City Council - Jul 23, 2026

Welcome to the City of St. Petersburg City Council Meeting. Your elected officials are Mayor Ken Welch, District 1, Hopely Gerdes, District 2, Brandy Gabbard, District 3, Mike Harding, District 4, and Council Chair, Lissette Hanowitz, District 5, Deborah Fig Sanders, District 6, Gina Driscoll, District 7, Corey Gibbons Jr., and District 8 and Council Vice Chair, Richie Floyd. Welcome, everyone, to the July 23rd, 2026 City Council Meeting. Clerk, if we can have a roll call, please. Gibbons? Here. Floyd? Here. Gerdes? Here. Gabbard? Here. Harding? Here. Hanowitz? Here. Nick Sanders? Here. And Driscoll? Today we're going to have our invocation given by Pastor Paul Gibson of Trinity Lutheran Church. It's going to be followed by a moment of silence and our Pledge of Allegiance. If you all can please stand. Good afternoon, Pastor. Good afternoon. Let us pray. God of justice and truth, we thank you for all the blessings of life, health and adequate food, peace and personal security. And especially in this season, we thank you that our governments, local, state and federal, continue to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. We pray for those seeking office, that they would be guided by a desire to serve and not a desire for power. That they would serve the lowest and the least of their fellow citizens and keep their needs always in mind. That they would seek opportunity and prosperity for all and not only for some. We pray for those who oversee the process of elections, that they would be honored and respected and permitted to do their work without hindrance. That they would encourage all citizens to participate without fear of harassment or of being taken into custody without cause. We pray for those who will keep our city safe during elections, campaign events, and political rallies. We pray for the citizens of this city, this county, and this state, that they would enthusiastically engage in the work of evaluating and selecting the people they want to serve them and their communities. Having placed our future in your care, we also pray for the needs of today, especially for those traumatized by and grieving the death of a city employee. We ask you to be present in this meeting of our city council so that all participants can speak the truth and listen with discernment and compassion. Help us to work together to make this city all that you would have it be. We ask this in the name of all that is holy, all that is loving, and all that is true. Amen. Please remain standing for a moment of silence as we honor the memory of our city employee, who we just lost, and recognize her service to our community. Thank you. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Thank you, Pastor, for that beautiful implication. Council members, we have an agenda before us. I'll entertain a motion for approval. Approval. 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 the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve the agenda passes unanimously with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. We have a consent agenda. Clerk, do we have any cards? Under consent? I'll entertain a motion for approval. Move the approval. 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 the consent agenda passes unanimously with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. We move on to open forum. Do we have any speakers? Yes, Madam Chair, we do. If you can please read the rules. If you wish to address city council on subjects other than public hearing or quasi-judicial items listed on the agenda, please sign up with the clerk. Only the individual wishing to speak may sign the open forum sheet. Only city residents, owners of property, business owners in the city, or their employees may speak. All issues discussed under open forum must be limited to issues related to the City of St. Petersburg government. If you are speaking to an item on the agenda, you may only speak once during the open forum or when the item comes up on the agenda. 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 raise hand feature button in the Zoom app or enter star 9 on your phone at the time the agenda item is addressed. When it is your turn to speak, you will be unmuted and ask 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 the three-minute time limit on comments, the requirement that any presentation materials must be submitted in advance of the meeting, and the rules of decorum. If live public comment is disrupted by violations of the rules of decorum, the chair is authorized to accept public comment by alternate means, including by email only. And we do have two speakers in the chamber. I'm going to call them both. Kristen Robinson and Brad Falbo, please go to either podium, state your name, address, or cross street, and you will have three minutes to address city council. Go ahead. Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Kristen Robinson. I live at 4366 Queensboro Avenue South in Childs Park. Thank you to the mayor, city council, and city staff who have been working on the St. Pete Agile Resilience Bond Referendum. I'm speaking on behalf of our more than 430 members of the League of Women Voters of the St. Petersburg area, as co-chair of our Community-Centered Development Committee. Our top priority is educating voters so they can vote their values at every election. We will be busy this fall explaining both constitutional amendments and referendum choices to voters. We support the HERS committee's resolutions and items G, 6, 7, 8, and 9 being considered by council today. We have taken a position at the state level to oppose state amendment 3. We have not yet, sorry, in order to support the bond referendum, we ask that our city consider the recommendations of the Sierra Club and Kona, as well as the following. On reviewing the available documentation online, we noted that important information regarding project budgets, timelines, and future public oversight particulars is not all available in one single location, user-friendly formats, and some details were missing or hard to describe. The St. Pete Agile Resilience Plan both complements and overlaps with two other regional planning and resilience processes, each with its own timelines and funding goals so further clarity would be helpful. Communications materials seem to have been created with internal government audiences in mind rather than the general voting public at this stage. We recognize that a handful of public meetings were held and a survey was conducted, but we would really encourage the city to consider an open government approach that treats residents not as passive consumers to be consulted, but as active citizens who have valuable knowledge and skills they can contribute to solve our shared problems. Voters can be allies and collaborators beyond the ballot box if the city invests in building a culture of active citizenship. For example, on the committee I represent alone, we have more than two dozen members with decades of experience in procurement, governance, public engagement, urban planning, data science, investment deals, law, small business, and even someone with GIS mapping skills. They represent just a fraction of the talent here in St. Pete that could be better tapped to support the city. The challenges we are facing are daunting, complex, and require diverse expertise, long-term good governance, and citizen engagement. If we get public engagement right for this project, it can become an opportunity to build public trust and a shared sense of ownership of the future going forward. We have a few more concrete proposals in mind for how this could look, including program planning, proactive data, and information disclosure, communication, public engagement, and transparency, and we would welcome the opportunity to meet with any of you to discuss those further at your convenience. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. Hi, Brad Falbo, 1856, Salmeria Way South. Good afternoon, council members. Florida made a constitutional promise to the people. Article 1, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to inspect the records of their government, not a statute, not a policy, a constitutional right. Today, I want to show you where the right currently sits in St. Petersburg behind one person's signature. I read all 125 pages of the city auditor's policy manual. Page 35 says no audit report may be released until the mayor signs a release memorandum, and an audit is final only when the mayor says it is final. Under Section 119 of Florida Statues, finality is the exact moment a report and all of its work papers become public records. So the right of a quarter of a million residents to see the audits for how their money is spent waits with no deadline on the signature of an official most likely to be embarrassed by what the audit found. Where are the people's elected representatives in this process? Nowhere. Council does not receive audit reports. Council cannot request an audit. The policy reserves that power for the mayor and the city administrator. The manual says the auditor merely has, quote, access to city council, and this January, the requirement that the auditor's office produce a public record as an annual report was deleted without likely council's knowledge. Looking into fraud audits, it gets worse. Every fraud allegation is routed by policy to the mayor and the city attorney with no alternative channel when the allegation involves either of those parties. Criminal referral to law enforcement is discretionary for fraud, waste, and abuse for city money, but mandatory for state and federal grants. And the official whistleblower gatekeeper who decides whether an employee's complaint gets investigated at all, weighing, quote, time and expense, serves at the pleasure of the mayor. Democracy has one non-negotiable requirement voters must be able to see. We can only vote on what we know, and audits are how the city tells itself and its people the truth. When the audited official controls the auditor's job, the auditor's work plan, the public's access to the audit's findings or the auditor's findings, that is not oversight. That's narration. This is not about the people currently in these jobs. The auditor's credentials are excellent. It is about a structure no other serious city tolerates. Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Austin, Texas, Seattle, Washington, even Pinellas County all put the auditor separate from the mayor or ensure that they are under the legislative body. So on behalf of the residents, three demands, all within your existing power. One, request a release log. How long did draft reports wait for the mayor's signature? Two, request the last external quality assessment the auditor's own charter promises every five years. And three, begin the ordinance to bring this auditing official under council with every final report transmitted to you and posted publicly for us to see on a fixed schedule. You are the legislative body of this city. The public's right to know is in your hands, and we are watching what you all do. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair. Yes, sir. David Harbeitner, please go to either podium, state your name, address, or cross street, and you will have three minutes to address city council. Thank you. David Harbeitner, 225 9th Avenue North. And I'm here to speak in favor of the general obligation referendum language as well as for resolutions 6 through 9 in the new business outlining activities that will basically support the general obligation bond. A little background within that. I've had a chance, or my peers in the Sierra Club have had a chance to meet with many of the city council members, as well as we've spent a lot of time with administration and public works. A shout out to the mayor for bringing the concept of doing something faster, to Claude Tankersley for taking that to heart and actually attempting to bring something forward that city council could actually address and try and bring forward. And to city council for challenging the language and the way that things are going to be overseen and exactly what the impacts are to our community. The fact is resiliency needs to be invested in our city. Our infrastructure has been under-invested in for too many decades. We happen to be the ones who live here now, but we need to pay up. We need to make sure that we can do things correctly. So while none of us like to pay more, the reality of it is this is an investment in not only the present, but also in our future. So I do ask that you please support both the general obligation referendum as well as new business items 6 through 9. Thank you. Thank you. Four speakers, Madam Chair. Thank you. We close open forum and now we move on to awards and presentations. The first item we have is D1. This is a presentation from the Takamatsu students, our sister city student ambassador program. And David Thompson is going to start us off. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council. David Thompson, Director of Government Affairs. And on behalf of myself and Celeste Davis, our Director of Arts, Culture, and Tourism, we are very excited to, for the third year post-pandemic, bring our Japanese student ambassadors to you. As part of the program, our students who go to Japan give a presentation to the Japanese city council in Takamatsu. They actually have 40 council members, so a bit more intimidating than what we have here today. But our students do a great job, and our sister city students from Takamatsu do a fantastic job as well. Very quickly, I do just want to introduce to you all Stephanie Chill. She is the new program director for SPFs handling the sister cities program. And I do want to say something real quick. Hello, City Council. I just wanted to take a minute on behalf of SPFs and our families this year who are participating to thank you for the support of this program. It is truly a life-changing experience for the students who get to participate in it, creating global citizens who represent us abroad, as well as further what international communities like Takamatsu are doing right here in Clearwater. I also want to thank the dozens of city staff, colleagues in nonprofits who have made sure that this is a very full and memorable trip for all the students who are here visiting St. Pete. This morning, we actually just went to Lakewood High to see a forensics camp and the robotics camp. So they did, again, an amazing school experience while they're here during summer. Thank you again. Thank you, Stephanie. And quickly, I do just want to acknowledge our students who travel to Takamatsu. They only got back, what, about less than a week ago? So we have Ella Brittingham from Northeast High, Elyse Chandler from St. Pete High, and Cole Landers from St. Pete High. So we're all very proud of you. But today, this is about your sister city siblings. So it's my pleasure to introduce Kokone, Shohei, and Rico, who will all give their presentations individually. Thank you, Council. Thank you. So first up, we have Kokone. Hi. Good afternoon. Hello, everyone. My name is Kokone Kevichi. I'm a Takamatsu Daiichi high school student. Oh, okay. Let's start. Do you know the word shishi? In English, it's called lion dance. Today, I want to share the deep history of this tradition and the strong bones it creates among people. Today, the shishi is mostly performed to drive away evil spirits from local homes or to show gratitude to the god's shrine. Its history goes back to the Edo period, the time of the samurai. Back then, it became popular as an exciting performance. Dancers wore flashy costumes and moved to lively music to surprise and entertain the audience. The symbol of this tradition is the kashira, or the lion head. In the past, they were made of wood and lacquer, making them very heavy. Today, they are mostly made of paper so that dancers can move them more easily. As you can see in the photos, the shishi has different colors and expressions depending on the region. Now, let's do a quick quiz. What is the theme of the lion head in this picture? Anyone? No? No idea? I saw the presentation beforehand, so it wouldn't be fair for me to say. Number one, a larvae. Number two, a cat. Number three, a lion. Okay. Number three. Three? Okay. Two? Okay. The correct answer is two cats. Yeah. Here is the second question. How heavy is this lion head? 1,000 pounds. 1,000? The correct answer is about 2,000 kilograms. When I was a child, I used to crawl under this heavy head and carry it at every festival. As you can see, the shishi has been carefully protected over time, changing its shape and role and fit each community. However, we face a major challenge today. Fewer children are interested in the lion dance, and we do not have enough young people to take over. At this rate, this precious treasure from the adult period might disappear. That is why we must not only dance, but also share its charm with more people. The shishi is the ultimate bond that brings smiles to the community. The Shishi Dance Preservation Society, Shishi Mai Hozonkai, every day to keep this tradition alive. I hope my presentation today inspires you to take an interest in the shishi and the Japanese tradition arts. Thank you for listening. And for those inquiring minds, 200 kilograms is about 440 pounds. Okay, we have the next presentation coming up. Hi, good afternoon. Hello. My name is Shohei Inazawa, and my name is Shohei, but I'm not good at baseball. Actually, I'm a solo comedian in Japan, Japanese traditional comedy, Mandan. And I'll introduce Anabuki Arina Kagawa, its newer building. What is Anabuki Arina Kagawa? It's one of the largest arenas in the Chushikoku area, which was opened in 2025. It can accommodate about 10,000 people. It was designed by Sanaa. Sanaa is made of two members, Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa. Anabuki Arina Kagawa was the most beautiful arena in the world at Briggs Versailles. Many concerts have been held at Anabuki Arina Kagawa. Some famous musicians came to Anabuki Arina Kagawa. For example, Southern All-Stars, I and I, and Tomorrow by Together. It is used for amateur and professional sports. For example, Inter High School Championships and Marathon Meets. Kagawa Five Awards, a professional basketball team, also uses Anabuki Arina Kagawa. How has Anabuki Arina Kagawa affected Takamatsu? About 140,000 people have visited the arena. The number of people visiting downtown has increased by 10%. Anabuki Arina Kagawa has helped revitalize Takamatsu. Thank you for listening. Beautiful architecture. Hi, good afternoon. Hi, good afternoon. Hello, everyone. My name is... Hello, everyone. My name is Riko. Oh, this one? Oh, sorry. My name is Riko, and I am a student ambassador from Takamatsu City. Today, I am very excited to introduce a wonderful piece of our local culture, Takamatsu Hariko, or Takamatsu Paper Machine. Let me start by asking you a question. What do you think of traditional Japanese culture? What comes to your mind? What comes to your mind? Sushi. What? Sushi? Oh, sounds good. Monos? Yeah. Really fast trains. Nintendo. Nintendo. Show your age. Yu-Gi-Oh! That's right. All of these are plenty perfectly collected examples. Japan is home to many unique traditions, including kimono, sushi, matcha, manfuji, and traditional Japanese sweets called wagashi. The cute wagashi sweets you see here are called wasanbun, which are made in Kagawa. Wasanbun is a traditional high-quality Japanese sugar known for its delicate sweetness and made-in-your-mouth texture. In addition to wasanbun, Kagawa is widely known as a city of art, just like St. Pete. So today, I would like to share with you Hariko, a famous traditional art from Kagawa Prefecture. First, let me explain what Hariko is. Hariko means paper mache. Takamatsu Hariko started in the era period about 400 years ago. It is said that a retainer of the Matsudaira, who grew the Takamatsu area, started making these toys as a side job. Unlike mass-produced plastic toys today, every single Takamatsu Hariko is handmade by skilled craftspeople. Now, I would like to talk about the characteristic of Hariko. The first major characteristic of Takamatsu Hariko is that it is made almost entirely of paper. Long ago, paper was very precious, so people recycled old daicho, which were business account book from the era period, and old newspaper to make the inner layers. This means if you could look inside a 100-year-old Takamatsu Hariko, you might find real historic records or personal letters from the past. It's likely a tiny paper-time capsule. Nowadays, they are made from newspaper and washi, Japanese paper. Furthermore, despite being made of paper and being hollow, the dolls are incredibly sturdy. So, how is this art created? The production process involves an engaging four-step transformation. The very first and most important step begins with the artisan shaping a core mold from the clay. This clay mold is then baked in high temperature over at 1200 degrees Celsius to make it incredibly strong and doable. Next, wet paper is pasted only into a clay mold, layer upon layer, usually between 6 to 10 times to ensure strength. It's left to dry naturally under the sun. As it dries, the paper fevers tightly bond, becoming as rigid as a wooden shell. Next, this is the most surprising step. To extract the heavy clay mold from the inside, the artisan takes a sharp blade and cuts the hard paper shell completely in half. After removing the mold, they carefully paste in the two halves back together. Next, wet paper is pasted only to a clay mold, layer upon layer. Sorry, I missed. This is the surface and then coated with golfing, a white powder made from sea shells. This creates a smooth, luxurious finish that looks like ceramic. Finally, the artisan paints the vivid expression and patterns. According to him, painting the eyes requires the most concentration. Now, I will show you a part of the process of craftsman making hariko. The original video is quite long, so I will show you at three times feet. Is there no video at that? Yeah, it is a video, but okay. So then we go next slide. Another wonderful characteristic is the meaning behind these toys. The most famous figure is Hoko-san. She is a cute girl in red kimono. Legend states she was a brave girl who saved the princess by taking her sickness away. Because of this story, people in Takamatsu give Hoko-san doll to babies as a charm to protect them from illness. In conclusion, Takamatsu Hariko is more than just a traditional craft. It's a symbol of our city's history, the high skills of our artisans, and a timeless love for children. As a student ambassador, I'm proud to share this beautiful tradition and this place. If you ever visit Takamatsu, I highly recommend looking for this warm, smiling paper mache figure. Thank you for listening. And that is a truly beautiful tradition. I think my daughter would love to do paper mache and do that. And the Japanese students from Takamatsu do have a gift to present to council at this time, and Shoei's going to give that. I'll introduce the gift. This souvenir is for the city council. This sanuki matsuboro is a traditional baked sweet shaped like a pine tree. It features a simple, comforting sweetness with a crisp texture on the outside and a soft monster inside. It comes in two flavors, matcha and miso. And its nostalgic taste has made it a beloved local favorite for many years. This gift also includes tea bags containing three types of Japanese tea, sencha, genmai-cha, and hoji-cha. We hope you will enjoy the sanuki matsuboro together with these teas. Thank you. Well, we'll definitely share this with city council. We can't take a tea break right now. Maybe we'll find an appropriate time for a tea break. Thank you so much. How about now? It looks very good. So, here's the tea bags. And then we have, I think it's closed, so I can't open it. So, these are the cookies. Okay, we look forward to trying them. Thank you so much. And you did a wonderful job with your presentation. Thank you. We have Councilmember Gibbons who wants to say something. Thank you so much, Chair. Konnichiwa. Thank you all so much for being here today. And thank you, David. Thank you, Celeste. Thank you, Stephanie, our Spiff's team. Thank you to your families for allowing you the opportunity to travel abroad at such a young age. I had the opportunity at 17 years old in my junior year to travel to Takamatsu. And I was a student ambassador for the city of St. Pete under Mayor Baker's administration. And I was so blessed to be able to participate in that program because it did give me a cultural experience that truly changed my life for the good. For you all, this is your first taste at global citizenship. This is an opportunity for you to step into the shoes of leadership because I see future leaders. Shuhi, when you spoke about the arena that seats 10,000 people, I could not help but think about our Tropicana Field site, which I hope you get to see one day. Because it gave me an idea that I would love to see you talked about concerts, an entertainment venue, a sports arena. That's what I would like to see here, a world-class arena just like what Takamatsu has. You all brought back some great memories. I had to think about my days when I was in Takamatsu. I ate lots of sushi, drunk lots of matcha, and now we have matcha tea places popping up all over the place here in St. Pete. But what I miss most are those decadent desserts. So thank you so much for blessing us with this. And thank you so much for choosing St. Pete. You could be doing anything with your summer, but you have chosen this cultural immersion to really learn more about the world beyond Japan. And we welcome you from the bottom of our hearts. Thank you so much. Domo arregato. Thank you, Jill. Thank you. And I want to, again, thank you, but also thank the chaperones, SPIF, and everyone who works to make this happen every year. This is one of our favorite things here at City Council. When we get to have you here in chambers and you do the presentations, and we learn always so much about your culture, and hopefully you get to learn a little bit about St. Petersburg as well. So we love the cultural programs and always invite our students to partake in it so you make friendships, you know, from far away, and hopefully we can maintain those friendships. And maybe someday I get to go personally and see you over there. So thank you, again, for everything. Thank you. Okay. I'll just give them a minute. Thank you. The next item on our agenda is the F1-FY-2027 budget. We have item A, which requires a two-thirds majority vote of City Council, and B, which is then the resolution setting the dates for public hearings. Hi, Liz. Good afternoon, Chair and members of City Council. Today we take the first official step in the process to adopt the FY27 budget for the City of St. Petersburg. After this brief presentation, Council will be asked to take action on two resolutions. The first will set a proposed millage rate, and the second will set the dates and times of the two public hearings, the first of which is scheduled on September 3rd, and the second on September 17th at 6 p.m. at City Hall. Per Florida Statutes 200.065, the City's hearing dates cannot conflict with the School Board or the Board of County Commissioner hearing dates, and the School Board is scheduled for September 8th and Pinellas County on September 10th and 24th. By Tuesday, July 28th, the City is required to provide the trim information to the county's property appraiser's office. This provides them the time needed to mail the trim notices on August 17th, and the proposed millage rate will appear on that trim notice. If the millage rate increases between today and the first public hearing, the City is required to notify each property owner of the change at the City's cost, and we can reduce the millage rate, but we cannot increase it without incurring these additional costs. The proposed millage rate for FY27 is 6.4525 mills and is the same millage rate as last fiscal year. This rate will bring in about $243.7 million in ad valorem revenue, which is an increase of about 6.5 percent or $14.815 million over the FY26 adopted budget. The recommended general fund operating budget overall increased by $25.4 million, or about 6.17 percent over last year. This slide shows the proposed millage rate calculation. Property values received from the property appraiser's office as of July 1st, 2026 are $39.341 billion. We use 96 percent of the total property values, which computes to $37.767 billion to account for any uncollectibles or discounts. And our 96 percent is in our City's fiscal policies. We then look at the FY27 general fund operating budget requirements of $437.324 million, and then we back out the other general fund revenues that are non-ad valorem, which amount to $193.633 million, to get the ad valorem revenue needed of $243.691 million. We then take this amount, which is shown as B on the slide, and divide it by the 96 percent of gross value, which is shown as A on this slide, to get the total levy of 6.4525 mills. This slide contains a chart with the history of the operating millage rate for the City. During the last 12 years, the millage rate peaked at 6.7700 in FY16. And again, the proposed rate for FY27 is 6.4525, and the same as last year's rate. The trim, or the truth in millage legislation, requires the calculation announcement of a rollback rate at public hearings and in newspaper publications. The rollback rate is the millage rate that would bring in the same tax dollars as the prior year, with an allowance for new taxable value added to the City's tax base. The FY27 rollback rate is calculated at 6.3854 mills, and would generate about $241.158 million, or about $2.53 million below what is currently budgeted in the FY27 recommended budget. The proposed millage rate of 6.4525 results in an increase of about 1 percent over the rollback rate. Property values in the City overall increased by 6.85 percent in FY27, and included in this increase are the City's three TIF districts, which increased by $3.318 million over last year's adopted budget. During Special Session F, the Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 4-F, which was later signed by the Governor. This new law amends Florida Statute's 200.065, which is related to the method of fixing millage. Specifically, this new law amends the statute to remove a calculation of the current year's maximum millage rate based on the prior year's taxes, and a maximum millage rate, and removes the option to levy the adopted rate from the prior year of hire. Based on this new law, the maximum millage rate that may be levied by a majority vote of City Council is the rollback rate, which is computed under Florida Statute's 200.065, Section 1. The City may adopt a millage rate up to 110 percent of the rollback rate by a two-thirds vote of City Council, and the City may adopt a millage rate exceeding 110 percent of the rollback rate by unanimous vote of City Council. In prior years, a majority vote was usually needed to pass the millage rate, but based on the changes to the Florida Statute's 200.065, a two-thirds majority vote of City Council is required to pass a proposed millage rate of 6.4525 for FY27. And concluding, there's information on the Mayor's FY27 recommended budget on the City's website, and this concludes the presentation. Thank you, and are there any questions? Thank you. Council Member Gibbons. Thank you, Chair, and thank you so much, Liz, Tom, Mr. Curtis, everybody. You said something, Liz. You said we can reduce, but we cannot increase our millage rate. Can you deduce from me, how did we get to where we are? How did we decide on this number? Because it's my understanding, as you stated, property values have increased, so why did we not decrease our millage rate this year? So we can increase the millage rate after this point, but then the costs to re-advertise that millage rate are borne by the city, and so we can increase it. We just, you know, you can reduce it without any cost, but if you increase it after this point, then there's an additional cost. And if I can go back to the presentation, we calculate the millage rate based on the needs that are in the budget, and if I can go back to that slide. So based on our recommended budget of $437.325 million, when we back out our other estimated revenue sources, we need $243.691 million in ad valorem revenue to have a balanced budget, and then when we take that current gross taxable value, the 96% of it, that gives us the millage rate we needed. And, Council Member, I wanted to maybe address the kind of philosophical portion of your question, and as I mentioned to you probably the other day on the phone, you know, we look at the millage rate annually, and I think Liz has a slide showing that the previous three out of the four previous years we did slightly reduce the millage rate, and Mayor Welch's philosophy has always been we should look at it annually and chip away when we can. Now, and this year, when we approached this year, we knew it was going to be a challenging budget cycle. We knew that we were going to be looking for reduced expenditures across the organization, and it just didn't feel like it was the right year to then again reduce the millage rate at this time. And I appreciate that explanation. Thank you, Tom, for taking time to speak with me on our one-on-one about that. And you said something that you didn't mention just now, Tom, but you mentioned then, and it really put it in perspective. We're still recovering from two hurricanes two years ago. And I think when you talk about needs, Liz, a lot of the needs, infrastructure, you know, everything, this is what helps pay for that. And so I just want to put it in perspective for those who are listening here and at home as we try to deduce our millage rate based on what's been proposed, we have to take into consideration the fact that, yes, we chip away when we can, but we still have needs that have to be addressed. So thank you so much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Gurdis. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I just want to thank the whole team. You know, when we first started this conversation in January, you know, we were talking January, February, March, we were talking about an $18 million delta, and you've brought to us, you know, a proposed budget that, frankly, even though $2.5 million is a big deal, especially when you're talking about $240 of the $243 million goes towards public safety, bringing us a balanced budget. And so while I appreciate Council Member Given's perspective, this could have gone the other way really badly had it been worse. And so I'm just very thankful for the continued work, the collaboration on this budget, and being able to keep the millage rate where it is, in my opinion, I think is just a massive job well done. So I'll move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. A and B, or just A? No, it's just A, please. 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 joint of F1A. Passes unanimously with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Move approval, F1B. Second. So we have F1B. We have a motion and a second. This is setting the date for public hearings. 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 joint of F1B. We pass this unanimously with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. And thank you, Liz and Tom and everyone on the team for your work on this. Next up, we have F3. This is a good news item that was pulled by Council Member Gabbard, so I'll turn it over to you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm very happy to see this on the consent agenda today. Wanted just to go ahead, like I said, and pull it to good news because this is something I've been working on for a bit. There's a couple of areas in the city where we have a bit of a gap in the flood cameras that have been being utilized by USF St. Pete and the Storm Squad to be able to do community input around flooding in particular areas. And so when we saw this come up on the consent agenda, I wanted just to bring that forward so that individual residents realize that these cameras are, the gaps are being filled in by the city. There's still, you know, some question about Wi-Fi and things like that moving into the future, but we're also working on that. And then while I had an opportunity, Madam Chair, I also just wanted to let everyone know that if they're interested in the work that USF St. Pete and Chris and the Storm Squad are doing, there's actually a community conversation taking place. It is this Saturday from 10 to 1 at New Faith Free Methodist Church on Irving Avenue South in South St. Pete. Hopefully people will attend that if they are interested because they'll learn all about not only what the Storm Squad is doing to bring community engagement within our resiliency planning, but also the flood app that I think is really coming along. This data is going to help to inform that as well and fill in those gaps. So I hope that people will come out, get involved, and become even a greater part of the Storm Squad as we continue to do neighbor-by-neighbor community outreach and community conversation around flooding preparedness and all of the vulnerabilities that we have in our coastal city. So with that, Aaron. Well, thank you, Council Member. We're just happy to be a part in putting another license agreement together for these flood cameras. In 2024, we did eight of these license agreements with USF. They reached out for another one, and we're happy to do it. Real quick, Madam Chair, if I may. Do we have any update on the Riviera Bay camera that we're also working on? I don't today, but we certainly follow up. Yeah, because when we had our last committee meeting about this, there were two gaps. There was the Riviera Bay area along 83rd and the park where we're doing the knife gate pilot project, and then also the Perry Bayview along Clam Bayou. And so very glad to see this one move forward, but on behalf of my district, want to advocate again publicly for that so that we can fill those gaps on both sides of our city. So very good. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll approve the resolution. We have a motion and 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 want you to approve a gen item F3, passes unanimously, with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you, and thank you, Aaron. Next up. I said he'll be back. Yes, he will. We've seen Aaron a lot lately. Next up, we have new business items, and we have a few to go through. So we'll start off with G1. Council Member Gabbard. Thank you, Madam Chair. Respectfully requesting a referral to Health, Energy, Resilience, and Sustainability Committee or other relevant committee for an update on the private lateral rebate program. This is a staff request, and I so move. Council Member Gerdes. Thank you. I know I realize this was a staff request, but I know you've been working on this as well, and just happy to have this conversation. Looking forward to, frankly, working on this during your last few months on council with you, Council Member Gabbard. So thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you. Okay. 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, tally announce a vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve a gen item G1, passes unanimously, with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Next up, we have G2, Council Member Gibbons. Thank you. Respectfully requesting a referral to the Housing, Land, Use, and Transportation Committee or other relevant committees for a discussion on regulating data center developments. The discussion should focus on whether the city's comprehensive planned and land development regulations adequately address data centers as an emerging land use or whether amendments are necessary to ensure a comprehensive permitting process and compatibility with surrounding land uses. And with that, I move for approval. Thank you. Council Member, I mean, Vice Chair Floyd. Thank you. Thank you for the new business item. We, I just wanted to give an update. We had a discussion in this about Ford, about this in Ford Pinellas last month. And the consensus at the time was that the county would have maybe, I don't know what terminology they're using, something about a pause or a moratorium on them until we were able to do the work that was required to be able to adequately regulate them. And so, I just wanted to give everybody an update that that's what the county's talking about. And I think, but I think this new business item definitely is important because regardless of what the county does, we have to have this as well. So, I appreciate it. So, I'll second your motion. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Givens, I have been having conversations also on the same issue with administration and legal. And we do need that path of figuring out what's happening because I think a lot of people don't know what's happening. And even though my understanding is, you know, like those big data centers that people think of are not here in St. Petersburg, there is no framework and there is lots of conversations as to what can happen if something comes up. So, I think it's extremely timely. So, with that being said, 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 a G-2 passes unanimously with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Next up, we have G-3. Council Member Givens. Thank you. Respectfully requesting a referral to the Housing, Land, Use, and Transportation Committee or other relevant committees for an update and discussion on the existing safety standards and enforcement measures for e-bikes and e-scooters. This discussion should center on opportunities for increased awareness concerning traffic rules in restricted areas. With that, I move for approval. Motion. Second. 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 take a vote. Callie announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve a G-3 passes unanimously with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Next up, we have G-4. Council Member Fig Sanders. Thank you. H-O-L-E is really popular today. Respectfully requesting referral to the Housing, Land, Use, and Transportation Committee or other relevant committee for discussion regarding potential code amendments to provide that for single-family detached homes in neighborhoods, suburban, and neighborhood traditional zoning district building height should be measured from the design flood elevation, plus five feet for qualifying drive under homes, with the entire ground floors utilized solely for parking, storage, access, and other flood complaint, non-habitual, habitable uses. Oh, yeah. So, anyway, and just a brief background on this. You know, I've met with one of the developers that's trying to alleviate flooding, and they wanted to elevate the homes where the living area was above the parking garage. Okay. Council Member Gabbard. Thank you, Madam Chair, and, you know, living in the sunshine, we can't talk about these things any other place, so whenever I saw this come up on the agenda, I was very glad that you brought this forward, because I've had meetings not only with builders as well, because obviously, just like your district, this is an issue in mind as well, and we actually had a meeting with builders and our city team, so we have done quite a bit of work on this with our city staff already, so I don't know if you've met with staff, too, so I don't know, I guess we'll have those conversations in committee, but, I mean, if you're going to run with it, I'll stop working on it, quite frankly. There's no reason for both of us to work on it. It's got enough to do, so you're good. Just wanted to let you know that those meetings kind of have been moving forward on my end, and so I'll just wait and see what we have a discussion on in. Well, I don't have an issue with it. I can take it over after you leave if we don't. Well, no. I mean, five months, it's a big conversation, right? So it's going to probably outlive this year anyway, so, yeah, I mean, I just wanted to, in full disclosure, let you know that I'd had those conversations with staff and with the developers, or the builders. Thank you. So with that, I move approval. 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 announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda item G4 passes unanimously with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Next up, we have a G5, Council Member Fig Sanders. Thank you. This came from a very productive meeting with the St. Pete Tennis Union and our union and our very own Administrator Tom Green. It starts, well, let me read it. Respectfully requesting referral to the Housing, Land, Use, and Transportation Committee or other relevant committee for a discussion regarding proactive measures the city can take to support residents when a privately owned multifamily property, for example, the Morgan, places numerous households at risk of eviction. The discussion should include an inventory and evaluation of existing city programs, procedures, and community partnerships available to exist, effective residents, as well as the potential expansion of such programs. And how we came to this conclusion and just wanting to have this conversation is we know Administrator Foster and her team are phenomenal with relocating residents, but something as a magnitude of what happened at the Morgan, we just wanted to have that information for our constituents in a way moving forward if we should ever have something like this before. So in that meeting, I think all of us probably have had the conversations with the legal in regarding to the Morgan as to what we can and cannot do. So out of that conversation with the St. Pete Tennis Union, who I'm very appreciative for them, wanting to have this conversation and understanding where the impact is and what the city can and cannot do in instances like this. And so this is to just put everything in one place where if we are forced with something like this before, we will be able to answer some questions that are presented by the community. And with that, I move approval. Second. I have a motion. Second. Councilmember Gerdes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Listen, I think you know me. I'm always open, or most of the time open. I won't say always. Try not to put myself in that box to the conversation. But I think you just explained it. I just want to discount double check. So this is more of like an emergency provision if something like this were to happen again. We're not talking about like full scale. This is based on what's happened with the Morgan and some sort of emergency action. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks, Madam Chair. And just for that, can I respond? Yeah, go ahead. And just for that, I do know Vice Chair Floyd had something somewhat similar about rental assistance or something like that. This was totally different than that. So this is more so us being prepared as a city as to how we can communicate to the residents just in case we have a long scale. Thank you very much for the clarity. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. We have a motion to second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Councilmembers, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present councilmembers have voted, Clerk, please tally and announce a vote. Madam Chair, I want you to approve agenda item G5, passes unanimously, with Councilman Rodrisco being absent. Thank you. Next up, we have G6, and the rest of these are going to be Vice Chair Floyd, so start with G6. Thank you. I want to say something about all of them at first so that you can understand what I was going for. Item G9 is a resolution that encompasses the things that are in G6, 7, and 8. G6, 7, and 8 are us moving them to action, but G9 is sort of us stating our values and our position as a council on how we are going to handle storm resiliency going forward. So I'll start with the individual pieces, G6, and obviously if there's any questions on anything specifically, we can get into that. So on G6, I'm respectfully requesting a referral to the Health, Energy, Resilience, and Sustainability Committee for a discussion on the creation of a city policy outlining natural and ecological-based stormwater and surge considerations for competitive solicitations, and I'll move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Councilmember Gerdes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Vice Chair, thank you for the kind of overarching. I appreciated that. I just wanted to put it out in the atmosphere that I think these things, if the GO bond passes, and we put it on the ballot and it passes, these things become significantly easier to fund. What I would be thinking about, because they're your items, and I'm certainly going to be thinking about it, is how we would do that if it doesn't pass, because I'm assuming you'd want to move forward with these actions, whether the GO bond passes or not, just based on the comprehensive thought process I think you went through on these, and our stakeholders. And so the backup to that would be, how do we fund these things if the GO bond doesn't pass, and we don't have a pot of money to create these plans and the advisory boards and those things? Yeah, that's a very good point. You can see it was written, all of this was written so that it was not just about the GO bonds. And so, yeah, yeah, I definitely agree. Everything that I brought forward, some of it's lower-hanging fruit than others, especially when it comes financially. But what I would say is, yeah, we would definitely have a thoughtful and fiscally responsible conversation about it in the future, yeah. And Madam Chair, if I may. Yeah, I appreciate that. I just wanted to make sure that we were thinking about if that pot of money wasn't there, because, and I agree, there is low-hanging fruit. And I think we can, I think, again, I try not to put myself in the box. I think most of us, if not all of us, agree that these are worthwhile things to be pursuing, whether or not the GO bond happens or not. Again, I think it always, especially right now, I just think it comes back to where do we find that funding and how do we use it and when. So I appreciate the thoughtfulness. Thank you, Madam Chair. 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 probably announce a vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve. Vigitum G6 passes unanimously, with Council Member Driscoll being absent. E7. Thank you. Before I do this one, I will just uplift a point I should have made earlier. I have spoken to staff, particularly Claude, about all of these and made sure that we're all on the same page before I brought this forward. I just wanted that to be out there as well. So for G7, I'm respectfully requesting a referral to the Health, Energy, Resilience, and Sustainability Committee for a discussion on the creation of a comprehensive citywide resiliency plan. And I'll move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Council Member Gabbard. Thank you, Madam Chair. And first of all, I just want to say thank you, Vice Chair Floyd, for kind of moving forward with all of this resiliency planning. Obviously, I mean, it's, I think, encouraging for us to have someone who does not live in the coastal neighborhoods to kind of carry the torch of resiliency into your second term. So I'm very encouraged, just as a resident, that you are taking this up and moving forward with all of these things. And on behalf of all of the neighborhoods across the city, I just want to raise up the work that was done under the Resilience St. Pete Action Plan. That was a plan that was resident-driven. It was done across nine neighborhoods across the city, not just in the coastal neighborhoods. I want to remind everyone it was Bartlett Park, Old Pasadena, Shore Acres, Coquina Key, Harbordale, Kingston Street, along Clam Bayou, Riviera Bay, Child's Park, and Bonita Bayou. And the reason that those neighborhoods were selected was not only because they had been having challenges with flooding long before 2024 storms, but because we did want to take a citywide approach to this issue. That work has been done. That work is really, I think, the framework for a citywide resiliency plan. And so I wanted just to, again, thank those neighborhoods and their leadership and Kona for really driving that early work. Again, thank this council for funding that study. And I want to make sure that that does not get forgotten because I've spoken with Claude about this. The work does not have to begin from scratch. And I've spoken with Sierra Club about this as well. You know, there was, you know, talk of how much will this cost, how long will this take. We don't have to start over. If you take the Resilient St. Pete Action Plan that our residents worked so hard to put together and Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council partnered with us on, you have the framework for moving forward with a citywide resiliency plan. So please do not start over. Please take that work. Honor the work that the team did, that our residents did. And please, you know, find a way to integrate that into a citywide plan. Because, again, like all studies that we do, everything that we do, it's important that our residents see that those investments go to action. That's why we called it an action plan, and that they are not just a study that sits on a shelf. And then as we get criticized for doing, now they're going to spend more money. Now they're going to create another study. What's going to come from it? I just really want to elevate that, lift that up. I've had these conversations with Claude, so it's no surprise to him if he's listening that I really want to see us build on that work and not start over from scratch. So thank you. Thank you. Vice Chair Floyd. Thank you. I appreciate that, actually. In the resolution, I guess I could have done this in the new business item now that I look back at it. I listed plans that had already taken place, and I think there was, like, and more at the end. But you're right. I should have listed what's a very important plan that's likely going to exist as, like, the base of what we do. Well, when we get to that item, I was actually going to ask for a friendly amendment. Oh, okay. Well, all right. Okay, we'll talk about it then, yeah. Thank you. Do we have a motion and a second? Yes. Okay. 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 gen item G7 passes unanimously, with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Next up, next item by Chair Floyd. Thank you. I'm respectfully requesting referrals to the Health, Energy, Resilience, and Sustainability Committee for discussion on the creation of a citizen-led resiliency advisory board. The only thing I'll say about this is I think it goes along well with the conversation we had about the, oh, goodness, Urban Tree Subcommittee. I can't remember the name right now. Urban Forestry. Yeah, Urban Forestry. Yes, and so I think in addition to all the conversations we've had today about storm resiliency and whatnot, it also is a continuation of that discussion. I'll move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Seeing that all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve a gen item G8 passes unanimously. With Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Next up, G9. I'm respectfully requesting approval of a resolution calling for transparency and comprehensive planning in the city storm resiliency actions, requesting that administration create a public-facing dashboard detailing the city's efforts to upgrade and maintain the city's storm-resilient infrastructure, requesting that administration give equal consideration natural and ecological-based solutions when considering storm resiliency projects, and supporting the creation of a city-wide resiliency plan. I'll move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Council Member Gabbard. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, continuation of the last conversation. So, in the language, and I'm not quite sure, you know, how we kind of come to memorializing this, but when you talk about, you know, these different studies, a couple of things kind of hit me whenever I read this initially. And first, I don't want to be redundant, but the Resilient St. Pete Action Plan. I will not be able to support this if we do not amend this to add that action plan in out of respect for the residents who spent their time doing that. So, that's, I want to be clear on that. The second thing is, you know, we have our stormwater master plan, and, you know, it does talk about the wastewater and potable water planning. That is technically the St. Pete Water Plan, I think is what that is called. So, I would, you know, ask that we reference that specific verbiage on that plan so that we are very clear as to what we are looking at. Because those are the two plans that we're putting together, really, right, to be able to come up with resiliency planning. And then, you know, I guess I was curious, it talks about the SPAR plan and the capital improvement plan. We don't really have planning documents, per se, around those two things, other than the budget that, you know, we work on every single year. So, I'm confused what exact planning documents we're talking about with SPAR, because I'm not aware of specific planning documents that are directly related to SPAR, other than what is in our budget. So, maybe that's an administrative question. I mean, SPAR originally started as an unfunded list last year. Now, SPAR has become a list of capital improvement projects that come from these other two plans. So, I'm just a little confused about that verbiage, and I just want to be super clear what that is, because this is going to be a long, long game. This is all going to live past us. So, I think we need to be really clear. Hey, Claude. Hi. I didn't see you over there. We need to be really clear about what plans we're talking about, what plans we're investing in, and what plans we are using to guide this work. So, I'll leave that for whoever wants to address it. I would like maybe, Council Member, I mean, it's your new business item. Did you have something in mind with this reference? Do you want to speak to it first before us? Yeah. I'll quickly speak and say the entire point of this reference was to basically make a statement that said we're not going to start over and we're going to include plans. So, I am open to however people feel comfortable with that, because this was just something that was written to say that we do have plans already in place, and we're going to build on top of them. And so, if people feel strongly that, like, there's something that should definitely be mentioned or clarity that should be added here, I'm totally fine with that. So, before we go into further into this, Claude, just so we can, I think we've mentioned a few plans, and to be clear, the St. Pete Agile Resilience comes from the Stormwater Master Plan, my understanding, and the St. Pete Water Plan, right? For the most part. For the most part, yes. Are there, so we have those plans, right? So, we have the Stormwater Master Plan, we have the St. Pete Water Plan. St. Pete Water is not included in here, so you may want to include that. SPAR is not a plan, so then take that out. Then we have Resilience St. Pete Action Plan. There's Capital Improvement Plans mentioned. Is there anything else, Claude, that may have not been mentioned that you can think of as a planning document? We will soon have the vulnerability assessment that we are working on through the Resilient Florida program. Vulnerability assessment? Yeah, and then to Councilmember Gabbard's point, yes, you're absolutely right. We don't have a separate SPAR plan. We're basically identifying projects that came out of those master plans that would be adding resilience, and then we're listing them out in the five-year and onward CIP as to when we can get this work done. So, we have the vulnerability assessment that's upcoming. Yes. How about the seawall? Is that part of the vulnerability? Yes. No, it's not part of the vulnerability assessment, so that's another good one to add. That may be a good one to add. If we're going to be a little inclusive, which it sounds like we're going there. So, that's, what is it called, the seawall master plan, or I can't remember? It's the seawall vulnerability assessment. Seawall vulnerability assessment. So, I think you have removing SPAR and then adding St. Pete water plan, resilient St. Pete action plan, vulnerability assessment, and seawall vulnerability assessment. Does that sound about right? Yeah, that's. That sounds good to me. That sounds good? Okay. Sounds like the running list. And legal, I don't know. I want to make sure that we're all on the same page here. Yeah, so I have those. We could definitely add that. So, do you want the SPAR deleted entirely, or just plan after SPAR deleted? The SPAR would be deleted because it's not a planning document. It's referencing planning documents. I wasn't sure if you also wanted to reword the planning documents, or just leave planning documents, but take out SPAR. Madam Chair? Council Member Gabbard. I mean, I know it's your item, so I. I'm waiting for an amendment to be made. Yeah, right. Council Member Gabbard. I'm kind of waiting on the word soup, like, to figure out what we're going to say. But, I mean, I guess, so, I would offer a friendly amendment, and kind of walk me through this, Jackie, if I get this wrong, to the second whereas clause to read, whereas the city of St. Petersburg has identified substantial infrastructure needs through a number of planning documents, such as the St. Pete Water Plan, the Stormwater Master Plan, the Seawall Vulnerability Assessment, the, I'm missing, the Citywide Vulnerability Assessment, and the Resilient St. Pete Action Plan. And I so move. Okay, and I. Council Member, Council Member Fig Sanders. Question, I seconded the original motion. No, I second the amendment. So, I just need to see, do I need to second the amendment? Yeah. Okay, so I second the amendment. Okay. By Chair Floyd. I just want to be sure that the words and more are still at the end, because I know that there is more. Thank you for the question. Yes, I agree. Thank you. Yes. So we have G9 as amended. Legal, we're all good? Okay. Clerk, if you can, we have a motion on 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, it's how I announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda item G9 as amended. Passes unanimously with Councilman Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Next up, we have H1. It's an action item. Councilmember Gabbard from HERS. Sorry, let me change my page. Hold on. So sorry. All right. Respectfully requesting City Council approval of a transfer referral item, a discussion regarding initiating a new Sunrunner TOD overlay package from the HERS committee to the HOUT committee for further discussion. 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, Talley, announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda item H1. Passes unanimously with Councilman Driscoll being absent. Thanks. We have H2. Vice Chair Floyd. Thank you. This is a resolution from the Housing, Land, Use, and Transportation Committee. It's a resolution of the City Council of St. Petersburg, Florida, supporting the implementation of the recommendation set forth in the connecting South St. Petersburg Community Redevelopment Area Mobility Study. I'll move approval. 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 announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda item H2 passes unanimously. The council member Driscoll being absent. Vice Chair Floyd. All right. As if I haven't been difficult enough for y'all already, I would like to make a motion to reconsider the consent agenda. I inadvertently voted yes. So, yeah, I'll make that motion, and then we can discuss the item that I would like to remove. Okay, second. Okay, we have. So, you want me to recap? Yes. For a motion to reconsider, so this was an inadvertent error, so it falls into that category. Council Member Floyd's on the prevailing side, so he can make the motion. It does need a second. Once you vote on the motion to reconsider, you go back to the initial item, which would be the consent agenda. Okay. Yeah. That's fine. Yeah, but we'll, yeah. Yes. Okay. We have, clerk, we're good? Yep, motion and second. Okay, we have a motion and second. Clerk, if you could 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, the motion to reconsider the consent agenda passes unanimously with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Now, we go back to the consent agenda by Chair Floyd. I'll move approval of the consent agenda minus CA6. CA6. Second. So. No? Okay, sorry. So, I think it's CB6. Oh, is it me? Number one. I'm so sorry, yeah. And there would still need to be some action on CB6. Yeah, yeah, I just figured we could take the consent agenda and then do that after. Well, you would have to first pull CB6. Okay, I would like to. If you want to vote on it separately. Oh. So, no on the entire consent agenda. So, there's different ways to go about it. Well, in that case, then I'll withdraw that motion and I'll go to, I would like to pull CB, excuse me, hold on. Let me make sure I say this correctly. Thank you. Yes, CB6. Yes. Yes. Okay. We have a motion and a second to pull. Well, we don't need a motion. Yeah, you just need to pull. You're pulling it. You can pull CB6 without a motion. And then, so then you can, if you want to start with approving the consent agenda without CB6. Now that that has been pulled, you can do that now. Okay, so I just needed to pull it first. Okay, so now I'll move to approve the consent agenda without CB6. Okay. Okay. Second. Okay. 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 announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve the consent agenda without CB6 passes unanimously with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Okay. Now we have CB6 as an item and I'm going to, Vice Chair Floyd and then administration, I think at some, I would like to hear from someone on this item. I don't know if you knew this was happening. Since, yeah, since, since we're doing this, maybe get somebody to talk about this. Okay. Vice Chair Floyd. You can all look at CB6. I wish I would have just brought this up in the first place, but CB6 is using an organization called PRIDE, but that acronym stands for Prison Rehabilitative Industries and Diversified Enterprises. After some research, I discovered it is the only place in the Florida prison system where prisoners get paid when they do labor. But they, you know, the last I saw was a couple of years ago. I think it was 2023 report found that they were only getting paid 20 to 35 cents an hour, I believe. I'm not comfortable with us contracting or I'm not comfortable with us using labor that's not even getting paid minimum wage. So, you know, I mean, we at one point had a responsible bidder's ordinance that talked about some of this stuff. Now, obviously, we can't, we don't have that ordinance anymore. It got removed. But, yeah, I'm uncomfortable with CB6, and so I'm not going to support it. Okay. Administration, if there's someone that can talk about the item. Yes, good afternoon. And I'm going to have Stephanie Scarborough talk to the council in just a moment, but I just wanted to, you know, tee this up a little bit. You know, and as you see in the write-up, we did do a request for bids. None of the bids were responsive. So Stephanie and her team entered into negotiations with three different entities to try to ensure that we could have business continuity. The final, the best proposal came from the organization that we recommended. And, you know, and I'll let Stephanie answer any questions that you have, but we did check references with other local governments to ensure that the quality of the work that was provided was on par with what we would expect. Are there any particular questions? Well, I mean, at this point, I don't have, and I'm just curious because at this point, I don't know what this causes in terms of our needs. I mean, right now, where is this? We are supposed to obviously approve this, but do we have something in place with them? Who are we using? You know, what's the status of this? I don't have a context at all. We have ordered enough paper and envelopes to stock the print shop until August, but we need this approved. That's why it's on here so we can restock because that contract has expired. So we ordered enough to get us through to get this contract approved. And we're in July, so August is here. Okay. And so this went through the procurement process, right? So, and what happens if council would not approve such an item that has to go back through the process? Correct. Right. And how long does that process take? Bid is out on the streets at least 30 days. We could try to minimize that as much as possible to give everybody a fair shot to submit a bid. Okay. So based on my questions, any other questions by council members? Council Member Gabbard and then Council Member Fig Sanders. Apologies, Chair. Just my ignorance because I don't think we've been here in my nine years. Is there not a process by which council could ask the administration to go and negotiate with the second highest bidder? There's none of that that we could do, correct? Okay. So there's no other option but to start over if this fails. Correct. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Fig Sanders. Thank you. So, and again, thank you for that. I guess I'm a little confused. So when you are incarcerated, I don't know, I know that we have a certain salary amount set for constituents. Is there something documented where the service providers can only receive so much? I guess I'm confused as to what that looks like. And I don't know if Vice Chair Flory could explain that because, again, I'm like Council Member Gabbard. We've never been here before, and this is kind of like last minute, da-da. This is what we're doing because I just want to see where we are. And you say that we've already had this contract and it's just expiring, or is this a new one? This is a new contract. We do have business with Pride Enterprises. They currently supply wooden stakes, as well as they were awarded one of the requests for qualifications for office furniture. But they've not had a contract for the supply of envelopes and office paper. Okay. So we are already doing business with them? Correct. Okay. Let me listen because I'm a little confused on this one. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Vice Chair Floyd. I don't know if this answers any of your questions, but there's no minimum wage for people in prison. And, in fact, when they passed the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery, they left an exemption in there so that you could still basically enslave people in prison. You could have them do forced labor. So most organizations that do prison labor in Florida do not pay any money at all to their employees. But Pride is the one that does. It's a nonprofit that has a lot of contracts throughout the state. But they pay, I think, 20 to 95 cents an hour, so significantly below minimum wage. And there is a lot of pushback to that. There's people who think the 13th Amendment shouldn't have been written that way, think that we should uplift that. There's been a hot topic of conversation across the country, particularly with things in California like wildfires and whatnot. So that's sort of how we got to this situation, or at least why I bring this up. Okay. Council Member Fick Sanders. Okay. Thank you for that context. So, basically, if we go back to them, they can say, well, we didn't have to pay anything. We're actually doing a service, and I don't know how that will protect our negotiating skills or add any weight to it, because no other organization does that, but they are at least doing something. I guess I'm just trying to figure out how we would negotiate a higher wage if they don't have to do it at all. That's just that. I'm confused on that one. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. And I think some of the issues here, we probably don't have the people in the space that do this work here. I mean, by Chair Floyd, he's doing his best to kind of hear with us how these policy decisions, from his understanding, is not something he accepts, obviously. But at the same time, we don't know what's happening with this organization, why they are charging what they're charging, so on and so forth. And what rehabilitative services they also provide to prison inmates. I don't know any of that. And so I think we all are probably in that same space right now. I would agree with that, Chair. And I would ask the city attorney's office, there's probably a lot of questions about the company and what they do and how these things are handled. I don't know if this item could be deferred and we could bring the company back in front of council to answer some of these questions. I don't know if that's a possibility. And that is a possibility, but that's the reason I asked Stephanie what would happen if we don't approve this now, because it seems like we are using this service to provide paper, right, and we have things through August. I have enough stock through August. I can order additional stock from the previous vendor to get us through until we approve a contract, because they have to continue to print the bills for water departments. Okay, so we'll hear from the rest of council, but that, I mean, the concern is, obviously, and I understand you have a concern by Chair Floyd, the concern is where we are now, can we do the things that we're supposed to be doing without this being approved and have this conversation at a later time with more information? Yes. Okay. Council Member Gabbard. Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, Rob, you were reading my mind, because that's what I was wondering, was if it would be possible to be brought back at our first August meeting, if we could still order enough to get us through August, because, you know, I just put a quick Google search in, and you're, you know, that's exactly what I came up with on the wages, but then it goes even further to say that inmates do not keep 100% of those earnings, and that it goes to numerous other things, including room and board costs, help to offset incarceration expenses, like, there's a lot of questions there, right? So I would prefer some sort of presentation and conversation, and if that can be done in August. So we need a motion to defer. Yes. A motion to defer. A motion to defer CB6. CB6, yeah. So we have a motion and a second. Council Member Harding. I am now inclined, if this passes, I will save my questions for the deferment, but I do have several questions about the company and any other benefits. I understand it is a nonprofit, and I'd like to know any other benefits extended to these folks in confirming that this is voluntary, but I'll defer those to what it seems like we're going to have in the future. Okay. I see no further requests to speak. We 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 and announce a vote. Madam Chair, a motion to defer. Item CB6 passes unanimously with Council Member Driscoll being absent. I'm sorry, and thank you. Oh, you don't need to apologize. No, no. Thank you. And now we get to the point where the next items are going to be held at public hearing at 501. So we will, at this point, be in recess until 501. Thank you, Madam City Councils, back in session. We're going to start with J1, 2, 3, and 4. We have Joe Waugh here. We have a motion. 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, a motion to approve of J1, J2, J3, and J4 passes unanimously. With Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you, and thank you, Joe. Next up, we have F2. Claude Tankersley is here. This is the resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Or the bonds, actually, the general obligation bond. Good morning. Move approval. Second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. We do have speakers on that. Okay. Now this is the resolution part. Kathy Harrelson, Vanessa P. Sorry. Please approach either podium. State your name and address or cross streets. You have three minutes to address City Council. I wasn't expecting that so quickly. I just want to say that that consent agenda was fascinating this afternoon. I'm glad I was here for that because you included. Did you say your name? Oh, I'm sorry. Kathy Harrelson, 32nd Avenue, North St. Petersburg. Yeah, and you have to speak on this issue. I have to. It's on the item that we're talking about, F2, specifically. The GO bonds? Yeah. Yeah. I spent 12 years working for William R. Huff & Company, running their wholesale bond sales department. Most people don't know that. Not just a tree hugger. Anyway, I sent you all a letter, and basically it was that I think it makes sense for you to include nature-based solutions in the referendum language. And it isn't. I did hear earlier, Council Member Gerdes asked, sort of was assuming that those things would be done, and everything that Council Member Floyd brought forward seemed to imply that nature-based solutions would be included in the work that would get done. The thing of it is, how do we convey that to the voters? Because I heard you say the very thing people say to me, because I don't live on the coast, essentially what's in it for me. Okay? So that's one of the reasons why I think the nature-based solutions, or some wording like that, makes sense in the referendum, so that people understand that this isn't just essentially fixing, looking back to fix a problem that already happened. Because that's what, and I'm not arguing with, we do need the pipes, we do need the drainage, we do need the pump stations. It's all true. But how do we look forward? So how do we not just recognize now that climate change is a real thing, finally everybody seems to be on board with that, but how do we get beyond resilience and adaptation and actually step up to getting things done to alleviate the climate problem we have here, which is heat and the drought that comes with it, corresponding with the occasional heavy rains that just run off and flood everybody down below me. So I really felt like this would be a good idea to have it in the language for voters and in the education for voters, because there are going to be a lot of voters that really want to hear that. I know there are some who don't, but as long as they understand this is a very well-researched and thought-out process, I think it makes sense. That's why, since you, I don't know if you all saw the letter that I wrote with the potential language, but that is why I thought maybe a change in the referendum language would put that front and center in front of voters. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Vanessa Puglisi. I live at 9630 Treasure Lane Northeast. I am the president of the Riviera Bay Civic Association. Is there anything else I'm supposed to tell you before I start? Okay, good. Sorry. So I just want to start with saying that the resiliency issue impacts everybody in St. Pete, whether they're in a coastal neighborhood or not. And I'm going to focus my remarks a little bit on the structure of this today, is that in the SPAR presentation that we've been given and in the paperwork we've been given on how the GO Bond is supposed to work so far, it has told us that this is a supplement to advanced projects, stormwater projects, to speed that up. Yet in the referendum language, there is no guarantee that the funding coming from the general fund and other sources is going to continue. I know we all assume it will continue, but I'd like to see some sort of guarantee proposed by city council or the administration explicitly stating that, like, this is not just going to be the only pot of money going forward because we need to escalate these infrastructure projects. That has been a concern talked about to some people in my community of, well, they're just going to get this tax money and they're just going to use that and the other money is not going to come anymore. So I just wanted to state that publicly and make everybody aware of that. The other issue that residents in our community have discussed since I have bought the GO Bond to their attention is we have been presented a 0.96 millage rate based upon property valuation from properties of $250,000 all the way up to $500,000 and what your banding will be if we pass the GO Bond. What hasn't been clearly stated yet is the alternative. If the property tax referendum passes, can we still tax based upon property value banding? So I don't know if it's implied. I don't know if you all know, but it is not clear yet to the voting public if that is how that's going to work. So if I am exempt on $250,000 in property tax, if the state referendum passes, am I still being taxed on the GO Bond? And how does that impact people who are new homeowners in St. Pete? Because as we know, new homes in St. Pete cost quite a bit more than the $250,000 this day and age. So we would like to have our voters be educated before they vote on what this is going to cost them because the cost of housing and the cost of living in St. Petersburg is very high right now, and people really want to know that. And my third point is I really want to advocate for the oversight committee and that that be in place and ready to go addressing all resiliency projects before we get to the vote in November. And I know that was another item today, but that is very, very important to our community. You know, we experience localized flooding, and we all flooded during Helene, and people really want to know that money is being spent wisely. Thank you. Next two speakers, Joe Craig, Will Michaels. Approach either podium, state your name and address. You'll have three minutes to address city council. Go across streets. My name is Joe Craig, and I'm a homeowner in the Venetian Isles neighborhood, which is located in northeast St. Pete. And I'm on the board of directors of the Venetian Isles Homeowners Association. As you know, our beautiful city was ravaged by hurricanes in 2024, causing flooding in over 15,000 homes. Our city needs to become more resilient to flooding from these severe weather events, now sooner than later. And that requires taxpayer money. But the money the taxpayer or homeowners are being asked to pay in modestly higher taxes to support the geo bond to make their neighborhoods less prone to flooding, the homeowner will get back as their own property value begins to appreciate since the risk of their property flooding will be curtailed or diminished. So instead of homes being sold at a great discount, as has now been the case, which drives down the price of all the homes in that flood-prone neighborhood, their home value will begin to appreciate, which helps the taxpayer get back some of the money that they spent in these higher taxes once these flooding issues are addressed. So consequently, St. Petersburg as a whole will be a more desirable place to live for everyone. So a vote for funding for these improvements is a vote for higher property values in which everyone financially benefits in the city. So please support the Go Bond initiative. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Michaels. Good evening. I'm Will Michaels. I chair the Council of Neighborhood Associations Committee on Flood Control Planning and Resiliency. During the 2024 hurricanes, between 10,000 and 15,000 residential homes and many businesses and city facilities were flooded as a result of 20 inches of intense rainfall and a 7-foot surge. Damage estimates from Helene and Melton exceed $2 billion. The lion's share of this, between $1.3 and $1.5 billion, impacted neighborhood residential homes. Some $500 million to $700 million of this is still under construction or awaiting repair. Many residents have lost or still not returned to their homes. Such devastation was not a one-of, but part of a pattern of accelerating extreme weather. The proposed $600 million general obligation bond initiative will significantly accelerate urgently needed flood control projects. Many studies document the cost savings of such an investment. For example, the National Institute of Building Sciences has determined that for every $1 spent on federal hazard mitigation, that saves approximately $6 in future disaster losses. It is appreciated that the city has recently done much to address the danger of flooding through the St. Pete Agile Resilience Plan. The stormwater capital budget this year was increased by $10 million for a total of $32 million. Significant upgrades have been made to the reclamation facilities, and many undersized drainage pipes have been replaced. However, much more needs to be done, and soon. We have an excellent stormwater master plan upon which the bond initiative is largely based. However, while this plan addresses intense rainfall and sunny-day flooding, it does not address storm surge flooding. It is urgent that planning for storm surge be accelerated. We are pleased to have been advised by city officials that the bond initiative does allow for the flexibility to fund surge-directed storm resilience projects. And I think the same is for the blue-green infrastructure, that that is also allowed under the wording. We support the general obligation bond initiative, calling attention to the full Council of Neighborhood Associations position statement, emphasizing the systematic consideration of blue-green infrastructure solutions, undertaking a comprehensive storm surge mitigation study, and the essential need to establish a bond accountability and resilience oversight committee with significant participation by the city's flood-impacted neighborhoods and residents who have suffered the brunt of recent flooding. Thank you for all you do. Thank you. No more speakers, Madam Chair. Thank you. So before we go to a vote, there are a couple of things that were mentioned, and I think we should probably address some of the things that were mentioned. Number one, in terms of the language in the referendum and nature-based solutions, we did receive the letter. And from the language, it is included in there in terms of that you can do it. Okay? So you don't have to specifically say it just like storm surge. As long as it is, and legal can correct me if I'm wrong, but the main operative language is, shall the city finance storm resilience improvements? And as long as it's related to storm resilience improvements, that's what the bond covers. Is that correct? So that is the operating language. I know some people have an issue with the but not limited to language and maybe just having including, but if you put including without but not limited to, then people may interpret it as including only the items that are listed, which is why we take the belt and suspenders approach and put including but not limited to. So that way you know that this is just an example of storm resilience improvements. Okay? But there could be things that fall within storm resilience improvements that would take care of storm surge, whatever, and they may not be completely delineated. So it's broad enough to cover those things. And again, legal, please stop me if I'm saying anything that's not correct. Okay? Okay. So I just want to be crystal clear that these have been conversations that we've had at committee levels for those that are engaged on this issue. The operative language is storm resilience improvements, and that is what the money is going to go for. Now, are we going to be able to control what a council does, you know, in year 25 or whatever? No, but they're still bound by this language, which is it is to finance storm resilience improvements. And I hope that everyone can understand that for what I'm talking about. Okay. The other thing that was mentioned in terms of there's no guarantee that we're going to continue the other investments, I have not heard from administration nor city council have ever made the proposition that we are not going to continue the investments that we are making in the normal course of business. And maybe I should hear from an administration because I don't want to make a representation for administration. And Tom or Rob, whoever wants to talk to that, that was brought up by Riviera Bay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I mean, I would say it's clearly our intention to go forward with the capital improvement projects that we have in the capital improvement plan. However, I can't guarantee what a future council is going to do related to rates and revenue for the CIP projects. And that's nothing that we can ever do. We can't bind councils in the future. If 10 years from now there is a different, you know, there will be a different mayor because mayors can only be in office for so long. If they decide that they're not going to invest in our, you know, in our capital improvement projects or whatever, or they want to reduce the millage rate, you know, to a certain extent, not do certain things, that's going to be for them and we can't control that. So I want everyone to understand that. But this is not, the goal of this is not to do this. This is to actually be able to invest more money into the system and infrastructure for storm resilience improvements based on what we faced as a city from the storms and people saw, whether it's the sewage facilities going down, the flooding, all these things, as long as it's related to storm resilience improvements. Okay, then let me make sure if I missed anything. And then in terms of not clear yet of impact of general obligation bond, there will be obvious continuing conversations. I know that there is going to, there's at some point, the city cannot advocate in terms of the general obligation bond. They could put information out there and I believe that's what the administration will be doing, putting it on the website and putting as much information as possible to have transparency because that's what you want. You want to make sure that people understand what this is for. And I think that is for the benefit of all of us. I think we're all on the same page on this. If you want this, we want it too because it's going to make our city better. One of the speakers, I think, said it really well. Investing in our infrastructure is honestly investing in our city, which is your property values, which is everything. It makes us a stronger, resilient city. That is money that pays back in many other ways. And I think that is a good way of looking at it. So I think that kind of takes care of that. You're not going to have a complete picture for some people because I think some people, no matter what you put in, it may not be enough. But I think we're going to put as much information as we can. Now there was, and I wanted to clarify something because there was an email we received or a letter from Sierra Club that said something along the lines of that they would work with us in coalition to advocate for passage. I want to make it very clear. You know, there may be organizations and groups out there that may want the same thing, but we cannot work with organizations. We legally at some point cannot advocate for this, and we're not going to use someone else to advocate for us. And I want legal to kind of touch upon this because this is very important to understand. We're going to put this out there, and it's going to be up to voters. We'll put out the information, but then we are legally limited in terms of the advocacy we can do, and we can't use someone else to do that. So legal, if you can just touch upon that. Thank you, Chair. So Florida Statutes 106-113 prohibits the expenditure of public funds on political advertisements, which expressly advocate for the approval or defeat of an issue, or on communications sent to a voter about a ballot question, even if it's purely factual, unless certain exceptions apply. So the city cannot do through a third party what it is prohibited to do for itself. So if the city was prohibited from sending a communication to voters directly, we couldn't pass it off to someone else and say, well, you send this instead. With that said, if we make information available in a manner that is not prohibited by the statute and voters take that, they can do with it what they will, whether it's sharing it with friends and family members or whomever else they want. But we've had extensive communications with administration about that. It's actually the first thing I discussed with city council over a decade ago when I appeared in this dais for the first time. Someday I would like to stop talking about this statute, but that day will not come soon. And administration is very aware with us. We met with Administrator Tankersley and the marketing director just yesterday to talk about this very subject. And administration is entirely clued in on these restrictions. Thank you. Thank you. So the reason I asked Legal to mention this, obviously, is because I want everyone to understand we have had our attorneys are on top of this every step of the way to make sure that we are doing and checking the bosses at what we're supposed to do from now to the time that this gets on the ballot. And so if we're not doing something sometimes, like advocating, it could be because we are prohibited from doing that, which is what he's explaining. So I just want that to be out there and people who are watching this to understand that there are certain legal limitations that we will have at some point on this. The other thing is that as a city, obviously, we care about this, and there is a reason why we have it on the ballot, because this is something that we've worked with administration, city council, to make sure this is on here. We have worked with our attorneys in terms of the language to make sure that we have the language necessary to do the storm resilience improvements that we have discussed here and that has been advocated in the community. So having said that, I don't see any other requests to speak. If there's someone that wants to add on to anything I say, Council Member Gabbard. Thank you, Madam Chair. Since you're, I'm going to kind of pick up where you left off with kind of addressing the questions that were brought up in public comment. Tom, I think this might be yours. The question that Vanessa had specific to kind of what people are talking about, and I've said this many times, we've had this conversation many times, you know, we're coming up against the state putting property tax reform on the ballot at the same time that we are asking residents to tax themselves. So scenario, you know, that passes and this passes. How does that affect changes in ad valorem? How would that affect the GO bond? Absolutely, and I apologize if I get a little wonky because it is a little bit complicated. But effectively, if the initiative passes that would increase the homestead exemption to $150 in the first year and then $250, clearly the universe of taxable properties will be smaller, right? So Mike Twitty's office, our Pinellas County property appraiser, put together that tool, and I think I shared it with city council, but we would effectively in that first year have a reduction of roughly $5.1 billion. And you remember earlier today, Liz had the slide up there, our taxable value is roughly $39 billion. So our taxable value would come down by $5.1 billion. Then the net impact would be the millage, the debt millage to service the bonds would have to go up slightly on the properties that remain. But I do want to also point out that the .96 mil, that was a forecast that we had to assuming that we issued all $600 million on day one. It was a very conservative estimate. And what will likely happen should the voters approve this general obligation is that we would phase in the bond issuances. We might do $100 million the first time and then $200 million. And so you would effectively see your debt millage rate kind of going up a little bit. And then once we issue all $600, it would just taper off and then start to go down. But so that's, I hope that answers the question. Yeah. Thank you. I think that's it. Thank you that you brought it up because I knew I had missed the question. I tried to keep everybody's questions in my mind. No, you're good. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Harding. Thank you, sir. I just want to make sure I understand that part correctly. In other words, the millage rate cannot, will not go over the .96, but it becomes the variable. It is self-correcting. So if we borrow $200 million and that makes the millage rate .3, if this passes the other part, the homestead exemption, then in order to garner that bond payment, the millage rate will adjust up to counter for the decrease in property value that is taxable. Am I doing that right or correct? Yes, kind of. I just want to make sure that I state this clearly. In the fact pattern that I just laid out, theoretically, we could go above that .96 because what we're asking the voters to approve is the full faith and credit, not a specific millage rate, but the ability to service the debt. So it would depend on how much debt we had outstanding in each year. So just using round numbers, for each $100 million, it's about $6.2, $6.3 million in annual debt service. So each year we would look at what the required payment would be and then calculate from there, based on the value of all the properties within St. Petersburg, what the millage rate would be to service that $6.3 million. Okay, so I want to go back and make sure that in that context that the millage rate becomes a variable in this equation. Correct. Okay, thank you very much. That's what I needed. I appreciate it, Tom. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. And, again, it's the total amount of general obligation mods would not exceed $600 million. That always stays the same. The variability of millage rate depends, obviously, of how much you've taken out because you don't have to take – first, you're not going to take out $600 million immediately. The city won't. The city has never said it will automatically because then you have to be able to do those projects. And you're not going to take out money. You take out money as the projects are happening. And so that is going to be in sequence. And then so at most it will always be $600 million at most. And then depending on what happens at the state level, it may change kind of the, I guess, amount that millage – now you said it wasn't going to be a huge difference, meaning a lot of millage points or anything like that. You just can't give an exact number, obviously, as to what the difference may be from the original estimate if the state referendum passes. Correct. And just at the risk of adding a further complication, you know, what we're building in and forecasting is we also have to build in future growth. So property values are going to go up by – for homesteaded properties, a lesser of 3% or CPI. And then on – if the amendment passes, non-homesteaded properties will be capped at 5% rather than the current cap of 10%. So there's just so many iterations and variables that, you know, until we know all the facts, can we really map out a clear – Okay. Understood. Okay. Any more questions? I don't see any from council members. I need a motion. Move approval. We have a motion. There was a motion. A second? Okay. There was. Okay, there you go. Okay. We have a motion. A second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. See all present. Council members have voted. Clerk, please tally announce a vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve a genetum F2. Passes unanimously. Council member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Now we move on to our public hearings, and we start off with J5. Clerk? They propose ordinance number 639H, 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 valid text for that referendum, and providing an effective date. And we do have some cards on the side, Madam Chair. Go ahead. Isabella Muir, Cheryl Weinberg, Weisenberg, please approach either podium. State your name and address. You'll have three minutes to address city council. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Isabella Muir. I live at 269 15th Street, North Apartment B. I've been a resident in Methodist Town for about five years now, and I'm here today as the co-president of the Methodist Town Neighborhood Association. Our association is on the newer side. We became official at the beginning of this year, and each month since then, we've seen more excitement from residents and having agency over what takes place in our neighborhood. It's been a place to really make change and build community. My co-president and other residents spoke at the July 9th meeting, and a question that was asked by council was whether or not we were contacted during the development of this proposal. So I want to take my time to shed some light on that. We were informed of this referendum only after we reached out to Neighborhood Relations Department, asking about a contact to discuss these parcels, as there had been enthusiasm for revitalizing them to become a more usable space to the community. That was in late March of this year. We were then redirected to real estate and property management, but eventually told the full details of the referendum proposal by Neighborhood Relations on April 14th. And our neighborhood at large was then informed with a literature drop outlining the proposal. Throughout this process and many conversations with multiple folks in the city, we were essentially told this is what is happening. We were not asked to provide feedback, and we were never invited to the table. It's our understanding that minds of the council and city administration are made up on this issue, and the purpose of my comments today are not to change your minds. They are instead to point out that members of Methodist Town were not consulted or taken into account as stakeholders, despite having an organization on record with the city. We support affordable housing, but that is not the only thing that makes a community. It was our hope that a consensus could have been reached for the creation of additional green space, and we're disappointed that that effort failed. And we wonder, if we had been brought to the table earlier, whether this referendum could look a little different than what you're voting on today. And two hopes going forward is that if this referendum goes to the ballot and passes in November, that the housing built in our neighborhood is truly affordable for the St. Pete residents, and that in the future, when there are decisions being made about our neighborhood, that the association will be seen as a valued stakeholder that should be consulted and collaborated with. There is a true will and want from my community to be involved, and I think that that is something worth cherishing in our world today. And I hope to stoke that desire, empower our residents going forward, and I hope the council administration shares those ambitions and acts upon them. And we all want an engaged citizenry to be heard, to build an energetic community, and it's been disappointing in this process to be seen as an afterthought. Thank you. Sorry. Your time's up. Thank you. Thank you. Next. Greetings. My name is Cheryl Weisenberg. I reside at 347 15th Street North in St. Pete Methodist Town. I am a member of the MTNA, but today I come to you as a resident and a constituent. This is my first time getting involved with city issues, and to be honest, my first impressions is just a bit disappointing. Whether the address list was outdated or incomplete, the result is the same. The communication to the residents could have been a bit better regarding the vacant lots. I want to be very clear and reiterate about we were and were not asking. We fully support affordable housing. We want families in affordable housing to thrive here, and that means neighborhoods that feel welcoming. Now buildings on top of buildings on top of buildings with no room to breathe. I feel that the overall objective of affordable housing can absolutely still be met, while leaving a little green space for the people who will call this neighborhood home. The city has encouraged conversations with the community on how Unity Park can be better used, but the reason it is not fully utilized is the same reason of why it was dismantled. Re-engaging our community to use Unity Park is a complex and nuanced issue that cannot be easily solved. Since this decision affects us directly, and I totally appreciate the work that went into getting this onto the November ballot, we were merely asking the council to update the language, to accommodate the further conversations regarding the future of these vacant lots. If this tables the referendum a bit, maybe that's the right thing to do. Allowing the current residents in Methodist Town to be properly informed, engaged, and genuinely included in both the discussion and its outcome. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Michael Turtora, please approach either podium, state your name and address, or cross streets. You'll have three minutes to address city council. Michael Turtora, 330 3rd Street South. Sorry. Members, Madam Chair, members of the council, this is my first time speaking in public at an event like this. I have a few notes. I stand before you opposed to this ordinance in its current form, but I think it really hinges on the word certain and what lots are covered by that one word. Some from the neighborhood of Methodist Town might view me as a carpetbagger from 3rd and 3rd South. So I should explain I came here tonight to honor my mother about an issue I just learned about today because if she were still among the living, she would kill me if I didn't. Few, if any, would argue with the fact that Armistice Turtora is the reason Fairfax City, Virginia, has a park system interconnected by bike trails. Yes, that's Armistice as in laying down of arms. You might be able to guess her birthday if you're old enough to remember. Her last name was Ask because her father shortened it from Askabedion to hide his Armenian heritage. Were my mother still here, she would no doubt ask several questions. In a representative democracy, in a progressive city, why aren't the powers that be listening to the members of a community that they're about to affect? Why doesn't the city seem interested in getting support for a referendum from a community that it is about to affect? Why isn't the city willing to discuss compromise with a community it is about to affect? I can't know all the details about what may be a very complicated issue, and I'm a strong supporter of increasing affordable housing, just as everybody here probably is, and in St. Pete in particular, but why is the city insisting on bulldozing some of the last remaining green space in a community when they're being presented with a practical, workable alternative and a compromise? Adding more impermeable surface than needed is not in the public interest when there is a practical, workable alternative. Alternative. Community members seem to be asking to save a small sliver of their community from the bulldozer to create spaces where neighbors could be neighborly again, while at the same time reducing maintenance costs to the taxpayers. How can you say no to green spaces supported by the community? Just two of nine lots to improve the quality of life in the community, just two of nine lots to improve human flourishing in a community, does not seem like a large price to pay, especially when it may only cost a few dollars of lost tax revenue. I ask the council to postpone the vote. Thank you. No more speakers, Madam Chair. Okay. Council Member Gabbard. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'm going to maybe kind of pick up where our last conversation was with the potential for any sort of alternative language that we may be able to entertain this evening, and I would go specific to the conversation around community gardens, the ability for, you know, when a future RFP comes forward, for it to be a little bit more creative and maybe not just address housing, potentially allowing for there to be some sort of community garden shared situation. So, Brett, I wanted to ask you, oh, and there we are. So, yes, thank you. So can you speak a little bit about, like, some alternative uses or some alternative language? Because we only have so many words that we can work with, right? And, I mean, I made the position last time, and I want to thank everyone for coming out again and to everyone who came out before. I personally am not in a place with this particular referendum to talk about removing any parcels, doing anything arbitrary. Council went through a very in-depth process to have these conversations, to determine these nine. But I am open to making sure that whenever we do the RFPs down the road, that we're having conversation with the community about what we want those to be and that we're putting language together, that gives us a little bit of flexibility to honor the request of the community to have more green space. So give us some options and what that might look like for consideration. Thank you, Council Member. So the ballot text, this text, and all of our others, the ballot summary is capped out at 15 words in the title and 75 words in the ballot summary. Hyphenated words are counted as separate words and not one, so there are a variety of otherwise punctuation is ignored. That version, the version that is currently before you, is at 13 words in the title and 75 words in the summary. So the current summary is maxed out. To create additional flexibility, the title could be tweaked to drop the words to create and say for housing or community use. And then in the summary itself, the language about allowing subsequent and separate land use changes and potential sale of those lots could be dropped to replace it so that it would read removed the nine vacant lots from the map to map for affordable or work for housing or other community uses, including potential sale for those purposes. So that rejiggering would drop the reference to the subsequent and separate land use changes. They would still need to happen for the housing to occur, but they're not crucial for placement on the ballot. Really, the threshold condition is getting them off the map because right now the fact that they're on the map locks them into very specific uses and functioning as city parks. That, that both of, with those changes, there'd also need to be a change to the, there's currently a legislative finding that says that the ballot text should include the reference to the land use changes because that's an important thing. And it specifies that this referendum does not effectuate those referent, those land use changes. It cannot under Florida law. As I might've mentioned last time, we're in an interesting position. Our map, our charter map is unique. And not really accounted for in Florida law. So Florida law says we must hold a referendum to take them off the charter map. It also says we must not use a referendum to make the land use changes. So the way this is worded is this is solely focused on this takes them off the map because that is the first step toward any other thing, whether it's the, in terms of the housing specifically. So, so we do have an alternative. Again, we'd want to check it, but this is, we do have an alternative if that's the will of the body. Okay. I mean, certainly I want to hear from everyone else, but I, I remain open and flexible to that because I want to honor the work that's been done this far. I do think that, I mean, we, we had heard through committee, um, you know, feedback from staff that, I mean, there's definitely issues with these parcels the way that they are today and something needs to happen in order to make sure that they are not, you know, derelict and, you know, not, you know, really benefiting the community at this point in time. Um, but I'm open to this flexibility so that it gives future councils and administrations a little bit more to work with as they start to move through the RFP process for each one of these parcels or collectively. So, um, I look forward to hearing what everyone else has to say and, um, I don't know if there's a way that we could see that language. I, I, I, I'm glad you asked, Councilmember. Yeah, thank you. I was going to interject that one thing I'm pretty picky on is if we're changing an ordinance on the dais, especially one of this nature, I would always want you to see it in front of you. So you could have the discussion now if you wanted us to come back or we could try to do it in between items for you to see it, or we could pause now, uh, and, you know, Brett can send it and we can get it printed for you to see, but either way, before you vote, I think you should see that those red lines in, in front of you, if you choose to pursue it. Okay. I'll hold for now, Madam Chair. Thank you. Okay. And that is an option that we can have the discussion by Council and then take up the other items and come back to this. Uh, Vice Chair Floyd. Uh, so this alternative language is being discussed. You mentioned a couple of times community uses. What defines that? Uh, it, it's not defined. I mean, that's sort of, sort of on, on short order. Uh, that is something broad enough to contemplate the uses that we have heard, uh, public comments say that they want. Uh, but yes, it's very broad. I mean, presumably it would be, it's a use for the community, uh, as opposed to commercial use. Uh, that's really, but, but, but you're correct. There's, there's no, a definition couldn't be baked into this. Uh, other definitions, you know, we could, we could come up with a finding that specifies that it's community uses like, uh, those that are mentioned today. Okay, so you said not commercial use. That does narrow it down a little bit. Um, I'm just trying to wrap my head around what I might be allowing. And I say this for the benefit of everyone. I was not unsure of this referendum in the first place because I don't like the idea of, I guess, uh, taking parkland away from being protected to be sold off for whatever purpose. Um, and so I've been given assurances, uh, one of those assurances was like, it will definitely be used for workforce and affordable housing. And so I'm hung up on like, not exactly knowing what the bound of community use is. And, uh, I'm not really sure how to come to terms with that. I guess, you know, it still has potential sale in there. So it means we might sell it for something that's ill-defined. Uh, I, I'm not sure what to make of that. And I don't know. I, and I'm being told I can't be given any more assurances than that. So I'll, I'll leave it there and listen to other people, I guess. Well, with that said, I mean, it is, uh, it is at the end of the day, it is the ordinance of city council. If any city council member has alternative wording, uh, it is, it is your ordinance to amend. And that was just something that I came up with, uh, to, to respond. And from what I understand, Brett, from where you just said in the findings, in the ordinance, we can make findings of what commercial, I mean, what community use is, which does not include commercial use and would include such things as X, Y, and Z. And that would, that would help bind it. Right. And that would, the finding is more time could be used. I mean, you could say, you know, or, you know, I'd have to work on the, the, you could list out specific uses in the ordinance itself. Right. But the more time you spend on that, the more it takes time. No, I, no, I understand that. I was just making the point that there could be a finding made, just a general finding in the ordinance itself saying that the word community use is not for commercial purposes, but for community uses such as, you know, community gardens or so on, right? That we've discussed in terms of having that in here, you can, they can add it and include it. So that way you do have some sort of boundary and definition in terms of what can constitute a community use, they can actually put something in there in terms of findings that we make in terms of what was discussed. So I just want to put that out there. At least that's what I understood Brett to say, if I'm wrong, Brett, but that's what you were kind of. That's what he was saying. Yes. That's what he was saying. Okay. We're on the same page. I know, no, no, no. And look, well, if we have to take a short break, we will. But my point is, I just wanted to kind of explain that. Councilmember Givens. Thank you, Chair. I can ask, can we speak a little to the outreach that was made to the Neighborhood Association? Because that was one of my concerns, to be honest, was that it was kind of rushed and we didn't have enough time to communicate to residents. So I just want to know what type of outreach was made and did we go and meet with the Neighborhood Association specifically? So good evening, Council. Joe Wall, Neighborhood Services Managing Director. So I appreciate that question, Councilmember Givens. So as was represented by public comment, this neighborhood just started to kind of form at the end of last year and then became formal at the beginning of this year. As everybody here knows, we had been working on this for a very long time with this language. When we were first engaged by the Neighborhood Association asking questions about what was going on with these lots, and it was more from some of the new systems that have been talked about where there was illegal dumping and other things. At that point in time, there was email communication notifying them that there was conversations that were occurring, that there was committee meetings that were happening that were referencing this change that would take them out of parkland and allow this affordable housing use. There were multiple email exchanges. By the time I think we had some additional conversations, another committee meeting had occurred, we had provided the video so they could go back and review that, but we felt at the time that we had done so much work on this to try and make any alterations or changes at that time was just not something that was going to be feasible, and then if there was any changes that were made here or if the referendum didn't pass, the communication was we were absolutely not only willing to work with you right now with the things that you want to do in Unity Park, but revisit this entire situation to see if there's an opportunity to activate these spaces, which is obviously a little bit more difficult if they remain parkland because that's the whole reason we're kind of doing this right now. Thank you for that, I appreciate that, Joe, and I don't want to dismiss the administration's efforts in any part, especially yours, because I know you work hard, but I do know that Unity Park is an important unactivated green space that could be activated for better uses than what we see currently. Crime, nuisances, transients, you've already spoken to that, I don't have to go over the list. But I certainly think it's important enough to say, okay, these nine parcels that have been preserved as green space for four decades, maybe we may want to delay this until we've done more than just send emails. And that may mean a boots on the ground approach showing up at a neighborhood association meeting, if they have them, I assume they do, because they're active. So I certainly think it's important enough to just say, hey, maybe we may want to pause on this just to do a better job getting community engagement. I think this is important, and I don't want to dismiss in any part, like I said, the work that has gone into this, but I also want to have better language in something like this. You know, when you're putting a ballot initiative in front of someone, you want to be very, very detailed, very specific, because future RFPs can come up, and we may not get that workforce housing. We may not see community green space, or we may not see a specific Unity Park, let's just say. Things like that can be erased and built over easily, and I want to make sure we preserve and protect what we can while we can, because those non-parcels, once they're gone, we can't get them back. So I really want to say, hey, maybe this is important enough to where we may want to pause at least until we can work out the kinks in the language. I certainly wish, again, we can't change what's already happened in the past, but I certainly wish we would have done a little better job with outreach, but what's happened has happened. We've got to move forward. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Harding. Thank you, Chair. Joe, let's back up a few more steps. Those parcels have been sitting there literally forever. They've been parkland since St. Pete's been around, and to your knowledge, have we ever done anything with them, or have they just sat there? Yeah, I may not be the best person to answer that. Good afternoon, Council. Aaron Fish, Real Estate Property Management Director. Council Member, thank you for the question. Since the acquisition of these properties, which all occurred in the 70s as part of the Jamestown Redevelopment Plan, these parcels served originally as buffer parcels in accordance with the plan. They were added as part of the collective parcel 33 on the parks and waterfront map in 1984, which also includes unity park and what we refer to as the Jamestown park parcel, which is abutting the Jamestown apartment complex. But these nine infill lots have sat vacant since the 1970s. They have not served a purpose. They were not intended to be created a park out of them. And because they're on the parks and waterfront map, obviously it limits us because we are, per the charter, limited to a maximum of a three-year lease, which we could not develop something on a three-year lease. So yeah, thank you for the question. Joe, can I follow up with the genesis to do something with these nine parcels? Um, was what in that thinking, um, did that involve complaints, code complaints, possible police complaints? I know that's not your, your value, but were there, were there codes complaints or dumping or you'd mentioned? Yes. Council member Harding, are you, are you asking, you know, how this started with looking at this? I, I, my recollection is this was a council new business item, I think. No, no, I, oh, way back then. Okay. Yeah. I, but, but I didn't mean the genesis, did it come from administration? I get, I'll be more direct. Have there been issues with those properties? Yes, there, there's been some activity there where we've had to work with parks and recreation, um, because they're responsible for maintaining it, you know, because there's illegal dumping or other things that do occur. It's a vacant lot within, you know, the neighborhood. We experience it throughout the city as well, so. Okay. I, I wanted that perspective. Thank you, Joe. I appreciate it. Brett, um, the, um, an odd question. If this were, if this were to go on the ballot in order to pass at, at 1201 the next day, what happens with that property? What is it now? Uh, nothing happens at 1201 the next day because charter amendments are not affected until filed with the city, uh, the secretary of state. So, uh, this is one where, uh, no, it's, but, but to answer your question, once that occurred, uh, the, these would no longer be, uh, protected under charter section 1.02, which imposes the leasing limitations that Mr. Fish described. They would merely be city owned property that could be re could be used in whatever manner is permitted by the applicable land use restrictions. So. And so by virtue of that, would it, would it default to a different zoning code? Nothing would change the, the zoning and the future land use map designations are what they are. This would not change that. And those land use and zoning designations, uh, are, are what they are because it is a park on the, on the map. And so the next step and the step that cannot be done by referendum would be to switch those being used for housing to different designations. Presumably they would just be integrated into the, we have the same zoning and same future land use map designations as the neighborhood around them. One of the findings talks about this, but that's a separate process that cannot be done by referendum. So that would be step two in this process. And then once that was done, then the larger lots would, the current plan is to put out an RFP for the development of those. And then for the smaller lots, they would, the single family lots, those would go into the lot disposition program. Okay. Could you pull up the, the, the wording the way that we have it currently? Um, remove those name of vacant lots from the map to allow subsequent separate land use changes and potential sale of those lots for affordable or workforce housing that, that if you took out the, the, from and on and potential sale, does that, does that leave room for if the city wanted to lease it to a farmer to grow hops? I think that's a great idea. Does that fit within that, that scope? Uh, Sue, well, if you, if you dropped everything after map, including the reference for affordable and workforce housing, it would be anything that is authorized under whatever the applicable land use regulations are. So. So my point in all that is, is after that, it says and potential sale. So doesn't that leave us open to, if we don't want to sell all of them, we can, is that, is that breadth in there? The, the current language would allow for sale, but not require it. And that was, that was discussed at, but does it give us the, it says and potential sale, which means we don't have to sell it. It's potential. But if we didn't sell it, can we do other things with it? Yes. So. Subject to the, the zoning. Yes. That is my exact point, which we decide on the zoning of it anyway. So it is fairly open to whatever fits within what we do. We don't have to sell this for affordable housing. Uh, and, and this isn't, this is something I touched on in the last meeting because of this legal regime, this, that came out of hometown democracy, where there was a push on to require a referendum for land use changes. The legislature said, you may not, you shall not use a referendum for land use changes. So at one point in committee, uh, there was discussion. Wouldn't it be great if we package these together so that at 12 at 1 AM, so to speak once like this would do both at the same time. So it was immediately available for housing use. And then we realized, wait a minute, we cannot do that. We must decouple the two. And so that's why this is worded in this way. Were it not for that statutory provision, we would bundle the two together and it could be much cleaner, but the way this is and must be structured, this removes them from the map and states that it is being done for the purpose of that, but it cannot require that that is the thing being done. And it's not a matter of drafting or not. It's a matter of there is a legislative impediment to doing so. And that is exactly why it can be used for other things. And I understand that, that some of us up here want to slow this down, but it's been there since the 1980s. And, and what I read there is that, that if this passes at the end of the day, this is no longer parkland. That is definitive. The rest of it, um, there, there is wiggle room in there as to what it, what it becomes, because that's determined that a, in a, in a separate action. Yeah. If it, if it was, if you dropped everything after map, so rather than revising it to talk about, uh, affordable or workforce housing or other, and we do have room to say, or other non-commercial community use, uh, if, but if you were to truly just take what's there and drop everything after map, then at that point, it really would be subject to, uh, future to, to land use restrictions and whatever the, the city decides to do with it. Thank you. And I apologize for continuing on this. Um, let me come at it from the other direction. Council member Floyd has been concerned that if we do this, that, that, that, and I, I'm not speaking for you. I'm, I'm paraphrasing that he wants to make sure that this property is used for, for affordable workforce housing. Does this wording then I'm coming at it from the other direction. Does this now push us into that silo of, it has to be, uh, if you were to, are you asking in the way that it appears right now? It, it creates, it states that this is being done for that purpose. It is being done to allow that. But again, because the in between taking it off the map and using it for housing, there are land land use changes that cannot be subject to referendum. There, there is not a direct through line created by this ballot language. It, it, it creates a political expectation that it is being done for that purpose. That, and, and that is the point that I'm trying to drive at. And I understand, I apologize. Politics on this side, legal on that side. Um, in, in what you're saying and what, what I understand is that there, there is not a, uh, a nexus between this and, and what we decide to make it. And in the end, if we wanted to put a top golf on one of those little parcels, there's a way for us to do it. I don't advocate for them by the way. I mean, to, I would say that it would certainly doing that, uh, could be construed as misleading. Someone could argue that it is misleading to say that you are doing it for that purpose, uh, with the intention of then subsequently considering others. Understood. Yeah. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Okay. Um, I'll speak because I know, um, council member Gabbard, you spoke up and so I just want what council member Harding was just saying, the title is called removing city owned vacant lands from park and waterfront map to create housing, which leads the voter, the expectation that that's what you're going to do. No matter, no matter, like, I just want to understand that that's the title right now. And I understand you can't force it, but there is, that's what the purpose is listed as, right? Yes. Yes. I mean, I, I just want to be crystal clear. I understand that there is potential and all that sort of stuff and you don't have to, but, but my, my, my point is the way it's worded right now, that is the intent that is being shown. Yes. And the, the, the difficulty with something like this, because this land use changes in the middle, which we cannot subject to referendum. We cannot make automatic the, the poll star for a court in evaluating the sufficiency of ballot languages. Is it misleading? Right. Okay. And so the, it is already, this is already a difficult course to take because of what I've described today. So first of all, I want to, I want to thank Methodist Sound for organizing. I think that's great. I used to be the president of Crescent Lake Neighborhood Association. So I hear you and I absolutely understand where you're coming from. And there is every neighborhood out there wants to be a voice for their community. And so I completely understand you. I think the issue here was the timing in terms of when this happened, because I, at least from my experience, being on city council and being part of a neighborhood, I think you just got caught at a wrong time. This was going on. And I just want you to understand that that's just a unique aspect of where you came into this process, because from my experience, we do get neighborhoods involved and we do listen to the neighborhoods and get feedback and try to work with neighborhoods. So I just want to say that from the outset. So I think, I think the, the unfortunate part was there is a timing issue and where this came in the process. The other part is, um, because you're dealing with referendums, there is the timing issue as to when they go on the ballot, so on and so forth. And then you have the use of that land that maybe has been used for purposes that it shouldn't be. And it's caused issues and whatever. So having said that, I am very sensitive to how you feel because like council member Gabbard, if there is a way where you can do this, look, the reality is this has been like this for a long time. I think the issue with not doing something is that we are limited by these lease provisions and all that being in the charter. And I think that's kind of one of the, the main reason why you're having this ballot language, right? Is to make sure like, okay, now it's not subject to those charter limitations. The, the question before us is right now, as I understand it, whether or not we should go ahead and make sure that there is language in there, just in case we can use it for other community uses. And that's all you're asking for. That may pan out, it may not pan out, but I get where you're coming from. Because if it just said, does, if it only says housing, then you may not see what you may want to see in the future. Maybe that works out, maybe it doesn't, I don't know. I do know this. I know none of this is going to happen overnight. Whether it's housing, whether the language changes as it passes and housing, that's not happening overnight either. So I, so where I come from this is if legally we can add something like a community use where you can, you know, have that and create housing like was discussed, I don't see the harm in it because I think that allows those conversations to happen. And you may end up in the same, you may end up finding out that housing may be the best thing because you may still have problems with those lots. And so I lean to that because one of the things and whether or not the conversation's been happening, you know, six months or a year, to me, that's not as important as making sure that we're doing the right thing for the community there, period. And I don't want the message to be, well, council and administration, they've been having this conversation and it doesn't matter if there is a way that we can fix it. I think there is that potential. I am open to it and having that conversation. And frankly, I don't think anyone here can foresee what this may be, you know, what may happen with these lots in the future. Okay. You may find that what you want is not what you end up wanting six months from now. But the concern is once you have this out there and if it passes, then that ability may be gone. So if legal says that there is a way that this can be done, and trust me, I can imagine the attorneys are very happy to draft language on the day that we're voting for something. I get why because you may, for instance, if we made a definition and the attorney just reminded me, if we decide, okay, we're going to kind of say, well, the purpose of this is for community uses and community uses includes community gardens, X, Y, and Z, but not commercial uses. Well, what happens if you have a community garden sale and that's more of a commercial use? Now you can't do that. So you can have unintended consequences when you start having definitions. And we're doing things like that on the fly. But that's something that we can think about. And I I'm open to that. And I just wanted to throw it out there because I think you still get the affordable housing workforce housing, the city will be able to get it off the list and the charter, which I think is the biggest issue. I think this is why it's very limiting to have that the way it is right now. And because of the issues you've seen, and I think we've heard from staff. So we'll go to Councilmember Gerdes and then Councilmember Gabbard. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm right where I was the last meeting very direct about this. I we have gone through years of discussions about this. It's we were very intentional about what we wanted to do with the properties if we took them off of the parkland map and have had multiple conversations about it. And I again, I appreciate all the feedback. And it's not that it doesn't mean anything because it does. But there have, like I said, there have been years of conversation across multiple councils to come up with this plan because these properties have been a nuisance and they will continue to be a nuisance if we don't do anything about it. The problem I have with the proposed possible proposed changes is that it just opens the door to so many other things and there's a waterfall effect inside of the ordinance. And so I'm struggling hard with that and I appreciate the intention behind it. But I go back to, well, there was a lot of intention for a lot of years to get these to do what we all talk about. I think we all can agree we need affordable housing. This is one way to deliver it. And and to to open that back up the day of it is I I just don't think it's the route to go. So that's where I'm at. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Council Member Gabbard. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to maybe add one more wrinkle to this. But I just want to kind of do a little bit of a history lesson on Aaron. Can we talk about so this passes and it is removed from parkland and maybe it doesn't have, you know, this verbiage? Maybe it does. But once it becomes just city owned land that is not on the protected park charter map, then can you talk about how the city owned land policy that we passed in late 2023, which is an administrative policy. It is not an ordinance. It's not required. But it is administrative guidance around how city owned land gets disseminated. And can you talk a little bit about that from like the housing first standpoint? If God forbid, you know, these are taken off the map, we don't have this language, maybe an unsolicited bid comes in, then we look at it for housing, do an RFP. Can you just remind us of that? Because this council passed the support of that along with work with administration. And one of the challenges so that everyone knows, I championed this particular initiative because we were looking for more opportunity to be able to build affordable housing. And selfishly, I was also looking for ways to be able to build community gardens. Okay, so when we did this inventory of city owned land, we discovered a lot of parcels like this around the city. And they are all parkland. They're these small parcels you can't do much with. They're all parkland. And so this is almost kind of a little bit of a part two of that work that we did. So can you talk a little bit about that city owned land policy and how that would be applied once these are taken off of the park map? Certainly council member, thank you for the question. The the city owned land policy that was adopted in the revisions that were adopted in 2023 included any parcel that the city has that could accommodate more than four housing units. The preference would be to issue an RFP for those properties. Anything less than that, we could use a different process now in in the scenario that we proposed and we've discussed at HLUT was that the four smaller lots as part of these lots would go into the affordable lot disposition program. That program already has set guidelines of how the program works. There's a lease and development agreement that the developers have to abide by and then those lots are then sold in accordance with that program. The multi-family lots or the lots that are larger could support multi-family. That could happen in different ways. RFP could go out. I think the important thing here is that the city still maintains control through the process and and guides the process and how that looks including any land use restrictions or anything that that could be placed on those properties to meet the city's objectives. Right and I think it's just important for everyone to understand there's a lot of different triggers right that kind of can be at play once something does become city-owned land without park restriction. And I just wanted to make sure that people understood that there are some other protections as well around what this land could become regardless of this language specific to affordable housing. So I just kind of wanted to make sure that everyone understood that because it gets a little bit more complicated I think than just what we see here. So thank you for that. I'm going to go back to my original question about alternative language and kind of where we are right now. I'm hearing no alternative language. I'm hearing concern about alternative language. Like I think I don't know that we see any sort of consensus right now, but I would still like to physically see that language before we kind of continue this conversation. So where would we be at? So we would council member we could kind of table this item if that's the will of the body. We would need a little time. We have to go through checking the findings too and expanding the findings. We would, I would say before we go do that, it would be helpful if you could point us in the direction of how far to expand it. Um, if it's the community use, if it's the non-commercial community use, like chair said, um, just thinking about that quickly, that could be on the one hand, it could address council part of council member Floyd's concern and maybe try to rein in what that means and be clear that it's not commercial, but then anything that, that would seem to be commercial, including the sale at a community garden would be a hundred percent off limits. So there, it can accomplish one thing while potentially restricting something depending on, on what you would all want to see. So if there's any other feedback, we would take it now. We would have to come back to take a recess. I think probably at least 30 minutes. Uh, and then we can put something back in front of you. We would just have to keep the chair posted in terms of when we're ready. So my last question, um, for legal, as we're contemplating this, the conversation around commercial use. And so these would be residential zone or how would these be? I mean, I don't have the land use map. Uh, so right, right now they are neighborhood, suburban estate and recreation, open space, because that's, that's what the parks are set at. Uh, if they were changed to match the current designation for the adjacent parcels, they would be in a neighborhood, suburban multifamily to and residential high. Okay. So then my last question about commercial use, and you may need to contemplate this if we go to, uh, like a recess on this. Um, how does the urban ag ordinance fall into play in this desire to be able to potentially use them for, uh, urban gardens? And then that commercial use of having like a sale or something like that. That would just be my only other question. Cause if they're residential, like the use is multifamily and NS neighborhood suburban, you said, uh, that would just be my only other question. It's currently NSM, the adjacent parcels are NSM two and residential high. Yeah. Because the urban ag ordinance of 2021, that allows for people to be able to sell what grows on a parcel in a residential neighborhood. Sure. Just a matter of if this language, just because it would be permissible. Yeah. Just like the other discussion of if, if this says, if the question says that it's a non-commercial. Right. Community use. Yeah. And that's what the voter is being led to believe. Yeah. So we would just want to make sure that this isn't misleading, just like we talked about. Absolutely. Okay. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Vice Chair Floyd. Thank you. Um, I think I saw James Corbett come in and I think that he's probably the appropriate person to direct this towards. Uh, did this, didn't this conversation start, uh, with a new business item from council member Driscoll, who I wish was here. Uh, and the new business item. And was a discussion about expanding Jamestown apartments. Is that correct? That's correct. No, it began a few years ago with council member Driscoll's wish to see if we could expand the footprint of, um, Jamestown. Um, and I know this is not your question, council member Floyd, but I, I did want to just in the, uh, our logic with the language and why we were specific and, um, administrative Jeffries is not here. But as you all know, um, and I think administrator Gertz has said this before parkland is held in high regard here in the city and our charters strong that way, um, for that purpose. And we felt like if voters are going to agree to take, um, something away from not being parkland, excuse me, they should, they, they would want to know exactly what it's being used for. So we were specific and what we, that's why we said it will be used for workforce and affordable housing. I believe if it's unclear to you what that means, it's likely going to be unclear to a voter and that, that uncertainty might end up making it not a successful ballot initiative. So, um, I understand we're trying to play with the language, but I do believe that having certainty. So the voters know exactly what they're saying, like, we're taking it from this and we're going to that, um, is why we were comfortable because we, we wanted to be workforce and affordable housing as well. We were comfortable with having that specific language in there. Thank you. Yeah. I bring up the, my question because like there's been a lot of talk about the origination of this and there was talk about nuisance properties and whatnot. But this originated from a new business item about affordable and workforce housing and, uh, and then, yeah, but I did not ask you about the second part, but that second part does touch on what I was bringing up earlier, which is, um, I don't want to go to a referendum where there's uncertainty around what might happen there, uh, not just for whether or not it's successful, although that is very important because if this isn't successful, it remains parkland. It's parkland for two years and the nuisances that have been brought up a few times are not going away for at least two years, uh, at least two additional years because they're not going to go away right after the referendum anyway. So, um, I, uh, remain in the same place where the barrier, the bar to alternative language is going to have to make me feel like, oh, okay, this isn't, this is exactly what it's going to get used for. And I haven't heard anything like that yet. So I'll leave it there. Thanks. Council Member Fick Sanders. Thank you. Um, uh, I, I, I'm pleased to hear what, uh, my colleagues have to say about this, but I'm going to kind of go in the same direction as Council Member Gerdes, um, because I, I've been on council the last six years and we went into this knowing what the expectation was. Um, and housing has been, um, affordable housing, um, has been the biggest draw to why we initiated this conversation in the first place. So, um, I'm, I'm not saying that I am against additional conversation about it. However, when you worked on something for five, six, seven years, um, to try to change it on the dais, I think is, is irresponsible for us. Um, considering the fact that this is not new language, this isn't something that just popped up last year or six months ago. Um, so I agree with Chair Hanowitz, the timing was bad for the Neighborhood Association. Um, I'm not certain as to what the outreach looked like, but housing has always been the driving force for the city of St. Petersburg. We have market rate going up all over the place, but to say no, that we're not going to utilize land for affordable housing at this date. Um, I'm kind of uncomfortable with that, um, only because we only have so many city parcels that we can actually use for that. And then we do have a time issue because referendums have to be decided by a certain time. It's not like we can, it's either now or I can't say either now or never, cause you know, it may or may not pass. The clarity of it for me is super clear. Removing city owned vacant lots from park and waterfront to create housing. Um, pointed point is very clear. The point where they may have some type of, um, a little confusion is separate land use changes and potential sale of those. And I did ask, um, administrative Corbett about that potential sale of those lots for affordable and workforce housing, because I didn't want to make sure that there was no room, um, for market rate or commercial. Um, and I, I hear attorney, um, Pettigrew is, is regarding the community aspect of it. They may want to sell some of the things from their, their, their community gardens. There are a couple of community gardens that I've visited that started in the upkeep. It's not there. I mean, it's just, I mean, it's just not there. Um, so although I do want to protect park and waterfront, the initial conversation, um, many, many years ago was for housing and I just don't want to lose that. So, um, I'm okay with where we are. Um, I support where we are. Um, I, I guess when you, like I said, when you worked on something for six years, it may have been longer than that. Um, um, I'm, I'm okay with where we are. So that's kind of where my stance with that. So I will entertain anything else, but publicly I want to, to say that I'm okay with where we are. Thank you, chair. Thank you. Um, before I go to council member Harding, I want to ask legal, um, and there's a discussion obviously as to clarity, um, the purpose of this. And so the title is removing city owned vacant lots from park and waterfront map to create housing. There's concern about taking park land, but within this, it says, obviously the city charter park and waterfront map contains a composite parcel identified as Jamestown composed of unity park, recreational open space within Jamestown apartments and nine city owned lots in the adjacent neighborhood that are vacant and closed to the public. That doesn't read to me as park land, right? Uh, that, that is correct. That is the issue, right? That's what we're trying to fix. So I just want, I want, I don't think anybody that's going to read this is thinking we're taking away park land. We're right. It's, and that, that's, that's the crux of the issue. It is technically, it is legally charter protected park land. It has not at any point, uh, in its history, as I understand it, been used for that purpose. Right. It's close to the public. So, so if, if you had community uses as language, and this is just, if you put that there, then how does that transform what happens on that land? It would, I mean, one option is to do, uh, you know, non-commercial community uses, which has been pointed out is, uh, not entirely, not strongly defined. A narrow, I'm sorry, I wasn't clear, I wasn't clear. What, what I'm trying to understand is, the land has been not properly used at the time, at this time, right? There's dumping and other things going on this property where people are not supposed to be doing this, right? Right? Is that from administration? Like, right now, how is that land being used? It's close to the public. Just to be crystal clear. I'm sorry, I can't repeat. Yeah, so just to be crystal clear, this land, right, it's not, all technically is within this map and whatever, in the charter, it's not really used as public parkland. It's close to the public, right? It's not used as public parkland. There are no trespassing signs. Right. It's not best off. Okay. And I think Mr. Wall testified there's been some active code violations in the past, at least, on the property. Yes, there has been. Okay, that's, okay, so now what I want to understand is, if we change the language in this to create and pass this, and it's off the, it's not in the map anymore, and it's, whether it's to create housing or to create housing and commercial use, in the meantime, there will still be no trespassing signs. What happens then? I'm just curious in terms of the practical effect of what happens with that land. There's no, I mean, from a, what is it allowed to be used for? At that point, yeah, like, what happens? Nothing changes in terms of its allowed use. Restrictions are removed. The charter restrictions are removed. Everything else is status quo. So we can still prevent, I mean, we still have no trespassing signs, right, all that other stuff. That stays the same. Okay. I just want to understand, in terms of you add that language for community uses, how that may change anything, but it doesn't change anything like that. Okay. I don't have the concern about clarity for the voters, because when I read this, it's clear to me that that land is not used for parks. It's, I mean, it literally says it's closed to the public. So the issue is taking off the restrictions off the map and then what you're going to use it for. And you're going to have advocates for affordable housing, that that's all we need, and it's an important issue in our city, which it is. And there are other concerns that people have in our city, including quality of life issues and neighborhood character and so on and so forth. So that's what we're dealing with right now, whether or not we're going to allow for more different uses for community uses and all that and affordable housing, too, or not. And I think that's where the question, where it lands. And if that's where it lands for me, I don't have a problem with that flexibility, and I frankly don't think that voting-wise it's going to change anybody's mind in terms of the parkland issue, what was discussed, and clarity, because the reality is I think it's pretty clear that this land is closed to the public, and now you're going to take off the restriction, and either you can sell it for affordable work for housing or you can use it for community uses. So I'll leave it there. Council Member Harding. Thank you, Chair. I went through 10 minutes of Brett holding my hand and didn't end with I also intend to support this as it's written. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Chair, we could use a little guidance on the few different options that were on the table of how to reword the ballot question. We've talked about adding commercial uses, adding community uses, adding non-commercial community uses, or another idea that Brett had was to be specific and just list some of the things. For example, community gardens, or if it was community gardens and something else, if the word count works. I mean, I'm trying to figure out where this is going to land right now. Move approval, J5. So there you go. Second. We have a motion, seconded, Clerk. Second. If you can open the machine for voting, Council Members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all Council Members have voted, Clerk, please tally and announce a vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve of June Item J5, passes 6-1, with Council Members Vic Sanders, Floyd, Gabbert, Gerdes, and Harding voting yes, Council Member Hanowitz voting no, and Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for being here on this item. Next up is J6. Opposed ordinance number 640H, 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 the November 3rd, 2026 Municipal General Election to authorize such amendment, establishing conditions for such amendment if approved by that referenda, providing ballot text for that referenda, and providing an effective date. No cards. And we have no cards. Move approval. Second. Motion to second, Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Council Members, please enter your votes. Seen and all present, Council Members have voted. Clerk, please tally and announce a vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve of June Item J6, passes unanimously, with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Next up, we have J7, Clerk. Proposed ordinance number 641H, 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 amendment, referendum, I'm sorry, and providing an effective date. And we have no cards. 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 and announce a vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve of June Item J6, J7 passes unanimously, but Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Next up, we have J8. Opposed ordinance number 642H, an ordinance concerning 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 that 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 and no cards. 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, tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve of J8. 8 passes unanimously with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Next up, we have the legal item, which is the resolution concerning the order of municipal referendum questions on the ballot. Brett. Thank you, Chair. So, at the July 9th meeting, you preliminary set the following ballot order, General Obligation Bond, Jamestown, Harbridge, Port, Election Cleanup. Congratulations. You have just approved putting all five of those on the ballot. Now that you have done so, City Code Section 10-5 authorizes you to adopt a resolution to establish that order, and you have such a resolution before you. But as noted in the memo preceding this, the supervisor of elections believes that municipalities are required to place charter amendments before all other types of referendum. Our office has researched this issue and disagrees. We conclude that you have the authority to set these in the order that you want. I have had multiple calls with general counsel for the supervisor that have been productive, and we have both heard each other out. While they understand our interpretation, they have not changed their interpretation, and we have been invited to submit a request to the division for an opinion on this issue. I have prepared such a request, and if you approve the resolution as it is written today, we would submit that request to the division promptly. So looking ahead, the deadline for finalizing the ballot order is on August 7th. You do have another meeting on August 6th. If the division affirmed the city attorney's office's interpretation, your work would be done. We would need not discuss it on that date. If the division returns the supervisor's interpretation, we would discuss alternatives at that time. And if we had no division opinion by that time, we would, again, discuss alternatives. I wish I had a more definitive answer at this time, but that is where things stand. Move of approval. I want. Second. Okay. Council Member Harding. We have public comment, Madam Chair. Oh, sorry. Public comment. Jerry F., once you enter to the meeting's place, please unmute yourself. State your name and address. You'll have three minutes to address City Council. Hello. And just to clarify, I'm hoping to speak during open forum. We'll come back to you. Thanks so much. Okay. Council Member Harding. Thank you, Chair. Brett, just to be clear in all of that, because I'm still stuck on what you can do with parkland, did you say that we're not in line with the way that the supervisor of elections wants to format this? That is correct. And if we pass this, we're now in contention? We have not yet submitted anything to the supervisor. The deadline for submitting the municipal ballot election, along with the form, is August 7th. And just so I understand, because this is new to me, what do we care? What if we just capitulate to the supervisor of elections? And is there something that I'm missing in the way that we have ordered it? Or it's the supervisor, when reading the applicable statutes and rules, infers sort of from the general principles that charter amendments, because they have a higher priority than other things, because they're like the municipal constitution, those need to be placed before other types of municipal referendum questions. When we read the statutes and the rule, we see a requirement that the municipal referendum questions be placed together on the ballot, before or after state and county questions, before special district questions. And beyond that, the rule says nothing. So this is not the political will. This is a difference in legal interpretation? It is, Council Member. And let me add, the reason for us pursuing this, because we have a disagreement on the legal analysis, is we thought we heard pretty strongly from Council Members during the discussion that you wanted the GOBON first. If we, like Brett indicated, we feel like it's pretty clear. And because we heard Council express what we believe to be a strong opinion on the order, we thought it was worth it. And because there is another meeting that we could come back and have further discussion, we thought, based on what we believe to be the strength of the argument and the research that has been done, that it was worth it. Okay, and is there any chance this could affect us meeting any deadlines, that we might not get something? No. Or we'll definitely solve this before then? We will come back. Like Brett said, if the Division of Elections agreed with our interpretation, that will be the last that we have to discuss it. And if they disagree with us, or we don't hear from them, then we will be discussing it at another, at your next meeting in August, so that we can, at the meeting in August, so that we can outline the options then. But this is not, there's room for us to have further discussion and for you to make alternative decisions, depending on how this plays out. Okay. So we're fine. Thank you, Chair. Did someone second the motion? You guys. There's a motion second, yeah. Thank you. We have a motion of second. Clerk will commission for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all council members have voted, present council members have voted, clerk, please tally announce a vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve a adjournment. I-1 passes unanimously with Council Member Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Next up, we move to open forum. We have one speaker in the chamber and one on Zoom. We'll take the Zoom one first, Madam Chair. Okay, thank you. Jerry F., once you enter into the meeting space, unmute yourself, state your name and address. You'll have three minutes to address, Council. Hello? I'm Jerry Font, 3803, Haynes Road North. I'm here with the Bay Area Dream Defenders. A lot of you have seen me in person before. I'm unfortunately not able to be there today because I was held with work. But I did still want to speak regarding the budget. I know it was released just last week. And I know that we are still, you know, in crunch time to make adjustments to what the budget looks like. I'm going to recall on City Council and Mayor's office to push forward the Save Our Streets campaign that the Dream Defenders has been bringing to you all for years now. In May, I was planning on coming and talking about 14-year-old Gage Shantos Brown, who was killed in Child's Park from a shooting, from the exact kind of situations that the Save Our Streets campaign was intended to target. Even his family has been in the media talking about there needs to be more programs for youth and talking about how not only has their family been permanently altered and impacted, but three other youth families have as well. But then, just yesterday, there were two separate killings that occurred in Child's Park neighborhood, both by shootings, one in the YMCA bathroom and one just on the streets. And again, another year has gone by where these things haven't fully been taken into the budget. Another year, we're told, well, maybe next year or, well, there's all kinds of different areas these things can be funded through. And sure, but we've looked through the budget, and a lot of these things aren't getting the funding they need, or some of them are getting funding and not enough. We still call for more funding for youth programming. We still call for more funding, and there are programs that exist that could enjoy more funding than what exists now. But we can also just look at where the budget priorities are. You know, we have a pretty substantial increase on the public safety budget, specifically under the police. Of this increase, 28% is going to various investigations. Meanwhile, the call program is accounting for less than 1% of the police budget increase. There are two positions being created under the call program for youth coaches. I think these are good mechanisms for proactive outreach instead of reactive outreach. Our whole plan is to try and get involved before there's another Gage Santos Brown, before there's two more people who are killed, as we had yesterday, who I don't know the names of yet, because they just happened the day before today. We can't do another year of reacting to harm and damage and loss of life. We need to be proactive. We have about a month to still do it, and we look forward to meeting with anybody in the mayor's office and anybody in city council who is still interested in looking at the budget that we have in front of us to determine where these changes can be made. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Madam Chair, Jay James. Please go to either podium, state your name, address, or across street, and you will have three minutes to address city council. Jay James, 2042, 27th Street South, 33712. This is what, 2026, where you first started talking to y'all three years ago, I think, about us wanting to reinvest in the South Side to reduce and hopefully eventually eliminate youth gun violence. And each year, it's like, oh, we're putting more into the budget for youth programming and outreach. But then when I look at the budget on Saturday, when we read the budget, like, there's whole sections of, like, that's being cut because we're losing grant funding or whatever. Like, that's the opportunity to put our money where our mouth is, put our tax money instead of just relying on grant funding for some of these things that we're supporting. And I don't know, I'm just tired. How many more babies have to die? How many more babies have to die? For real. This is just too much. You know, and it's not like we've been advocating for that much money for the city to spend. Like, the campaign is, what, for the first year asking for a community engagement specialist and, what, two youth engagement specialists who are actually youth who can go into their own communities, you know what I mean, and talk to their folk and say, yo, hey, there's these folk. Because, as we know, they're programming out here. Some of them are underutilized. Some want to be even more utilized. They just don't have the capacity. Like, all the rec centers are full, so it's like, like, how about some capital budget to expand in the rec centers to allow more youth programming? But, like, this is getting more and more outrageous, to be quite honest. Like, we have, like, we have departments that can do this. We just need to fund them. We just need to fund them. And what was it? I couldn't open my document to look at the specific, but there's, like, a department that, is it neighborhood or something, services or whatever? I can't remember the name of the department. That's losing two full-time faculty members. Not faculty. I'm sorry. I work for union, so my workers are faculty members. My bad. Full-time workers who work with, in the neighborhood as liaisons, if I'm understanding their positions correctly. Like, those could have been roles that, oh, let's, you know, have you continue to liaise, but, like, door-to-door. Like, because people, people ain't coming to City Hall to ask you for nothing. Let's be real. And the last one happened at the Watt, come on. Come on, y'all. Come on. Any more speakers? No more speakers. Close open forum, and we go to announcements. Council Member Givens. Thank you, Chair. A lot of the comments made tonight and violence that took place in the community yesterday, I do want to speak to Childs Park, since I do represent Childs Park. But I do want to thank our police for responding quickly to the gun violence that took place yesterday and apprehending those suspects. This is one of the reasons why they've been able to solve 100% of their homicides in the last three years, because we have a great team. But I also want to thank those counselors who were there to support the families and the staff members who lost their colleague yesterday as a result of just senseless violence. I just want to say there is no place for violence in our community, and thankfully, Childs Park has been benign of a lot of that violence recently. Thanks to good community service officers, good neighbors, and just good people all around, Childs Park is not the old Childs Park that it used to be. And I just don't want what happened yesterday to be a bane or a blemish on our neighborhood, on our city. We are a great community, and we will collectively miss our colleague. We mourn with her family, especially her four children. But again, I want to say thank you to those counselors and to our police. So thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Givens. Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, Council Member Givens, I thought that was very well said. Very well said. It's Council Member Floyd's birthday this weekend. I thought he was going to get away with it. There's one more I have to add. All right. There's one more. Brett next Saturday. That's why he's out here. Okay. You want to get sang to. All right. So we're going to sing happy birthday to Brett and Council Member Floyd. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday. Happy birthday. Florida, whichever order you have. Happy birthday to you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you. It's been a difficult week for our community and for our city and city staff. And one of the things that you do notice when tragedy happens is how the community comes together and support each other. And I know that our city family was joined together, locked arm in arm, for our employee that was lost and for those lost in the community. And I think that was felt throughout our city and through our city staff because I've talked to various people. And one of the things that I heard is you could see how close, not just the staff in sanitation, but other departments were there for each other. And so it's a horrible tragedy. And our hearts are with the family and friends of those lost this weekend, this week. So with that being said, it's been a long day. It was longer than probably most of us thought it would last. But it was a good meeting and a lot of good input from everyone. Good work, council members, staff, and everyone, administration. Thank you. Okay. With that, meeting adjourned. Thank you.