City Council - Jul 09, 2026

Welcome to the City of St. Petersburg City Council Meeting. Your elected officials are Mayor Ken Welch, District 1, Hopley Gerdes, District 2, Brandy Gabbard, District 3, Mike Harding, District 4 and Council Chair, Lissette Panowitz, District 5, Deborah Figg Sanders, District 6, Gina Driscoll, District 7, Corey Givens Jr., and District 8 and Council Vice Chair, Ritchie Floyd. 2026 City Council Meeting. Clerk, can I please have a roll call? Givens? Here. Lloyd? Here. Gerdes? Here. Gabbard? Here. Harding? Here. Hanowitz? Here. Nick Sanders? Here. Driscoll? I'd like to note for the record that Council Member Driscoll is out due to a medical issue. We will start off with the invocation by Pastor William Anderson of the Pentecostal Temple Church. If you could please stand for our invocation and then please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Good afternoon, Pastor. Good afternoon. Heavenly Father, we come before you this afternoon with humble hearts, acknowledging that you are the sovereign and mighty God over every city, every nation, and every leader. Your word reminds us that the powers that are to be are ordained of God. So, Lord, we thank you for the opportunity to gather and seek your wisdom. Lord, we lift up our city to you, St. Petersburg. We ask that you would bless our neighborhoods with peace, our homes with love, our schools with safety, our businesses with prosperity, and our churches with a fresh outpouring of your spirit. Let righteousness be established in our communities, and let justice and mercy flow through every decisions that are made here today. We especially pray for our mayor, our city council members, the city leaders, our department heads, the first responders, and all of those who serve the people of our city. Grant them wisdom beyond their own understanding. Give them discerning hearts to make decisions that promote the welfare of every citizen. Help them to lead with integrity, with humility, with fairness, and with compassion. Bless this, our city, in every decision that is made in this council meeting today. We ask this in your precious name. Amen. Amen. Amen. 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. Thank you. And thank you for that beautiful invocation, Pastor. I saw in the screen it said that we were at the Budget Financing Committee, Taxation Committee meeting. That's not this today. That's the city council meeting. Oh, I thought we were having a repeat of this morning. We have an agenda before us. I'll entertain a motion for approval. Move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve the agenda passes unanimously with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Clerk, we have some speakers, I see. Not for consent. Not for, okay. I'll entertain a motion for approval of our consent agenda. Second. I have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve the consent agenda passes unanimously with Council Member Driscoll being absent. We have cards for open forum if you can read the rules. We do not have cards, but I will read the rules. Oh, you don't have cards. No, these are for the... We have one in Zoom. Oh, we do have one in Zoom. Okay, so then we have to read the rules. If you wish to address city council on subjects other than public hearing or quasi-judicial items listed on the agenda, please sign up with the clerk. Only the individual wishing to speak may sign the open forum sheet. Only city residents, owners of property, business owners in the city, or the 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. Applause is not permitted except in connection with awards and presentations. 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 comments, the requirement that any presentation materials must be submitted in advance of the meeting and the rules of decorum. If live public comment is disrupted by the violations of the rules of decorum, the chair is authorized to accept public comment by alternate means, including by email only. And again, we have no open forum in speakers, but we do have a Zoom speaker. DSA line 2, once you enter to the meeting space, unmute, state your name and address. You'll have three minutes to address city council. Sorry, I am on the wrong Zoom account. Hi, this is Marley Price, 5034, 32nd Ave North. I wish I could have stuck around all day at City Hall. Unfortunately, I had to go home, but I was glad I could be there for the committee meeting this morning, and I wanted to follow up with a few things from the utility rate discussion in the presentation today. The example bill showed the taxes at 2%, but on the actual utility bill that is set every month, there is a box that shows that on water and reclaimed water, it's 10%, so I feel like that might be confusing for some people. But anyway, with that, I'm glad the conversation today was really centered around the issue of affordability. Council Member Floyd made some great points about how much the median income has really increased in the city, and I'm sure you're all really aware just how much people are feeling financial pressure on every side lately. And recently, I heard the mayor bring up the possibility of reducing or eliminating the franchise fee with Duke Energy as a way to lower electric bills during a forum. I don't know if that's a real thing that's being talked about, but I support looking at ways to lower bills, but before we give up revenue from a private utility, I don't know why we wouldn't be talking about doing the same thing for our own utility to help the image of the city first. And water resources, if they're sending millions of dollars out of the actual utility to the general fund every year, it would just be interesting if before asking for another increase to see what that would look like instead. And finally, I've brought this up before, but it would really be cool if there could be more done around the utility billing review committee itself to either have the meetings happen more frequently or have a little bit more transparency there, maybe putting them on St. Pete TV if that's possible. I don't think people quite know how that works. Yeah, I think there are some really creative ideas. And obviously, every city can't have as charismatic of a mayor as maybe New York has, but I think there's a lot of lessons from the politics of affordability right now that people respond really well when you clearly explain what is making their lives more expensive and what maybe you can do to help lower the costs. So, yeah, I appreciate that, and I really look forward to hearing more about how those discussions pan out. Thank you. More speakers, Madam Chair. Thank you. Before we get to our legal items, I'm going to defer real quickly to Tom and Claude, who are going to give a brief verbal update on the number of procurement item. He'll be Tom Green, I guess. Hello, Madam Chair and members of Council. Good to have you back in from your summer break. We did want to provide just a quick verbal update on a situation during late June. Claude, or Administrator Tankersley, and his team discovered that a fairly significant-sized sanitary sewer trunk line had been breached. It's a 42-inch trunk line. It's located generally on 66th Street and 26th Avenue North. That was breached by a private contractor doing work for a private utility during the horizontal boring process. And given the potential that there could be some public health issues and other issues related to reduced capacity of that pipe, potential spillage, the mayor did authorize the use of our emergency procurement code, included section 2-213, to enter into a contract with Rickman Construction in an amount not to exceed $500,000 to begin that repair. And should those repairs exceed that $500,000, we will bring an action item to City Council for approval. We do expect that it will exceed that expense, or there may be some other items that we will want to include in that. So we're expecting later this month in July or early August to bring something to you for your approval. And under that, our procurement code section 2-213, if the mayor does exercise that authority, we are required to report to you at the next City Council meeting. As you can see, Administrator Tankersley and Mr. John Palanchar from Water Resources are here if you have any additional questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. And just to be clear, that contractor will be responsible for payment of those monies. Correct. Legal. We are aware of the situation, and we will absolutely be. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next up are the legal items. First one is I-1. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Sarah Lucker, and I work for the City Attorney's Office. And this resolution that we're bringing today is just an increase in the not-to-exceed amount for the contract with Jones, Hurley, and Hand. They perform legal services related to labor and employment matters for the city. Initially, we came forward with $50,000 for last year. It's another year, so we're coming back with an increase to go from $50,000 to a total of $180,000. So the new amount that you're voting to approve would be $130,000. And that's for any labor and employment-related cases and work that they're doing for this upcoming year. Second. I have a motion and a second. Council Member Gabbard. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for the call yesterday to explain the item. And I just wanted, for anyone who's listening, I think sometimes it seems like we kind of rush through these legal items, but we always have our one-on-ones and our briefing calls. And so I just wanted to point out a conversation that we had, which is that while this is a large increase to what we had done last time, it is not an increase to their hourly rate. It is simply an increase because of the overall volume of work that the outside council will be helping us with. So that was important to me, to make sure that we weren't getting an increased cost. It was really just to make sure that we're able to facilitate that amount of work. So thank you for that. Thank you, Jackie, for the due diligence. And I'm very excited to support this. So thank you. Thank you, Council Member Gabbard. And to follow up on that, we also had a conversation about, you know, the increase. And obviously, the most efficient way to handle these matters that are pending is to continue having legal, outside legal, handle this. And obviously, if there is a time when we could do this in-house, we are going to be able to take these on. And, Jackie, I don't know if you want to add to that. Sure. Council Member, I think you all know that despite appearances sometimes on an agenda, we're very frugal with outside council. And take it as a personal point of pride that we don't do that unless we think it's more efficient and cost-effective, given the attorneys that we have and the workloads. So any time we have an outside council like this, we're always exploring those options of whether we can bring it back inside effectively. That's a to-be-determined. But we are going to explore that this year. Okay. Because part of the thing, like Sarah indicated, this number is dependent upon how many cases we have at a given point in time. And we can't predict that. It could be a certain number of cases today, and we could get three more in. And so this number just is always in flux because of that. Great. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your vote. Seeing that all present, council members have voted. Clerk, please tally and ask the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve. I-1 passes unanimously with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Next up, we have I-2. It's a summary of referendum-related items that are going to be coming before City Council on July 2026. We have our attorney, Brett Pettigrew, here that's going to give us an overview. My understanding is this is just a summary, but then we have the ordinances that we are going to discuss afterwards, so we don't probably need to go through each one of them. This is more of a summary. And I have a feeling that they're looking, and there he is coming through the door. So if you have any questions regarding the specific ordinances that are on the agenda, that we could go through that when we get to new ordinances. Hi. Good afternoon, Chair. Good afternoon. Vice Chair, members of Council. So as we close in on the deadline to put items on the ballot for the November municipal general election, we had a discussion this morning of the Geo Bond referendum resolution. There are four ordinances on the agenda today for first reading. If all of those move forward, there would next on the July 23rd agenda, there would be those public hearings and second reading of the titles for those four ordinances and the Geo Bond resolution, and when all of that is over, I suggest that Council adopt a resolution to set the ballot order for those items on the ballot to make sure there is no confusion about what order they should appear on the ballot. And if you would like to begin that discussion today, you could. Otherwise, I will bring a resolution next week that just has the ballot order in the agenda order, and you can shuffle the items at that time. Thank you. Thank you. So, Council members, one of the things to consider, obviously, is all these five ballot items can go in a specific order on the ballot. If legal doesn't hear from us, then they're going to go in the order as presented. I think it's probably wise to have that conversation in terms of the order of the items on the ballot. One of the things that I will note, and we're going to have a discussion on the different items, we have the Geo Bond, which is probably the biggest item that we have, referendum, and the general obligation bond. And for me personally, I think that would be the number one thing on the ballot because it's probably the biggest item. We have some items that are amendments to the charter that I think probably should follow. And then we have a few items that are either clarifying language or if it doesn't pass, it's a status quo. And I think Brett can go through that, which I would probably think would probably go towards the end, because if they don't pass, things stay the same. So I think we can have those discussions, but it's something to kind of think about. I'm throwing it out there in terms of how the order could potentially go. And once we go through these items, maybe we can have that discussion at the end. So with that being said, we can move on to the first ordinance, E1. Proposed ordinance number 639-H, an ordinance concerning the removal of certain city-owned vacant lots from the city charter park and waterfront map to allow subsequent and separate land use changes and potential sale of those lots, making findings regarding the need to amend the charter for that purpose, calling a referendum during the November 3rd, 2026 municipal general election to authorize such a charter amendment, providing ballot text for that referendum, and providing an effective date. The public hearing date for this ordinance is scheduled for July 23rd, 2026, and we do have two speakers. When I call your name, please go to an open podium, state your name, address, or cross street. For the record, you'll have three minutes to address city council. Isabella Rios and Emanuel Rue. Hello, my name is Isabella Rios, and I live at 331 15th Street North, St. Pete, Florida, 33705. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and council members. I speak today as the president of the Methodist Town Neighborhood Association, and I'm here to ask the council to amend ordinance 639-H so the referendum removes seven lots rather than nine, retaining two community as community space. Now, I want to explain how that balance can serve both the city's housing goals and the Methodist Town community. Methodist Town is one of St. Pete's oldest and most historically significant communities. During the Jim Crow era, Dr. Robert Swain Jr., a dentist, civil rights activist, and civic leader, owned and operated the Robert James Hotel in Methodist Town, the only St. Pete Hotel listed in the 1959 Green Book. Decades later, Methodist Town native Goliath Davis III became the city's first African-American police chief, and later its deputy. Looking at Methodist Town today, you wouldn't know the rich history and significance. Today, our neighborhood is largely a pass-through, be it from spillover traffic off of Central Avenue or parking during baseball season. We have a different vision for our community, right? To be a neighborhood that draws people in, where residents from across St. Pete come to gather, and where our own residents take pride in where they live and have communal spaces to enjoy beyond their homes. There is no question that we support both affordable housing and workforce housing. We believe that goal does not compete with community building, preserving history, and green space. The two can advance together. The ninth city and fill lots on the referendum were originally acquired under the 1982 plan for a public open space buffer system to buffer the neighborhood's homes from surrounding streets and commercial uses. There is room here to do both. Build the housing this city needs and retain some of this ground for the community, including a place to honor the legacy of leaders like Dr. Swain and Chief Davis. That is why we propose a middle ground. Amend the ballot language so the referendum asks voters to remove seven lots rather than nine, retaining two as protected community space. We welcome the chance to work expeditiously with Parks and Rec, city administrators, and council members who have led the city's affordable housing efforts to identify the two lots best positioned to be set aside with the least impact on housing and come to a consensus on the best distribution of the infill lots for housing and community use before the August 7th supervisor of elections deadline for ballot language. We are not asking to stop this or slow it down. We're prepared to do this work in whatever timeline keeps the referendum on the November ballot. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. Name and address, sir. Good afternoon. My name is Emmanuel Roux. I live at 2519 Driftwood Road in St. Pete, and I'm the founder and executive director of 15th Street Farm. I'm an advocate for urban green spaces, and I founded and run the 15th Street Farm, which is a half an acre non-profit educational organic farm with a commercial kitchen and event space. It is located on 15th Street and 4th Avenue North. We host thousands of visitors and students illustrating the value of the farm as a community asset. I strongly support a reserving two lots as a neighborhood quality of life improvement, and we could assist in the development of a community garden on one lot. Urban agriculture, from windowsills, herbs, to community gardens and urban farms, generate considerable dividends, and those can be measured in education impact, health impact, economic impact, environmental and social. And those are very real dividends that are not often taken into consideration. So a community garden, the impact on intergenerational interactions in health, in explaining to kids that they live in they depend on nature and not on plastics, is a very important message that we can convey. And it can be done by green spaces and community gardens. In South St. Petersburg in particular, there was a long tradition of backyard gardens, and those backyard gardens were created out of necessity, and that gave resilience to the community. It is something that we need to keep in mind, because COVID showed that there were some issues with food distribution, and community gardens and urban farms will never replace global food distribution, but they can have an impact on the community. So please consider adding more green space to the city. We do not need more asphalt. We do not need more concrete. We need a little green here and there. And this applies to the Methodist town community, but also to the redevelopment of the gas plant. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, given that this went before HLUT, and I would like to hear from legal, I know administration hasn't done their presentation, but I want to check, first of all, in terms of timelines, if there are any changes that are made, what needs to be done and by when. The ordinance title is broad enough to accommodate a change like one that has been requested to reduce the number of lots. It does not specify any particular number of lots. Really, the ordinances need to be approved by the end of the July 23rd meeting, and that's one of the reasons we are on this schedule is to provide two weeks in between to think about any unforeseen consequences that would be discussed today. Okay, great. And I would just add to that, if council does want a change, we would need clear direction on that today so that we have time to go through the whole thing and make sure everything's syncing up. Exactly. And administration, I don't know, before I go to council members, what your thoughts are on this. First, I wanted to touch base. And we have a presentation, too, which I think may be appropriate to have. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it. And, you know, first of all, thank you to the people for coming. I was not aware of this request. This is the first thing I heard about it. My initial position is open. I'd like to see, you know, what lots specifically we're talking about. I mean, for us, this was a way of trying to clean up some issues for some lots that we didn't think were working for the neighborhood to try and do something different. If there's a couple that they think they would really like to keep, we're open to the discussion. Great. And I think it's probably appropriate, Erin, were you going to do the presentation? Because I'm not part of HLUT. I don't know. I don't have the background that some other council members have on this. I think for those who have not seen the presentation and don't know specifically what we're talking about, we're probably going to have to have the presentation first before we have more commentary. Sure, Madam Chair. And as part of the materials for this afternoon, I did provide, which is kind of a condensed, just the proposed ballot language and the map. But I'm happy to discuss some of the background on these lots and where we got to, you know. And we can have the picture on the screen also so we know what we're talking about. I'm sorry? We did get one more speaker. We got one more speaker. We might as well just, since we got one more, let's have the speaker before. Okay. Terry Reeb, please go to an open podium. State your name and address for Cross Street. For the record, you'll have three minutes to address city council. My name is Terry Reeb. My property is at 237 15th Street. I have an industrial building, and I don't think it's a good idea to build a house right next door to it. We got limited parking, and the city tore down a house to create this green space, a bungalow. And I think some of the other properties, there needs to be a buffer. And I think there's a better use than putting in low-income housing in a warehouse district, basically, where my property is. I think this is kind of half-baked, basically. So I don't think housing goes next door to warehouses. That's my opinion. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Aaron, if we can have the presentation before we go to him. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Vice Chair, Aaron Fish, Real Estate and Property Management Director. In the past, we've had a discussion on the Jamestown parcels at HLUT. In that discussion, we talked about the nine lots that are, we're calling them the infill lots, that are kind of mid-block. They were acquired in the 1970s to act as kind of a buffer zone. In 2012, that Jamestown plan where those infill lots were included in, that expired. There was some discussions on a better utilization of those lots because for many years, since the 1970s, they've sat there as green space. Because they're on the parks and waterfront map and they have NSE zoning, they're limited to a three-year license agreement without going to a referendum. So it really limits the ability to utilize these lots. So in those discussions in the past, we had talked about what could they be used for. We identified that four out of the nine lots are approximately the size of a typical single-family lot, that we could put those into the Affordable Lot Disposition Program. And then five of the nine lots are larger and would be able to support larger development with the ability to accommodate up to approximately 37 units between those five lots. As part of the discussion, it was generally supported by the committee to move forward with ballot language that included the use of these lots for affordable or workforce housing. As part of the plan, if this were to go through as is, the zoning would change to a zoning that would support the development of these lots from the current NSE zoning. And then ultimately, the lots would be disposed of for the intended purpose. And I'm happy to answer any questions. If you can just put the picture of what we're talking about, and then I'll go to council members on this. Vice Chair Floyd. Thank you. So my first question, I don't know if it's legal or staff, us doing this doesn't stop us from utilizing – does it stop us from utilizing the land in some of the ways described by speakers today? So the – one of the tricky bits about this is state law is not designed – our charter map is unique. The protections that our charter provides for park and waterfront property are unique. And so right now, the 1984 map says these must be used as parks. State law says to change the charter, you must do a referendum. State law also says if you're going to change zoning, you must not do a referendum. So there is kind of a decoupled approach here where the first step has to be to take them off of the map, and then that opens the door to other steps, such as rezoning these and changing the future land use map. And then when that's done, then they could be used for housing. Right now, the way the ballot question is worded, it talks – it says, shall the charter be amended to remove the lots from the map to allow for the subsequent land use and zoning changes and potential sale of those lots for affordable workforce housing? So there is a – the city has stated that that is its purpose. It is not a – it would not be a legal requirement under the charter. It would not be a – but that would be setting the expectation. So if the expectation is going to be changed that these would be used for other sorts of things, I would suggest that the ballot language should be changed to be broader to accommodate that. Otherwise, you're telling the voters, please amend the charter to allow us to do something, and if you intend to do that and some other things, the fact that the other things are not contemplated in the ballot language, at best, it's not a good look, and it could – someone could – it would be a stretch to say that you have to do those things, that you have to use it only for housing. But if you want to keep the door open to the kinds of other uses that were discussed today, I suggest that you adjust the ballot language to accommodate them. That's fair. I appreciate that. Yeah, the other – or to say potential, it does not say that. I think legal is having – Yeah, I think part of the thing is to – in addition to the ballot tax, is the title clear enough? So we can – we could change the ballot tax, but we can't change the title, so we would need to consider that as well. Okay. And say we were to leave, like, a lot out to become something else. Right now, it's on the waterfront and parks map. Does that mean that it has to be a park then? What is – there's limitations to leaving it in the current situation that it's in right now is my impression. Yeah, right now it's on the charter. The charter says it has to be used for parks. The future land use map is recreation, open space. You cannot build anything there. So the way things are now, both because of the charter and because of the land use, housing cannot be built on it. And not just housing, but, I mean, what could be built there feasibly? I'm going to have to get back to you on that, but it's whatever could be built on the things that go in parks. Okay. Okay. Okay. That's not why I pushed my button, but I'm grateful for the clarity. I pushed it because I wanted to take the opportunity to say that I've been supportive of this. If as long as when it gets brought forward, the lots that are fit for multifamily have – I see nodding in agreement – have a plan brought forward to us to be more like Jamestown, where we're city-owned and operated. If it's just going to be that we're doing this to sell this land off, I'm not going to support it when we get to that point. And beyond that, to the speakers, I would say, you know, if one of the single-family lots was a community garden, that doesn't bother me at all. That sounds good. And although – and I'm glad we have the people here saying they would be happy to help with that, but, you know, community gardens are things that sometimes fall into disarray, disrepair and whatnot, and I think part of the idea of this was to clean up some stuff like that. So that's just a consideration to the back of my mind. But I really just push my button to say – to continue to advocate for what I would like to see happen at the larger properties. That's all. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Jackie? Thank you, Chair. We have looked at – this is the first we heard about it, too, so we're trying to, you know, analyze this on the fly. We do think the title, as it's worded, is broad enough to accommodate this. If – there would need to be several tweaks to the ordinance itself and the body of it, making sure that the findings make sense, and obviously the ballot question would need to change. But because – this is worded, and, you know, Brett is always trying to game plan that things could change, how it's drafted to allow subsequent and separate land use changes and potential sale, from a legal standpoint, that is broad enough to accommodate the change, in our opinion. And it's broad enough to accommodate taking out lots? Yes. Everything. Okay. The other thing I just wanted to touch upon before I go to other comments from city council is – and I know Vice Chair Floyd mentioned that he wants a specific purpose. This is much broader than that. Yeah. I just want to make sure, like, this doesn't limit the way this is worded, because I want – because this is a referendum. It's going to the public, and they're going to have to vote on it. This is not limiting the sale of this, or it's going to be city-owned or whatever. This could be sold, period. So I just want to make sure that's clear. Right? Am I – I think if there was an intent to – yes. Right now it is to open the door to allow for the changes and the potential sale for affordable workforce housing. If you were to do something else, it would not be prohibited, but the public who's not listening to this could say, but when I read it, you told – like, I voted for that because I thought that's what you were going to use it for. I just want to make clear that it's not necessarily going to mean housing that is owned by the city. I want to make it clear that this is much broader because we're having a conversation, something that's going to be on the referendum. And that was the potential sale. That's the reason that was – Right, that's why it's potential sale, and we can't guarantee as to how this is going to end up. That's all I'm putting out there. Okay. Council Member Gabbard. Thank you. So I just want to thank those who came out today. We did have a lot of robust discussion in our HOUT meetings. I think – was there two or three? At least two. And, you know, when I went through a couple of years ago the exercise with city team to do the city-owned land inventory, one of the things – I was looking for two things. I was looking for lots that we would be able to build affordable and workforce housing on. I was also looking kind of secretly in my mind for places where we could potentially do community gardens. And, you know, we had a lot of robust conversation as we worked through that administrative policy for 18 months about some of the hurdles of doing that specifically for the community gardens. And Council Vice Chair Floyd kind of mentioned that, you know, the ability for the community to keep it up, us owning it, what does that look like? We are still kind of navigating that, especially, like, my office trying to work on policy around urban agriculture. And I don't know that we are any closer to the answers on that. So when this came forward, it hit those, you know, desired metrics for affordable and workforce housing. So I was very much in favor of it. But understanding, you know, your concern over lack of green space, community amenities, all of that, I wish we could have had those conversations sooner about these lots because now I'm left to say, well, if we're going to choose two, which two would it even be? I think that's a much deeper dive conversation than I don't know we're going to be able to get there between now and the 23rd. I would encourage administration, if possible, to have a meeting with Methodist Town and have this conversation if that could be done between the time this comes back. But I just I would be hard pressed at this point from City Council's perspective to say automatically we would go from the nine to seven because I don't even know looking at this which two would even make sense. I would lean on probably the ones that would be the single family because they're smaller. But again, which two are those? So, you know, I appreciate the sentiment and certainly align with you on the desire to protect our green spaces and create more urban agriculture initiatives and areas across our city. I'm just concerned about kind of doing this in the 11th hour. And so I wonder if finding a way, passing it today, but finding a way for this language to be a little bit more broad in the uses, then later on gives us the ability as we start to do RFPs on these properties to think about at that point, which ones might make sense for us to either retain and use for something else or do a urban agriculture initiative RFP on one of them. But if it says affordable and workforce housing, that's all you're going to get. Right. Like we're stuck only doing RFPs specifically for that. Right. That's my concern. And so I guess maybe that's my question for legal. If that wording is more broader, does that give the administration the ability to be able to do RFPs for other initiatives, say urban agriculture, new community garden, the new youth farm of the Jamestown area, for instance? I think if that was something that council wanted to keep on the table or make very clear that it was on the table, we would need to revise it somewhat and maybe drop affordable and workforce and say housing or other community benefits. Like you could, I mean, unfortunately you only with only 75 words to deal with. I could also, I think I might be able to pull some out about, I might be able to pull out the land use piece. That's not, I think that's probably not the most important thing. I might be able to keep both. If I'd have to look at that. But I think if that's something that you really wanted to keep on the table, we would want to find a way to add or other community uses, other community benefits, something like that into the ballot language. I mean, again, we've gone through this in committee, so it's hard at this point to kind of make sausage on the dais on this opportunity. But I hear the concerns and I guess I just want to, I mean, open to what everybody else thinks about, you know, should we move this forward as is or be more flexible? I don't know. I just, I hear that desire to have those green spaces, but to also make them something that's activated in a way that is more difficult for us to do in our parks, more difficult for us to do as city owned and operated. So I'm open, but I just don't know how we get there this late in the game. It's up to her. Yeah. Directly. I will yield and hear what everyone else has to say. How's that? Okay. Council member Fick Sanders. Thank you. And thank you for the presentation. And thank you for those that actually came out to speak. Now, if I heard chair correctly, because that's why I pushed my button is if you put it, put the ordinance back up, it clearly states that that potential sale of those lots, which means once they're sold, we have no control over what goes there. That's the part that gives me heartburn is because once they're sold, because it says lots for affordable or workforce housing. Did I hear that correctly? They would be sold subject to a covenant running with the land that requires them to be used for that. And that would. Such as? In the same way we do for other. So it would have to be affordable or workforce housing. We can impose that requirement even as part of the sale. We can, but we don't have to. I'm asking a question. So from a legal perspective, that's what I mentioned earlier. There is a decoupling. We must use a referendum to take these off of the charter map. We must not use a referendum to do any land use or zoning changes. That is sort of the interim step to get from park use to housing use. So it is more of a political representation. Like these are being taken off the map to allow for these next things that cannot be done by referendum to occur. And so it would be really the voters holding the council and the administration accountable for following through on, you know, you asked us to approve step one, and now you're not doing what you said was the first step two. Hopefully that makes sense. It does, but it still doesn't clear it up for me. Mr. Corbett, I think you wanted to respond. Chair, if I can maybe just say. And the only thing I'm going to say, I want to clarify what Vice Sheriff Floyd was talking about, city-owned affordable housing, like the St. Pete Housing Authority, owning the property. I wanted to make sure. That was one thing. I understand that wholeheartedly. But again, maybe you can answer the question for me. So if you recall, for those who were at the committee meeting, the question was asked, would the city be willing or were we comfortable with including language that said for the sale for affordable or workforce housing? Obviously, that's not required. We could have just said for potential sale. And our stance is that we fully intend that these will be workforce and affordable housing. So we were comfortable with that language, and any disposition would require that. So we will be able to control either through, if it's the lot disposition program, those are required to be at 120 or less. And if we do an RFP, we would require affordability. To Council Member Floyd's point, what he, and I don't want to speak for him, but he wanted to make sure that when we come forward with the multifamily, that we present multiple options, not just selling it off for multifamily, but potentially having it as a city-owned multifamily. But it would still be a workforce or affordable, no matter what. We're comfortable with that commitment, and we were comfortable with having that specific language. Another thing that we brought into consideration when we brought these lots forward is that there were issues with dumping and other things over the years. It's my understanding, and it may be a little more difficult, but I believe these could have been used for community gardens or something through, at least through the parks as it stood right now today. That did not happen. There also is the formal unity park, which if you go back to the map, the green area is an actual traditional park area that could be activated further for green space and other activity, we felt like with, because these function do not function as parks. There were issues with illegal dumping and other things there, and the need to find more land for workforce and affordable housing, that this was the best use for these lands, and still with the opportunity to activate unity park proper for green space and other needs of the neighborhood. But to go to your original question, it would be our intent, and we specifically agreed to have that wording, that it would be workforce or affordable housing, however it was disposed of, and not anything else. Okay, that makes me feel better about that, because I was listening to the different comments. Now, I'm never a proponent for selling city-owned land when we do have a housing shortage, so if I'm understanding you, you are unintentionally going to remain committed to affordable and workforce housing with these lots. Absolutely. The lots would be used for workforce and affordable housing, whether it's city-owned or privately developed, but it would be workforce and affordable housing. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. And I think the clarification issue is it could be city-owned or it could be privately-owned, but it always has to be affordable or workforce housing because of the language in here. I'm just curious from administration before I go to the next speaker, what outreach has been done with Methodist Town and the most affected from these changes? Because I'm curious. I understand that we've been having these conversations for a while, but we have people here from the community, and they don't seem to have been part of the conversation. I'm just wondering what the outreach has been in terms of these changes and the stakeholders or potential stakeholders that are affected by this. So specifically the outreach for these changes, I'd have to double-check on what happened, but I would say the information that we received was frustration with people regarding the dumping, regarding some of the activity that took place on these lots in some areas closer to Unity Park, and they were asking for help to clean that up. But I'd have to follow up with you on specific outreach as it relates to Methodist Town and this proposed change. It just seems that some of what's occurring now are issues that could have been dealt with earlier, especially since it's been ongoing in the committee, if there had been the outreach with the other groups. Clearly there was one group of people that has been involved. I know like the 15th Street, the farm, these are groups that are there that we know of that exist, and so that's the only concern I have. So Chair, there is some formal outreach related to referendums. Yeah, Madam Chair. And it's also my understanding that Administrator Foster made contact with the neighborhood. Okay. And if we could just get some of that, that would be great, but I would appreciate that. Okay. Council Member Harding. Thank you, Chair. Brett, if what we're trying to accomplish is just the decoupling, how – Jordan, can you put that back up for a second? How – I'm not understanding how important or how the last part of what you wrote relates in what the lots are to be used for. So subsequent separate land use changes and potential sale of those lots for affordable or workforce housing. Is that – I'm failing to understand how that is relevant to the referendum itself. Couldn't we just say we're going to decouple these from the park system, and they're available to city administration to use for betterment of the city. So, Mr. Pettigrew, do you want me to take this one? Yeah. So, Councilman Harding, I think from our perspective, the answer to your question is that, I mean, parkland is sacrosanct in the city of St. Petersburg, and, you know, touching this type of parkland and asking it to be removed from the charter map could be highly controversial. We didn't think it necessarily would be in this case because these have been attractive nuisances over the past and was a little bit different situation. But we felt like making that commitment that if we could remove these from the charter park map and use them for affordable housing, which is critical in our community, that that would be better for the community when they looked at the overall package of what we were trying to do with the referendum. Rob, I absolutely understand what you're saying, and I agree with you on the sacrosanct part. But we're here today because it is a bit restrictive, and the community wants something a little bit different, which also would fit within what we're trying to accomplish in the betterment of the city. Yeah, no, I understand, and that's why I said, you know, I'm open to the discussion, because, again, from my perspective, for decades, these properties have been an attractive nuisance. They haven't been productive. They don't operate as parkland. And taking these off the park map from our perspective is significant, being able to use them for a different purpose for affordable housing. So to be frank with you, if we can only take seven off the map and we can do affordable housing and two are used for it, I'm generally fine with that. I just don't know what two we're talking about, and I haven't – nothing's been presented to me. But I'm completely open to the concept. Okay. I was just trying to get to a quicker yes if we pigeonholed ourselves in that. All right, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Chair Floyd. Thanks. I think a lot of what I was going to say when I first pushed the button's been said, but I will say, too, if we take, like, for the subsequent use and potential sale for affordable and workforce housing out of here, I'm not going to support it because this administration is telling us what that's going to be for. This council is saying that's what it's going to be for. But, you know, it's permanent change, and we're not necessarily going to be the ones here doing it. It could be used for God knows what then at that point. And so if there were to be a change, I'd prefer it be to one or two specific parcels. But I don't, again, I don't know which, the same has been said, I don't know which ones are best for that. The only thing I'll advocate for is that if to change, it's single-family ones. But. And if I could, we're happy to meet with the neighborhood before the 23rd. Okay, okay, okay. That sounds good. Come to an accommodation. And then, yeah, I think all the other stuff about clearing up what I was advocating for, like, I'm not advocating for anything to change. Everything like this is fine. I was just advocating for the point that I'm going to make later on when we have this conversation about how the creation of affordable housing goes on. But I'm wedded to that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Brett? Chair, so we have looked at the ballot language. We, and we'd want to double, triple check after this meeting, if this is the direction council wants to go. The reference to the subsequent separate land use changes is not the chief purpose. I think that we can drop that to make room. We think it would be possible to reword the last portion to remove those nine vacant lots from the map for affordable, local or workforce housing or other community uses, comma, including potential sale for those purposes. So we would drop the land use, the references to the subsequent and separate land use changes to make room for the other community uses. Okay. So if that's the direction the body wants to go. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Gerdes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just going to get to the brass tacks of it. I want to move this forward the way it is. We've had multiple committee meetings on it. I appreciate the community feedback, but I can think of at least three ways off the top of my head where the community can get those things within walking distance, just looking at this map, whether it's through unity park or acquisition across the street, uh, not trying to give away the whole thing. But I mean, we have a mechanism through city council in which we can do that and create a farm. And so, or some sort of agriculture piece there. So, um, at our disposal. And so I think all of these can be accomplished and we have, I strongly would say we work very diligently on this to get it to this point. And so I'm, I'm, I'm not forward changing at, at, at all at this point. I think I'm excited about putting housing here. The, I drive this road every single day to get to the office and I I'm very excited to move this forward and hope I get to be a part of seeing parcels come to life, uh, on this council. So I'll move approval. Second. Okay. And before I go to a council members where I've spoken, I will say that I have no problem. Like administration said, I think it's good for administration to hear from the community. Um, because first of all, I think you should be heard. Um, and even though we don't know which two are right now, for all, you know, everyone agrees on it and is on the same page. And I don't think it hurts to have that conversation. Frankly, it doesn't change anything and it's not, you know, having five versus seven and finding a balance that, that you can get afford. First of all, affordable housing is, or the housing is not going to happen overnight. Anyhow, this has been in place for a long time, the way it is and trying to find a balance where everyone's happy is, is, I think doesn't hurt any of us and that's what we're here for. So I think you should have those conversations clearly administration is willing to have those conversations with you. And maybe you, you, you all can come up with an idea that works for everyone here right now. What we have before us is just a first reading. That means that you could still have this conversation. And if there's a potential change in an agreement, it could be brought next time around. Um, so that's what I'm just going to put on the record before we go to the next speakers. Okay. Council member Gabbard. Thank you, chair. And, uh, I just wanted to ask administration, can you just briefly, um, give the neighborhood an idea of an example of how unity park might be able to be used as this community resource of urban activity, a community garden, for instance, how would that potentially happen if the neighborhood wanted to work with administration? I mean, I mean, I think that's something where I don't believe administrator Jeffries is here today and I'd like to speak to him directly. Okay, but I'm not sure about that activity on a, on a charter park. And so I, I'd like to follow up on that. Yeah, that was my question. Cause I wasn't sure about that either. Um, but then I thought I had heard something different in what I was saying that for, for green space purposes, unity park for open space. And what I was saying, the other, the other part, the other infield lots, there was an opportunity in the past before we did any of this, where they could have approached the city to do a lease on a community garden. That's what you were saying. But for, for, for unity park, I'm not suggesting that there would be a, a, a garden there. Um, I was saying for green space purposes, for open space, that could be utilized. And the other thing was a possibility, obviously, but we were moving forward or attempting to move forward with this. Yeah, there's some further research we have to do there. I mean, even if we dropped two of the nine and we kept them on the park list, I'm not sure we can do a garden. Um, well, that's what I'm saying. That's why I'm not in favor of really changing the number. I have to have some further discussion. I agree. I'm not in favor of changing the number because of that reason. And the reason that we just, we would be kind of arbitrarily picking two at this point. Right. And I don't think that fits the need. Okay. All right. So, um, between now and the 23rd administration, we'll have a conversation with Methodist town. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Chair Floyd. Thanks. I was going to ask a question that just got clarified and I kind of brought it up earlier, but, um, yeah, like I was not confident that the uses described could be used on this land if we had taken it out of the referendum anyway. So, um, and then, uh, the only other thing that I would add is whatever we can do to activate Unity Park more will be beneficial for it. The more people that are using the park, the better of a park it's going to become. And so I'd love for that to be part of the conversation going forward. I'll stop now. Thank you. Thank you. So for those that are here, it sounds like maybe administration will get your information and that way they, you can have that conversation. Um, and these questions can be answered. And like it was said in the meeting, it may be possible to do some of the things you want to do. It may not be possible, but clarifying all this is probably going to need a conversation, not just us assuming here that what can and can't be done. And so that way, next time this item comes up, everybody's on the same page. Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted. Clerk, please tally announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve. Vaginantum E1 passes unanimously with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Next up, we have E2. Thank you, Aaron. E2, proposed ordinance number 640-H, an ordinance concerning the city's lease of submerged lands at Harbridge Marina, making findings concerning amendment of that lease to extend the term to facilitate the construction of certain improvements, calling a referendum during a November 3rd, 2026 municipal general election to authorize such amendment, establishing conditions for such amendment if approved by that referendum, providing ballot text for that referendum, and providing an effective date. The public hearing date for this ordinance is scheduled for July 23rd, 2026, and we do have one speaker. You can call the speaker. Allison Barlow, please go to either podium, state your name, address, or cross street for the record. You'll have three minutes to address City Council. Good afternoon, Council Members. Allison Barlow, 450 8th Avenue Southeast, St. Pete. I'll be real brief. I just wanted to show our support as the St. Pete Innovation District for this referendum regarding the submerged lands at the Harbridge Marina. This opportunity promises to enrich our maritime community and preserve our water-based heritage. This initiative has been designed to coexist with the neighboring stakeholders, ensuring mutual benefit and a continued collaboration. Thank you for your consideration. Move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open a machine for voting. Council Members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present Council Members have voted, Clerk, please tally announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve with Gen Item E2 passes unanimously with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Next up, we have E3. E3, proposed ordinance number 641-H, an ordinance concerning lease limitations established for the Port of St. Petersburg under the city charter, making findings regarding the need to amend the charter to increase that limitation, calling a referendum during the November 3rd, 2026 municipal general election to authorize such a charter amendment, providing ballot text for that referendum, and providing an effective date. The public hearing date for this ordinance is scheduled for July 23rd, 2026, and we do have one speaker. Okay. If you can call the speaker. Allison Barlow, please go to either podium, state your name, address, or cross street. For the record, you'll have three minutes to address City Council. Hello again. Allison Barlow, 450 8th Avenue Southeast, St. Petersburg. On behalf of the St. Petersburg Innovation District and our partners at the St. Pete Downtown Partnership, I want to express our strong support for extending the allowable lease terms at the Port of St. Petersburg. This is a critical step for the future of the Port and the opportunities it can create for our community. Longer lease terms provide the certainty that organizations, businesses, and funding partners need to make meaningful long-term investments. Without this certainty, many transformational projects simply cannot move it forward. I also want to thank the City team for finding a solution. We're especially appreciative of the legal department and Brett, who were able to find an approach that mirrors the successful framework already used at the airport. It's a thoughtful solution that protects the city's interests while enabling strategic investment. For the Innovation District and the St. Pete Downtown Partnership, this action is particularly important. We're actively advancing plans for the Center for Coastal Resilience. Many of you know that is hub two. This facility will expand the ability to support marine science, coastal resilience, ocean technology, and innovative businesses that create high-quality jobs and strengthen St. Petersburg's leadership in these growing industries. Today's action is more than lease terms. It's about creating conditions for investment, innovation, and long-term economic opportunity. Thank you all. Move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. And council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve. Vaginant E3 passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Aaron. E4? E4. Proposed Ordinance No. 642-H. An ordinance concerning an amendment of the city charter for the purpose of fully effectuating the 2022 referendum that rescheduled municipal elections for mayor and city council members to occur in conjunction with national and state elections in even numbered years, making findings concerning the need to make such an amendment, calling a referendum during the November 3rd, 2026 municipal general election to authorize such an amendment, providing ballot text for that referendum, and providing an effective date. The public hearing date for this ordinance is scheduled for July 23rd, 2026, and we have no speakers. Move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. And, Brett, given the fact that this isn't a cleanup ordinance and it's something that hasn't been discussed, if we can just put on the record what it's about. Thank you, Chair. So, as you know, in 2022, voters approved a charter amendment that shifted city elections from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years to be in conjunction with national and state elections. That referendum ordinance inadvertently omitted some textual amendments to the charter that were necessary to fully effectuate the transition to even-year elections. To address some of those issues, council has adopted some cleanup ordinances in 2024 and 2026, earlier this year, to eliminate the need to adopt those ordinances for future election cycles and fully implement the will of the voters. In the 2022 referendum, this cleanup charter amendment would accomplish three main goals. It would conform the scheduling provisions of Section 5.05 to the even-year election schedule that was approved. It would make a variety of technical clarifying and conforming changes to that section to approve readability and consistency with other areas of law. And it would conform the scheduling provisions of Charter Section 8.01 to the even-year election schedule by scheduling the Charter Review Commission to begin in years ending in 9 and end in years ending in 0. If this cleanup amendment is not approved, we would continue to advise council to adopt these cleanup, the ratification ordinances with each cycle. The text of Section 5.05 would continue to be difficult to read. And the text of Section 8.01 would call for Charter Review to begin in the middle of the 2028 election cycle and end in the middle of 2029, at which point those referendum questions would just sit for a year. So that's really the one that, you know, this has been on our radar. I have mentioned it in passing when we have done these ratification ordinances for the schedule. But because we're coming up on that 2028 election when the Charter Text calls for Charter Review to begin at a time that doesn't make sense to begin it, this is now really the time to move forward and really finish out what we started in 2022. Thank you. Thank you. That was great. I have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, Clerk, please tally announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda E4 passes unanimously with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Now, before we move on, legal, did you want to know the order of the referendum items by today? Is that helpful to you or? If you would like to have that discussion now, that would allow me to bring a resolution that has them in that order. Okay. So I started originally and now that we've discussed the ordinances, maybe everyone has kind of some context of what I was kind of talking about, which was having the general obligation bond first, then having the charter amendments in terms of the leases that were the extensions and the dates are and all that, having E2 and E3, and then having E1 and E4 at the end, which are the E4 is a cleanup. I think that should be at the end, and then E1 right before that. So that's kind of in my mind, logically, where things kind of fit. So I'd just be curious if any thoughts on that. Council Member Gerdes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I mostly agree with that other than I would put the parkland second and then go to the lease authorizations and then have the clarifying question or referendum at the end. I think the parkland, having it removed, is really important, and I don't want that to get lost. And so I put it as two. I went stormwater, then removing city-owned, then authorization of harborage, then authorization of the port, and then to clarifying questions. But at the end of the day, I think we're saying it's the same thing. That was just I had done this before the meeting, and so you asked for feedback and thought I'd provide it. That's fine. And I just want to check with Legal. Legal, any thoughts on the poor, just because of the charter languages and all that? What are any thoughts on that? In many cases, the charter amendments have come before. The clerk is checking with the supervisor of elections as to whether or not that's a requirement. Okay. I think at this point I'd advise council to proceed with discussing the order that it wants to see, and if we need to tweak that, I'll bring that to your attention. On the 23rd, I guess the only thing I would say is the, technically speaking, the election cleanup, Jamestown, and the port are all charter amendments. Harbridge and the bond are not charter amendments. They are just referendums to approve certain things. Okay. So I'm fine with, Council Member Gertes, with your suggestion. Also, like, either way, I'm fine with it. Council Member Gabbard. Just to put my two cents in, I'm not, you know, really married to the order of anything other than I really want to see the go bond go first. Yeah. I'm so concerned about ballot fatigue on this November election. It's going to be a lot, right? And so the quicker we can get to that question, I mean, with that being such a priority for our city, I think the better off we are. So no offense to anybody else who has, you know, interest in any of these other items. I just think this one, we need to hit it first. So that's my only preference. Thank you. Agree. And given the amount of work that has gone into it. Amen. Council Member Faye Sanders. I just wanted to concur with Council Member Gertes. I want the bonds to go first and then the city-owned removal to be second. Okay. The others I'm okay with. Yeah. So I think you have consensus. Do you want to repeat it? The bond. The bond first. The Jamestown infill parcels. And then Harbridge or Port. I would like some clarification on that order. And then the election cleanup. I don't think it matters. Whatever you think is appropriate. I don't think we care. Either one. Council Member Gertes said Harbridge first. I did. Only because it was a longer lease. It was a longer lease period. And that to me tipped the scale. Okay. All right. So bond. Jamestown. Harbridge. Port. Lease limitation. Election cleanup. Yep. Sounds good. All right. I will bring a draft resolution calling for that order. Unless I hear otherwise from the supervisor. And we'll have that on the 23rd. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Next up we have F4. And this was Council Member Gabbard's item that was pulled. Yeah. Thank you. So, you know, very simply I just felt as though, you know, we're having all of this conversation about SPAR and funding it. And here we are with $600,000 of public education, resilient support services, administrative support. I just really wanted to have an open, transparent conversation about what that $600,000 would be spent on. So with that, turn it over to Klein. Thank you very much. And we appreciate the opportunity to come before you. As you mentioned, this is an amendment. It's an amendment number one to the task order for Jacobs Engineering. It's for administrative program support. The current task one they have is a not-to-exceed of $75,000. This is adding tasks two, three, and four on top of the initial task one. And for tasks two, three, and four, combined total for those three, $616,215. So the three tasks, the task two, three, and four that we're bringing to you today, the first one is task two is for SPAR program administrative support services. And so this is as part of our staff augmentation program that we brought to council a while ago, recognizing that we have a lot of work ahead of us, but we needed help with doing it. This particular task order is essentially a bridge for bridge staffing to keep the SPAR moving without adding permanent headcount to our employees' account. And so what Jacobs will be doing is help to coordinate the SPAR program by creating scopes of work for the different projects, both the projects that are anticipated for the geobond, as well as projects that are just under our normal SPAR program. They're putting together those scopes of works and schedules. They're helping to develop a dashboard for our website for the SPAR program and a storyboard also, and to help make sure that the SPAR messaging remains on task. This cost is almost 100% going to Jacobs and engineering themselves. Task three, this is the public education and marketing task, and this is the public outreach and education support to help the citizens understand the SPAR scopes, costs, and impacts. This is primarily through a subconsultant who you guys have already met, Sam Wells, who came to the council committee meeting back in May. And so this will help us create things like the brochures, videos, the websites that we're rolling out that will explain flood risk, financing, and project timelines. An important context for this particular task is that it's being considered under the Florida Statute Section 106.113, which we're all familiar with how it limits what we can. And you do communications on once the ballot period begins. And so a lot of time was spent working with the consultant to come up with a task agreement that incorporated the important considerations under that Florida section. And what we eventually get is a tested, legally compliant communication toolkit for our citizens. And then the final task, task four, which is actually the largest of the three, this is to help the city with our broader citywide resilience planning. We all have sometimes joked and sometimes been frustrated by the many different resilient initiatives we have had over the years and that we're planning in the future. And so Jacobs is helping build this citywide resilience strategy and a roadmap for it to try to incorporate everything better for the public to understand and to understand how each of these initiatives plays towards the larger role. They'll help run workshops and design charrettes with residents. They'll help lead neighborhood outreach, coordinating with the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. We are also creating what we call a stormwater extension program that they're helping us on. And so this, again, is the largest task of the three. And it is basically the strategic backbone for the city's resilience work, you know, the roadmap, the stakeholder engagement, and so forth, to help us explain what we're doing for flood resilience, because it's not easy to understand. And so, again, administration is bringing this amendment to you for your approval, and we're certainly happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Move approval. Second. I have a motion to second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve a joint of F4. Passes unanimously. With Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you, Claude. Thank you. We recess at city council and now convene as the CRA, and we take up item CRA2 first. I believe we have Evan Burke joining us for this. It's actually going to be me to start. It's not Evan Burke. It's Beth. Yeah, Evan Burke will be here for the report, but that is actually coming after the CRA. Oh, okay. So this will be very brief, and then Evan will give you a little more of the details. So good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of city council. Beth Herondine, Managing Director for City Development Administration. I will be brief, but as you know, the city is moving forward with the redevelopment of our municipal marina. An evaluation committee selected Skanska as the project's design build professional earlier this year in February, and engineering and capital improvements represented today by Evan negotiated a contract for pre-design build services. The CRA item that you have before you is a request for the recommendation to use tax increment revenues from the in-town community redevelopment area for the pre-design build service contract with Skanska, and I don't have the amount in front of me, but just a little over $7 million. Funds are currently available in the category labeled Waterfront Transit and Parking Improvements in the in-town redevelopment plan east of 8th Street, and use of the funds for this purpose are consistent with the in-town redevelopment plan because it does advance the plan's longstanding objectives for the downtown waterfront, including protecting and enhancing our waterfront public access, enhancing economic activity, and protecting and supporting the resiliency of our waterfront. So Evan will have significantly more project information, but as far as the financing, I've got that for you now. So thank you. Second. A motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve CRA2 passes 6-1 with council members Fick Sanders, Gerdes, Givens, Hanowitz, and Harding voting yes, council member Gabbard voting no, and council member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, Beth, for explaining the context of how it fits into in-town redevelopment plan. Okay. We have CRA3, and I believe Aaron has this. Good afternoon again, council, and Madam Chair, there is a presentation at your discretion. I can provide the presentation now during the CRA portion, or? Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve a giant CRA3 passes unanimously with council member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. So, next up, we have F3. I have to adjourn as the CRA. Oh, I'm sorry. We're adjourning as the CRA and reconvening it as city council. And now we move on to F3. Move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve a giant F3 passes 6-1 with council members Fick Sanders, Floyd, Gerdes, Givens, Hannah Whitson, Harding voting yes. Council member Gabbert voting no. And council member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Next up, we have F2. Move approval. Second. We have public comment. Okay. Mark Ferguson, please go to either podium. State your name, address, or cross street. For the record, you'll have three minutes to address city council. Thank you very much. Mark Ferguson, 7937 9th Avenue South. I'm here. I'll be very brief. I just want to thank Corey Gibbons first for giving a nice speech at Southside's 100-year anniversary and the history lesson. He gave a good history lesson. So with that being said, I'm here with, hopefully you'll approve this lease for 99 years to Ferg Sports Bar, which will help the city get Booker Creek bike trail connected to Pinellas Trail. And that will connect going north to 5th Avenue. And this will bring more people down to the Trop, more bikes, more people walking. It's just good for everybody. We're very excited to be a partner with the city. And we're very excited to a new chapter into downtown and to bring more people into Edge District and to Tropicana Field. Thank you very much. Thank you. And is this legal? Is this kind of the last step of all the real quarter matters? It's the last step for city council. Staff is still working. We're getting, so the money from these leases are going to be put towards the purchase price. And then CSX will be selling it to the Trust for Public Land. And then back to back will be a transfer from TPL to the city, which we will provide that money. But that was previously approved by council. Right. Okay. So this is our last step. Well, I know that y'all have put in a lot of work on this and everyone in administration and even people that are no longer with the city that have worked on this item for a very long time. So it's good to see that we have at least the last step in this. Hopefully we can get everything together by the end of the month. So we don't have to ask for an extension from the service transportation board, but, you know, fingers crossed. We'll cross our fingers. Council Member Givens. Thank you so much, Chair. And thank you for those kind words, Mark. Always good to see you. I'm happy to see this come to fruition. It's been a long time coming to your point. So I want to credit all those staff members who are no longer with the city that put in a lot of work on this. Thank you, Aaron. Thank you to legal. And special thanks again, like I said, to the private partners in this public-private partnership. I know the history of the CSX Trail. Before it was the CSX Trail, it was the Orange Belt Railway. It's what brought my family here to St. Petersburg at the turn of the 20th century. And so to see what used to be the Atlantic Coastline Railway become brand new, new chapter, new opportunities, something that some of us probably never would have foreseen, I'm excited to see what the future holds for this. I see future business and economic growth, and Lord knows those businesses there in the Grand Central District and the Edge District need it. I see new transit options. This is going to connect Booker Creek with the Pinellas Trail, which will hopefully be an advantage for the historic gas plant district redevelopment as well. But I also see future transit options here as well. So I don't know what the future holds, but I know that the costs certainly outweigh the benefits on this. Excuse me. The benefits outweigh the costs on this, and so I'm excited to see what can come out of this. And so thank you so much, Mark, for putting up the funds to make this happen. I know it wasn't an easy lift, but it's certainly worthwhile. So thank you so much. Just wanted to say that publicly. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open a machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally announce a vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve. Vaginantum F2 passes unanimously with council member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. And thank you, Aaron. Next up, we have the Tampa Bay Ferry and Evan Morey for F1. Hi, Evan. Hi, good afternoon, Chair. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, council. I'm pleased to present to you this afternoon on the Tampa Bay Ferry Project, a ferry between downtown St. Petersburg and downtown Tampa. I'm joined today by three of our partners at PSTA. We have Lucien Campillo. He's the PSDA Project Management Office Director. Karen Nesmith, the PSDA Deputy Director of Community Affairs. And Dana McDonald, PSDA's Project Manager for the Tampa Bay Ferry. It was, just to point out, Dana was actually the Project Manager for Hillsborough County for the Cross Bay Ferry. So, she and I both have the pleasure of being the two people that have managed the ferry contract with HMS in the past. So, it was really good for PSDA to pick her up for her expertise. So, a little bit of background on this. Thank you, City Council. Back in November, you approved an agreement between multiple parties that allowed this to move forward with funding from St. Pete and Tampa. And also, since then, PSDA successfully secured the transfer of a federal transit administration grant of about $5 million that can be used to acquire vessels. And PSDA has been hard at work at this and done several things, including the interlocal agreement has been approved by the PSDA board as well. So, that's all executed. The operations agreement with Tampa Bay Sea Taxi, which is a Hubbard's Marina affiliate, has been executed. And also, they've approved the purchase of two vessels to be refurbished and used for service. And here's the first one. This is from San Francisco. And it looks a lot like the Cross Bay Ferry, the Providence Town 3 and 4 that we used before. And that's because it's almost exactly the same. But the benefit is this one has safety features and seating and Coast Guard approvals for 250 passengers, which is a little bit over 100 more passengers than what we could carry before. So, you have the efficiency that's similar, but the capacity to take many more people. The speed is also really good. It's got a 28-mile-an-hour cruising speed, which is also similar to before. And it's standard twin motors and propellers. The second vessel is San Juan Clipper. Probably dropped the San Juan from the name. But the Clipper is 149 passengers, so the same size as the vessel we had before. It's a little bit over 100 feet long. It has a slightly slower cruising speed at 23 miles an hour. They won't increase the time too much across the bay. And this one's a little bit unique. It also has twin motors, but it uses jet propulsion. And a little bit of more history here. This picture that you can see was from the first season a decade ago. This is when it operated from the pier. And then we had several seasons in the North Yacht Basin along Bayshore Drive while the pier was under construction. Then it moved to Port St. Pete for two seasons. And as the trip or the season length got longer, we found that we wanted to run more trips than the Army Corps permit would allow. So we went to the port that had unlimited trips. And in the past, both this dock that you can see and the one that was provided along Bayshore were provided by Mobro Marine, a marine contractor. And that was designed by Mobro and HMS, the former ferry operator. Also, we talked about this in November, and I'm pleased to report that we've been able to negotiate release from settlement agreement with the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, as well as the Vinoy Hotel. So now that we have that in hand, we need to ask the council for your approval for the city to also sign that release so that the agreement from the late 80s can be suspended, which would allow us to build permanent ferry docks in the basin. Also, we're continuing to work on modifying the city's comprehensive plan that would allow the new dock construction. It doesn't really affect the temporary dock. But before we can build a new one, we have to make those changes. So back in May, the CPPC approved it. Council has already approved it once through the first reading on June 11th. The final approval would be up to city council on August 27th. So for the docking, in Tampa, it's docked at three different places. In St. Pete, it's docked at three different places. We found that the North Basin is better than the port, and so we've all decided to prioritize that. We reapplied for our Army Corps permit, and we're able to get a lot more trips added to that. So we went from an annual maximum of just over 1,000, and now we have over 3,500 annual trips allowed. And we've actually requested from the Corps permission to eliminate the trip capacity altogether to allow for operational flexibility. And for the temporary dock, you can see it below. That looks a lot very similar to the one at the pier because it's essentially the same dock but in a different location. And this is what we would like to bring back. What we're asking for your approval today, too, is that lease agreement with Mobile Marine, same entity that provided it before. This would be through SolSource, which is allowed by city code in this case. They're completing an ongoing task, and they're uniquely qualified to provide the dock. And also, we looked into purchase, but the purchase price would not be as good financially for the city because we only plan on using this dock for a couple years. And the proposed lease, though, does have some flexibility in it that if we need it a little bit longer because there's a delay, we can keep it longer. If we want to – when we want to cancel early, which is what's expected, there's no real penalty for that as well. So we do need council's approval to execute the two license agreements for use of the docks. At the top, you can see where it used to dock in Tampa. It's going to dock there again at the convention center. And on the below right, you can see our permanent dock design, basically preliminary design. But until then, we need to execute two license agreements, one for the temporary dock in the north yacht basin closer to the Vannoy. And then also, we want to go ahead and have a license agreement for the port just as a backup plan. And then we will need – I think you'll have about a two-year break from having to vote on the ferry. And then we'll need to come back for a new agreement or an amendment to move over to the pier. So what are the next steps? Right now, the vessels are getting prepared to be shipped on even larger ships from the west coast over to Florida. We think that they will come to Fort Lauderdale or another shipyard in the Florida area to be refurbished. The contract would require the dock installation to be finished by the end of September. And then once the vessels are ready to go, they probably will come over here under their own power, and then we'll be able to get service going. So there's basically – there's four things that need to be approved, but it falls under three items. One is the resolution approving the release from settlement agreement, then a resolution authorizing the license agreement for the temporary dock for mobile marine, and then the third thing under C is both the license agreements with the operator, Tampa Bay Sea Taxi. And with that, I'll take any questions. Thank you. And we could do all items at one time. We can vote on them at one time. Council Member Fick Sanders. Thank you. First of all, I want to thank Evan, because when PSTA sought out in getting the funds from Hart over in Tampa, we were extremely pleased and blessed that they were able to transfer those dollars so that we can even initiate trying to purchase those fairies and look a year, year and a half at where we've come. And as the chair of PSTA, I will tell you that there was not a conversation that was not had about all of the assets and all the different things that this would bring to the Tampa Bay area. And Darden is not here, but PSTA, please go back and tell Darden that we have to thank her so much. And Evan, you've entertained every question, every obstacle, anything that we've actually had to – every hurdle that we had to get over to get to this point. So I just want to say a huge thank you in us to provide another mode of transportation. It's not only going to be for entertainment, but it's going to be for other uses as well. The consideration for the Bayboro, the North Yacht Basin, that was one of the biggest – that was one of the things that we really, really, really wanted to make sure that we had, as a part of this implementation of this type of service. But again, Evan, I have to publicly thank you so much for working with Darden and her team and getting this done in a timely fashion. I know there were a lot of calls that were made, but the PSTA board, they – we had a lot of questions, and we had a lot of conversation. But I'm looking forward to it in the fall or the winter, whenever the votes get here. And I know – I also want to thank Mark and Tara Hubbard, who are actually going to be our operators. And I think Mark is going to actually ride one of those yachts to his destination, so I have to hear the story when he gets back. But again, huge, huge thank yous, and I really do appreciate how we've gotten to this place as a team. You know, we really made it happen together. And also, thank you to those over in Tampa as well. So, again, thank you so much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. And I do want to mention, too, it has been a heavy lift. It's been a long time, and the city attorney's office was very supportive. We actually had three different attorneys helping advance this, and they spent a lot of time on it. So, thank you. Thank you, legal. Council Member Givens. Thank you so much. And thank you, Evan. Thank you to PSTA, so many of you here. Thank you all. And special thank you to Hubbard Arena. Tara and I have had multiple conversations about this, and I know this was not an easy task to take on, but you all did it, and you did it in a timely manner. And so, you are to be commended for that. I do just want to point out some of, not even concerns, but some of my asks. And we brought this up before, but as we prepare to get to that next step and the fairies are on their way, wayfinding is very important to me, making sure that there's signage for real-time transit, so that way those commuters know as they find another way across the bay, this is how you get to ground transit. I think that's very important, just helping direct people across the city once they make it here. And then also those terminal shelters. I've had the opportunity to take fairies in other cities. And as you wait, we know that heat can be unbearable sometimes. So just making sure if there is a way to have some sort of sheltered canopies so that folks can have a place to sit and to wait until the ferry gets there. I think that comfortable hub is very important. And then lastly, resiliency. I know this is something that we're thinking about as we talk about the dock, but just making sure that it's able to withstand storms. For me, that is very important. But, again, I know you all have done a lot of hard work, and there's still more work to do. But thank you for all your hard work. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Move approval, F1A, B, and C. Second. I have a motion and a second. I just want to say, Evan, and to everyone involved, I mean, you've gone from a release from settlement agreements to amending the comprehensive plan to working with all the partners you've worked with to getting licensing agreements. There are a lot of steps here to get here and a lot of work. So thank you all, and I know it was a heavy lift. Motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally announce a vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve a join of F1A, B, and C. Passes unanimously with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Next up, we have F5, and this was pulled by Council Member Harding. I believe this may be a record for Aaron with items today. You're going to get sick of looking at me. And Council Member Harding, I'll turn it over to you if you want to introduce the item since you pulled it. Actually, it was discussed on our side of the building that we just don't spend enough time with you. So, Aaron, thank you very much. I really just wanted to pull this for the folks who live in Shore Acres. I don't think anyone is not familiar with the term daytime flooding and what those folks go through. And I always share the story that my kids went to LCC, and we were always on the, they've graduated now, but we were on the parent text chain for the sole purpose of school hours were changed by tides. And during King Tides, school would end at 1.30, 1.15 instead of 3 o'clock. And so it is a real thing. And what your department and Claude's department and Brjesh's department, and Brjesh deserves an enormous amount of credit, is doing is putting together land and then building a massive piece of infrastructure that will allow for that daytime flooding to go away. To be clear, this doesn't affect any flood water that comes over the walls. This is the issue with rising, with tides that are higher than they used to be and excessive rainfall. So sometimes you're just a real estate guy, and sometimes you wear a cape when you do that, and this is one of those. So thank you for, you know, this piece of property that you found us is not, it's not contiguous, too. It's somewhere else. And between you and Brj, you figured out how to make this work. So thank you very much. The folks at Shore Acres are in for literally a change of life with what this is doing. That was it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Council Member. Yes, sir. And, yeah, this is, it's always exciting. Oh, move approval. Sorry. Sorry. In addition to. We were trying to let you do it. Sorry. I, yeah. Although, I don't even know if we need to hear from Aaron, because you did such a good job. I thought Mike did such a great job. I'm explaining everything, Council Member Harding. Aaron, we have just brought you out to be a pretty boy all day long. You want to hear from Aaron? He's the face man, right? Council Member Harding, you want to hear from Aaron, or are we ready to move? I am familiar with the project, Ed. Okay, well then, let's do it. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Council Members, please enter your votes. Thank you. Seeing that all present Council Members have voted, Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve. Agenda item F5 passes unanimously, with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you, Aaron Rodger. Thank you, everyone, for attending. Thank you, Council. Great. Okay, new business items. G1, Council Member Gabbard. Thank you, Madam Chair. Respectfully requesting referral to Health, Energy, Resiliency, and Sustainability Committee, or Housing, Land Use, and Transportation Committee, whichever's first, for a discussion on creating a density bonus for the incorporation of blue-green roofs and new multifamily residential developments, and I so move. Second. I have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Council Members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present Council Members have voted, Clerk, please tally and announce a vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve. Agenda item G1 passes unanimously, with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Next up, G2, Council Member Gabbard. Thank you, Madam Chair. Respectfully requesting referral to the Economic and Workforce Development Committee, or other relevant committee, for a discussion and consideration of initiatives to establish and support resilient flood mitigation workforce training programs, and I so move. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Council Members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present Council Members have voted, Clerk, please tally and announce a vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve. Agenda G2 passes unanimously, with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. G3, Council Member Gerdes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Respectfully requesting a referral to the Budget, Finance, and Taxation Committee for a discussion on updating the fees for building, parking, and transportation, and potentially zoning. This is a staff request, and I'm formally submitting this new business item as a method of informing Council, and I'll move approval. Second. A motion and a second. Council Member Floyd. Aye, Chair Floyd. Thank you. I like the conversation. I see it's a staff request, so I would love to just have a little preview, but I'm eager to have the conversation. Yeah. I mean, sorry, Madam Chair. No, you go ahead. I'm sure administration has comments, too, but just in conversations, obviously, there's a lot of changes happening from a revenue standpoint, and so I think we have to examine all areas on how we bring in revenue to the city, and this is certainly one that we can change fast and on the move. Cool. Sounds good. Thank you, Council Member, and I'll just add to that. You'll remember that several years back, there was a change in state law, and we had to draw down our building fund based on that state law. We've reached a point now where really we're going to have to increase some of our fees to pay for our staff and our building department and our inspectors, so we'll be discussing that with City Council. Thank you. Vice Chair Floyd. So, Administrator Gerdes, we've talked in the past about thinking of revenue-generating items, and over the break, while I was away visiting people, someone said something, I mean, it sparked up in my mind, like, a really good idea. I can't remember what it is right now, but I remember thinking, oh, my God, Rob is going to love this, and so I forgot that I had even had that conversation. I'm about to spend the rest of the night thinking nonstop, so if you get a text from me, at 11, that's like, we can generate revenue like this, that's what it's about. I just wanted to warn you. It'll come to you. It'll come to you. Thanks. Now it better be good, because he's going to be curious. I know. I am. I'm really, yeah, I was in a Walmart parking lot when it happened. Go back to Walmart. Retrace your steps. Trying to remember, yeah. Okay. All right. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally announce a vote. Madam Chair, I'm going to still approve of John. G3 passes unanimously. With Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Next up, T4, Vice Chair Floyd. Thank you. I am respectfully requesting a referral to the Housing, Land, Use, and Transportation Committee for a discussion on providing rental assistance to tenants facing eviction. Only thing I'll say is we're about to expand the program that we had just in South St. Pete to citywide. Okay, thank you. And when we do that, when we tried to do that, we started talking to the provider and they just said that we could do a little something that would help them make the program a lot more efficient. It was discussed previously. It will be discussed in full detail in the future. Council Member, fix-handers. Okay, so this is an add-on to the rental assistance program that we had with, what is it, community law or was it Bayer Legal Services? It was community law. Community law. Okay, so we're asking for additional funding to make this citywide. No, I'm sorry. Can I? Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, please do. The program already has the funding to be citywide. This is something that's not necessary for the program to exist, but just could be a nice supplement to it. And it was a discussion that we had had at the time and decided against doing it. I just wanted to bring it back up again because we're moving it to citywide now. Okay, but community law is already citywide. Yeah, I couldn't tell you if it started or not, but that's the... I would have to check on that. Yeah, I couldn't tell you right now. It's coming to fruition now. Okay, I thought it was, but okay. All right, thank you. So basically, this is not on the referral list anymore, right? And you're just bringing it back. Okay. Okay. We have a motion. I need a second. Second. I'll second. I thought you had one. Oh, okay. Motion and a second. Clerk, if you can... And I rely on him better than on me, in fact. Open the machine for voting. Seeing that all council members have voted, clerk, please tally announce a vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve a giant of G4, passage unanimously. Councilman Driscoll being absent. B5, Vice Chair Floyd. Thank you. I am respectfully requesting a referral to the Public Services and Infrastructure Committee for a discussion on sanitation department safety procedures and rear view cameras on sanitation trucks. I'll move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present, council members have voted. Clerk, please tally announce a vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve a giant of G5, passage unanimously, with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Next up, we have open forum. Are there any speakers? Yes, Madam Chair. We have one speaker. Justin Archer, please go to an open podium. State your name, address, or cross-street for the record. You'll have three minutes to address City Council. Good afternoon, Council. My name is Justin Archer, resident of 501 16th Avenue North, St. Petersburg. I come to you today as a member of the Panthers of Florida Community Advocacy Group, speaking on Saria Henderson. Saria Henderson was a young lady that was found July 1st, hung from a tree. The next day, her mother was notified that it was a suicide and the case had been closed. After going down to the St. Petersburg Police Department, we found out that the case was not even viewed by an officer or any detective and was closed by a civilian employee. This way of conducting business is unacceptable by the police department, and all deaths need to be investigated thoroughly. We were able to open up, reopen the investigation, and we received help from Detective Brian Bilbrey who actually did a thorough investigation, gave us more details, and concluded again that it was suicide, according to his findings. This was able to give the mother more closure on the situation, but just simply saying that it was closed without a thorough investigation is unacceptable. So for that, we are calling for the council. The mayor has been notified, the mayor's office has been notified of the situation, calling for the council to do an investigation on the police department with death investigations as a whole. And the Panthers of Florida will be conducting their own separate investigation under floor statute 119. Again, we would like to thank Detective Bilbrey for following through and reopening the case. We would like to thank the mayor's office and specifically Rita Wesley for addressing the situation and following through. But again, this needs to be looked into further about the conduct within the police department and how death investigations are being held. Thank you. Thank you. More speakers. We move on to announcements. Any announcements? Member Gibbons. Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Archer. My condolences are with Ms. Henderson's family. I appreciate you taking your time to show up today. I also want to offer my condolences to the family of a very well-known political figure who we lost. We mourn the passing of the late Senator Jack Latvala. So I want to lift up the family of Commissioner Chris Latvala. Jack Latvala was a long-time statesman, a Pinellas County politician who served, and regardless of what side of the aisle we are on, I certainly want Commissioner Latvala to know that we are thinking of him right now. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Any other announcements? Okay. Well, it's good to be back from break, and it was a nice long meeting, but actually we went through it really quickly, so I appreciate everyone's help. Sir, I will tell you that City Council doesn't perform investigations necessarily, but I know administration is going to be looking into the item and what you've brought up. So I just wanted to make sure that you understood that, but in terms of an investigation, that's not something that we do. And legal, I don't know if you want to expand on that real quick, because I want to make sure it's put on the record. I think that's accurate, Councilmember. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay, everyone. Thank you for your work today. Meeting adjourned. Thank you, Chair.