals with, discrimination can deal with housing through the Fair Housing Act, discrimination can be involved in other areas. The idea is to make it, be able to address any issues related to discrimination as they are overlapping in various forums. Thank you. So it's not specifically about housing? I would. We're going to be talking about all kinds of discrimination. Sure. Housing will be part of that. Yes. So the Federal and State Fair Housing Acts would be a part of it, but I think, and obviously defer to whatever the council wants, as far as how all of this works together. Because, for example, in the housing context, the county Office of Human Rights is the local group that takes care of that. And now, you know, how does that work with employment discrimination or other kinds of discrimination? My intent was just to be able to lay it all on the table so you can see all the various groups working together. Okay. I think I understand. That's going to be some backup for that agenda. All right. I understand it better now. It was just worded a little bit unusually. So thank you for cleaning that up. Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair Fick Sanders. Thank you. And I'm going back to the last discussion we had. When I read that as well when it said including in housing, I was looking for specifically in housing. And the reason why I say that going to HLUT is other conversations about discrimination is going to come up regardless. Regardless, but what's the end game for that committee meeting? Because we can't end all discrimination in HLUT. We can discuss it, but we can't find the solutions for all discrimination in HLUT. We only have so many minutes of the day. So if we were going to talk about discrimination in housing and some of the other discriminations that predispose those outcomes in discrimination in housing, I get it. When it comes down to discrimination in employment, we have our EWD committee. If we're going to do committee meetings, can they be specific in trying to find answers to what the discussion is versus a broad statement as to we're going to talk about all discrimination. We're going to be there all day. And what is going to be the end result of that discussion? You can't talk about housing without talking about all the different factors of discrimination. There's no way around it. But what is going to be the primary focus of that conversation? And that's the first thing that came to my mind when I saw, including in housing. Can we talk about specifically in housing and what you just actually presented that you are going to talk about all those layers? We're going to cross the gamut of discrimination through all of those layers. But in HLUT, what are we going to do as far as economic development? What are we going to do as far as employment? What are we going to do about discrimination in maternal health? What are we going to – to me, I thought it was really broad. I thought it was extremely broad for HLUT because, you know, I love – I won't talk about discrimination. As black as I am, I want to make sure we have those conversations. But I also want us to be impactful in our discussions. And I'll leave that there. I mean, I'll support it, but I just need to know what the end game in HLUT is going to be. I mean, I'll speak to that a little bit. This is specifically coming from the repeal of the Tenants' Bill of Rights. The language is written broadly because that's where our power is to enact anti-discrimination stuff. We don't have the power to do it anymore, specifically in the landlord-tenant relationship. But if we have a discussion about things more broadly, we can still make an impact in that specific area. Or we can at least find out through conversations with the legal department about if it's possible to make an impact there. So I think that's why it was written this way. I understand, like, I guess without any background information, I can totally see how y'all would come to the conclusion, like, we're just going to talk about discrimination. Like, yeah, that could – we could never stop talking about that. So I totally get it. But my intent is for us to focus on housing. That's why it's sent to HLUT. If we want to have further discussions, like, we can have discussions in other committees. We can do this somewhere else. I don't care. I just want to have the discussion. And if that sounds good, that's what led me to this. I feel like if we had been more specific, it could have been seeing our intent as, like, trying to do something that we're not enabled to by the state. And so that's why I tried to keep it more broad. I think a lot of these details – this is new. So a lot of these details are going to have to be worked out in the first committee meeting to find out what we're actually capable of. And that's the conversation I'm trying to get started. Okay. All right. Councilmember Rotnery. I have a lot of questions about this new business item also. So, Councilmember Floyd, are you implying that the legislature discriminated when they preempted us? No, no, no, that's not what I'm implying at all. Well, what I'm trying to do is when the legislature preempted us, they specifically preempted landlord-tenant relationships. But our – and legal can correct me if I'm wrong – my understanding is that our ability to protect things like source of income discrimination could be derived from the Fair Housing Act. And so that's where I want to have a conversation about what's possible for us to – when preventing discrimination through the Fair Housing Act – what's possible for us to do in housing still. It's a different section in state law than what was explicitly preempted. But we repealed our whole thing because it was all tied up in that specific section that was preempted. And now I want to have a conversation about the Fair Housing Act and how discrimination can be – how we can fight discrimination in housing and otherwise through different mechanisms than what was explicitly preempted. I'd say my takeaway from this and what we would plan to present is what, if anything, can the city do in this area in light of the preemption? And that's something that we have to do additional research on. We certainly can't stand here today and commit that we think one thing is legal or not. But we're certainly prepared to take a look at it based on some of the comments that have been made and requests by the council member related to what other jurisdictions are doing and provide that information to council at a committee meeting. Because that seems a little different than what council member Floyd has in his new business item. I just don't want anyone here to have the impression that – we haven't given an opinion on it yet. But like with any new business item, we're happy to do the research and report back to the committee if that's council's desire. Okay. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Muhammad. Thank you, Madam Chair. And so just so that I'm clear, the way that I understand this is that – and this might have been said already – we've demonstrated our commitment to protecting tenants against discrimination. That demonstration was codified in our Tenants' Bill of Rights with two specific provisions that address discrimination. We repealed the Tenants' Bill of Rights, but we still want to demonstrate our commitment to protecting tenants against discrimination. And to have that conversation, we're referring this to what's been referred to or voted on whether or not we refer to the Housing, Land, Use, and Transportation Committee, to have that conversation in the context of other discriminatory practices. And so I do see the point about the including as opposed to specifically addressing or starting with or beginning with housing. But for me, that's why I'll be supporting this because I specifically remember when we had the conversation. We talked about the timeline. We talked about did it have to be done at the time. And the recommendation that was made was like, yes, let's repeal it and then have a conversation about ways that we can protect tenants specifically from discrimination. And so when I received it, I received it in that context and in response to the legal guidance that we received on how we could have that conversation. Is there anything that I'm missing in this? I think, Council Member, that's accurate. We gave the opinion that we thought it was clear cut that the Tenant Bill of Rights needed to be repealed. Right. To the extent that Council wants to have continuing discussions, again, I'll use the phrase, what if anything, because the nature of the preemption is so broad. Right. We're committed to thoroughly researching it and providing a comprehensive review of that to you at a committee. But we, like I said, we don't know what that space is at this point. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Vice Chair Fick Sanders. Thank you. And hearing all of that, Council Member Floyd, would you be willing to amend your new business item to remove including and replace with specifically in housing? I would ask legal for their advice on that. Okay. How you word the new business item and the motion is completely up to you. As I've stated, as has Mr. Tenant, the preemption is very broad. I think there are limitations on what you, significant limitations on what you can do targeted specifically at housing. And my understanding was the intent of this was to have a broader discussion and look for any and all available options, whatever they may be, if any. Okay, so basically moving forward, because I do want to have those conversations, so I am going to vote in favor of this. But I guess I just wanted it to be, I still need to know what the end game is going to be. I just don't want to, you know, what is the purpose of it going to HLUT and what does that look like? And so with Attorney Tenant saying that he's going to talk on all three levels, I'm okay with that. But it just looked like we were, how it's worded, we're going to talk about every aspect of discrimination citywide. So I don't know what the verbiage amendment could look like to, and I hear you legally, I keep forgetting about that, that big legal thing and we being preempted. But the fact that we've had this much conversation on it just leaves in itself, I'm wondering what type of conversation we're going to have in HLUT. And that's, I'm just going to put that back on you Attorney Tenant, it's going to be the driving factor of the direction of that conversation and what that outcome of that committee meeting is going to be. And council member, as is common with a new business item such as this, we will consult with the council member who made the referral and make sure that we're doing our best to include the information that that council member is looking for. Okay. And then to the extent, so essentially it'll be somewhat targeted to what council member Floyd has requested. And then once we have that initial discussion, if there's additional questions of the committee, if you want us to come back on certain areas or take a deeper dive or narrow the discussion, for a future committee meeting, that's fine too. This is, I think council member Floyd is intending this just to be the starting point. Okay, so I've received my request for the amendment. I move approval if it hasn't already been, it was, okay. So we have a motion and a second. And seeing no further requests to speak, clerk please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present council members have voted, clerk please tally and announce the vote. Motion to approve agenda item H2 passes. Five to one with council member Driscoll, Vic Sanders, Floyd, Gabbard, and Muhammad voting yes. Council member Montaneri voting no. Council member Gerdes and Hanowitz absent. All right, we will move on now to item H3, council member Floyd. Hello again. Hello. I am respectfully requesting a referral to the Housing, Land, Use, and Transportation Committee for a discussion on funding housing development projects through municipal bonds. Move approval. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Seeing no request to speak, clerk please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present council members have voted, clerk please tally and announce the vote. Motion to approve agenda item H3 passes unanimously with council members Gerdes and Hanowitz absent. All right, and then item H4, Vice Chair Vic Sanders. Vice Chair Vic Sanders. Thank you. This is for a staff request. We're respectfully requesting a report to the Youth and Family Services Committee for an update on the opioid abatement funding. And with that, I move approval. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Seeing no request to speak, clerk please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present council members have voted, clerk please tally and announce the vote. Approval of agenda item H4 passes unanimously with council members Gerdes and Hanowitz absent. All right, and open forum. Any speakers for open forum? Chair. All right, we will close open forum and go to announcements. Any announcements? No? All right, very good. With that, meeting adjourned. Thank you, everyone.