City Council - Jun 13, 2024

Welcome to the City of St. Petersburg City Council Meeting. Your elected officials are Mayor Ken Welch, District 1 and Council Vice Chair, Copley Gerdes, District 2, Brandi Gabbard, District 3, Ed Montenari, District 4, Lissette Kanowitz, District 5 and Council Chair, Deborah Figg Sanders, District 6, Gina Driscoll, District 7, John Muhammad, and District 8, Ritchie Floyd. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the June 13, 2024 City Council Meeting, beginning with a roll call. Driscoll? Here. Muhammad? Here. Floyd? Here. Curtis? Here. Gabbard? Here. Montenari? Here. Kanowitz? Here. Vic Sanders? Here. Thank you. Thank you. We will have our invocation today given by the Reverend Carlea Jordan from Mount Zion Progressive Missionary Baptist Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Would you all please stand? To our Mayor, Madam Chair, City Council members and fellow citizens, it is an honor to offer our invocation today. Will you pray with me? Heavenly Father, we come before you today with hearts full of gratitude for the privilege of being a part of this great St. Petersburg community. We thank you for our Mayor and City Council members and for their dedication to making our city a better place. We ask you for your guidance and wisdom as they deliberate and make decisions that will impact the lives of so many. Bless their biological and work families. Grant them peace, strength, and understanding as they support these leaders in their noble work. May their homes be filled with love, joy, and your divine protection. We lift up our entire city to you. Let it be a place where every individual feels valued and heard and where justice and peace reign. Help our leaders nurture the seeds of unity and to foster an environment where all can thrive. Help our citizens to work together, embracing our diversity and building bridges of understanding. Let each of us always seek peace, remembering the admonition from Desiderata to speak your truth quietly and clearly. And listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant. They, too, have their story. Remind us to regard others more highly than ourselves. As this council goes about its task, may they be fair and just, compassionate and kind. Give them the courage to stand up for what is right and the wisdom to know the path forward. Remind us to always listen more than we speak and to seek common ground even when we disagree. May the efforts in and outcomes of this meeting be pleasing to you. And may our leaders embody the spirit of your love and peace in all that they do, say, and decide. In your holy name we pray. Amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please be seated. Reverend Jordan, thank you. Thank you. And thank you for that invocation. Council members, we have an agenda before us. I'll entertain a motion for approval. Move approval. Second. Now that we have a motion to second, clerk, can you please open the machine for voting? Now that all present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, motion to approve the agenda passes unanimously. Thank you. Council members, now we have a consent agenda before us today. Do we have any public comment on the consent? We do not, Madam Chair. We do not. I'll entertain a motion for approval of the consent agenda. Move approval. Second. Now that we have a motion and a second, can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please place your votes. Now that all present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, motion to approve the consent agenda passes unanimously. Thank you. So now we will move into open forum. And just an update, we have 30 minutes allocated for the first open forum. So at 30 minutes, we will close open forum. And as you approach, please make sure you read, present your name and your address. And Ms. Clerk, I'll go ahead and have you read the rules. If you wish to address any council on subjects other than public hearing or quasi-judicial items listed on the agenda, please sign up with the clerk. Only the individuals who wish 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 when the item comes up on the agenda. In order to provide an opportunity for all citizens to address council, each individual will be given three minutes to speak. And after, the microphone will be muted. If you wish to address city council through the Zoom meeting, you must use the raise hand feature button on the Zoom app or enter star 9 on your phone at the time the agenda item is addressed. When it is your turn to speak, you will be unmuted and asked to state your name and address. At the conclusion of your comments, or when you have reached the three-minute time limit, you will be muted. All raised hands will be lowered after each agenda item. Regardless of the method of participation used, normal rules apply, including the three-minute time limit on comments. The requirement that any presentation materials must be submitted in advance of the meeting and the rules of decorum. If live public comment is disrupted by the violations of the rules of decorum, the chair is authorized to accept public comments by alternate means, including by email only. And, Madam Chair, we do have some speakers. Thank you. The first two speakers is Chris Steinbacher and Bob Warchola. Please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address council. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Honorable City Councilmembers and Mr. Gerties, City Administrator. I am Chris Steinbacher, President and CEO of the St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce at 102nd Avenue North. My heart is filled with gratitude today for the work you all have done, for the work Mr. Gerties and his administration team have done, and all the lawyers that we now love and know their names of and we have trading cards for. This community has put a lot of work together. We're excited about what the opportunities are. We're here to ask you to keep moving forward. We look forward to the red lines that come back. We believe you all have made everything better. We believe all the discussions have allowed us to get to a point now where it is time to make a choice. I come with you, and these are approved, so I just wanted to show you boards in our boardroom. When we start talking about the Rays, we ask our members if they're interested to sign the boards. Over 200 signatures represent those businesses that many of you have received letters from or conversations about. Our chamber is behind this. Our chamber is here to stay when it comes to how are we going to execute on all those promises made. When we started this project 14 years ago when I got here, this was considered the biggest business retention project that we could focus on. Our chamber of commerce does not want to let any business out of our community. We want them to grow. We want them to continue their investment, and we want those employees to feel like they are part of this community. So we declared that as a business retention project. What we didn't realize is we would get the largest economic development project in the southeast out of this whole thing. We did not realize we would get a brand-new, beautiful neighborhood where promises will be kept. We did not realize we'd get a million-and-a-half square feet of office space where the new jobs will be created for us to continue to live here. So our hearts are filled with gratitude that this has become better, and it becomes better every time you all speak to it. But there comes a point where we have to make a decision so that we can continue to move forward and hit those deadlines. Our biggest fear is if we don't do this, we become Naples or Sarasota. Great communities if you have the money to live there. Great communities if you want to get a good night's sleep. But where are you going to work? Where are you going to live? Where is your job going to be? So while we applaud this about baseball and the Rays, we feel like this is more about that neighborhood and the stadium that's going to attract those people that are going to continue to work and live here. That million-and-a-half square feet of office space, if we don't do this deal, that office space will not come. It won't come for five years. It probably won't come for ten years. Anybody who tells you it will, we have looked around. There's nobody willing to do that right now in our community. Those jobs will be delayed. We can't afford that delay. Nelson Mandela said, May your choices reflect your hopes and not your fears. We hope for this deal to go forward. Thank you very much. Hi. My name is Bob Warkola, 102nd Avenue North. As many of you know, I serve on the Chamber Board. I've served on that intermittently over the last ten years. I also serve as General Counsel to the St. Pete EDC. I want to reiterate that the comments that I'm making are my own. But the EDC is very, very excited about the prospect of being able to market this project to attract not only businesses but, you know, individuals and everything to the site. I do want to commend the mayor and the city's team and you all for your attention to this and your due diligence. I think you've all have made the agreement better, and we appreciate that. St. Pete has experienced tremendous growth over the last 10 to 15 years. The Rays have been a substantial foundation for that growth. The Rays put a winning product on the field year after year. The Rays are a good employer, and most importantly, the Rays are heavily involved in this community. The bottom line is I think the Rays are going to be a great partner going forward. A major goal of the historic gas plant district redevelopment is to fulfill promises, past promises, and I believe that the Rays-Hind project is in the best position to fulfill those promises. If Rays-Hinds is not approved, who is going to ensure that the efforts to fulfill those promises are going to be made, particularly when we're looking at this five years from now and a vacant 85 acres? Who's going to be there to fulfill those promises? I also have read a lot of comments about the terms of this deal and whether it's a good deal for this city. I think you need to look at the sources for those opinions, whether it's sour grapes or undisclosed motivations. No one is going to be completely happy with this deal. If you reject this deal, rather than looking at a 20-year window to fully realize the potential of the site, that window is going to be pushed out to 40 or 50 years, and we may not like how that acreage is developed. Finally, if you approve this deal, this has to be a continuing community project. We all have to be involved to make sure that this becomes the largest gem of many in St. Pete. Thank you. Madam Chair, the next two speakers is Jeff Danner and Andy Oliver. If you stepped up to either podium, state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address Council. My name is Jeff Danner. I live at 2351 Dartmouth Avenue in St. Petersburg. Good evening, Council. As always, thank you for your service. I'm here to talk about something different probably than the rest of the crowd today. The sign ordinance. I spoke to many of you about this. The 2019 sign ordinance that was put into place, most of you weren't here, made every single neighborhood sign in this city noncompliant. If those signs are destroyed or hit by a car, they can't be replaced. So the monuments going in by the Vanilla at the old northeast, the old southeast, the 120 custom-made signs in historic Kenwood cannot be replaced. The new ordinance allows two signs with two sides on them for a total of four. You can't even do the four corners of your neighborhood. Distant Heights with 10,000 homes can have two signs. Rosa Park with 78 homes can have two signs. It's not being enforced. The new signs that were put in in Crescent Lake after the ordinance are too tall. There's too many, and they're still there. Grand Central is commissioned through the TIF funding to large sculptures on the entryways. Both of them will say Grand Central on the basis. The city oversaw this process from the beginning, approved them, approved the funding. They're under construction now. When they're put in place, they will be noncompliant. And I've tried to find out why this signed ordinance, who started it, what was the reason. I keep chasing around. Every department says, no, it wasn't us. It was this department. No, it wasn't us. It was this one. So I'm here today to tell you I'm tired of doing that and put it on you. If you think these signs are a problem in our city and are no longer need to be here, then say so. Put out a notice and take them down. Don't wait for them to rust and get hit by cars and slowly deteriorate. Take them down now. If you don't think it's a problem, if you think there's value in identifying your neighborhood and the pride that goes with it and an opportunity to revitalize the neighborhood in a post-COVID time, a new business item, two public hearings, and deleting that paragraph will make this possible. Historic Kenwood's got 120 of them. 40 of them have public art. I think we're the only public art neighborhood that funds our own public art in the state of Florida. We can't put any more public art on those signs unless it's 10 feet or lower, which is some odd variance is that the signs are non-compliant, but if we put the art 10 feet or below, be compliant. That's a little too low for public art. Our goal is to have all those signs have public art on them. We're up to 40 now, but why bother? Why spend the money? Why pay the artists? Why go through that on those non-compliant signs? So I'm asking you, decide if you think this is value in our neighborhood, then a new business item. If not, then tell us and we'll take them down. I look forward to your response. Thank you. Hi, I'm Andy Oliver, pastor of Allendale United Methodist Church. We've all heard a lot from the Rays about the outpouring of support, but here's what one black community leader texted me today. They said, I have seriously learned so much about the Rays with their backdoor deals, private MOUs, and strategically written checks to orgs in the black community. They have a darn good PR strategy team, and it's unfortunate that it has been so easy to convince so many. But here's the thing. The Rays can't public relations everyone. I've been contacted by so many, from current city staff to numerous former electeds to capitalist loving Republicans, and they all know one thing. This deal isn't wearing any clothes, and half of you are lining up behind it like it's dressed in the finest of linens. You have in your possession now a letter outlining the many federal and state laws, even civil rights statutes, you will be violating by moving forward. And yet some of you continue to march behind this naked deal. But he hasn't got anything on, a little child said. The emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right, but he thought this procession has to go on. The documents aren't even complete yet, and you say we must rush on before more people catch on to the land heist being exposed. You talk about the gas plant as if the exploitation of the people and the land was something that happened long ago, instead of seeing that it's still happening right now in front of us this very day. You can't just do whatever you want with eminent domain stolen land. When you try to do what you're doing now, residents have the right of return. And the only reason you are in a place now to give the Rays, given to the Rays hostage demands to sell the land undervalued, it's because of us, the city, historically forcing black residents to live in one area, then declaring it a blight so that we can devalue it even more before underpaying them so that we could pave it with parking lots, using federal HUD money to do so. Not broken promises, broken legal obligations. Today is just the next step in that systemic exploitation. Today's action aren't somehow separate from the past. Today's actions aren't repairing the past. Today's actions are a continuation of the harm and only able to happen because of the harm of the past. And I, for one, won't be silent when I'm looking at any of our city's electeds foolishly following a land-high steel wearing no clothes. Thank you. Madam Chair, we have two speakers through Zoom. Dan R., once you enter into the meeting space, please state your name and address in city. You'll have three minutes to address city council. Good afternoon. Can everybody hear me okay? Yes, sir. Fantastic. Well, thank you for allowing me the time to speak. My name is Dan Rodriguez, and I live at 2715 2nd Avenue South in the Palmetto Park neighborhood. Yes, that Palmetto Park neighborhood. We'll get to parking mandate eliminations later. Like Stu Sternberg, I'm another kid from Brooklyn who grew up a devoted Mets fan and, more proudly, an original Tampa Bay Devil Rays fan since March of 1995 when they announced. And more successfully, I've raised my youngest of three daughters as an enthusiastic Rays fan whose baseball trash talk is so impressive we've been restricted from Rays Red Sox games. As you can imagine, I'm really proud. I want to see the Rays stay in St. Petersburg. This is really home for me and for our family, and there are many things to love about this city. The waterfront green space, the great beaches, the arts community, which is vibrant, bike and walkability, dog-friendly AF, and perhaps most importantly, a chill, friendly, laid-back vibe that is truly inclusive. A walk down Central Avenue on, you know, past cocktail on a Friday evening says it all for us. The city has been so well run that it's been recognized by so many organizations, both within and outside of the state. There's a lot to be proud of, I think, for what we've done. But there's also a tragic history of intentional disenfranchisement of communities of color, green benches, redlining, and, of course, the demolition of the historic gas plant community. We have an opportunity to make things right in this process, just as the previous speaker mentioned. And I feel like, you know, it's really an opportunity to kind of just hold people accountable and not give away the farm as it relates to the property value, but also the contract terms. And so one of the greatest things I've found about St. Pete is that it seems to be able to do things that most other cities don't do. And so I guess what I'd say is, you know, one of the things, and you've heard this in other ways, but it's a pretty famous saying, you can judge a society the best by how it treats its most vulnerable. And I think it's incumbent on this council, this county, you know, and this office to take a look, take a step back and ask itself the question, are we getting the best deal out of here? I want to see the race day, and I just don't see this as a zero-sum game where it either has to be a yes or a no. I think we can just do better, and we should do better. I thank you for the opportunity to address the council, and I hope you'll do the right thing. Carla Correa, once you enter into the meeting space, please state your name, address, and city. You'll have three minutes to address city council. Hi, Carla Correa, 345 Fifth Avenue North. I'm here with the St. Petersburg Tenants Union, and I'm here to speak against the Rays-Hinds deal. Two days ago, Faith in Florida and the Southern Poverty Law Center sent a damning letter to the city indicating that the proposed redevelopment plan likely violates the city's federal civil rights obligations. The letter goes on to urge the city to chart a new course as the current deal would constitute and continue a pattern of discrimination against black residents of the city in violation of the city's obligations under Title 11 of the Civil Rights Act and the Federal Fair Housing Act. It outlines the historic displacement of black residents of the gas plant district through the use of eminent domain specifically for slum clearances. They go on to emphasize that this form of eminent domain would not be legal today. Ken Welch posted on his Instagram earlier saying that the Rays Stadium will be the foundation of an unprecedented opportunity for jobs, housing, shared economic opportunity, and honoring the promises to the gas plant district. But this is history repeating itself. There's all this prosperity being promised, but who will be prosperous in this deal? Black and low-income residents certainly won't be. The deal promises only 1,250 affordable or workforce housing units based on the area median income, which blatantly ignores the racial wealth gap with only 600 of those units actually being on the property. And this, of course, isn't just particular to only St. Pete. Everywhere around the country where stadiums are developed, whether publicly financed or in whole or in part, serve as a massive force of gentrification and displacement. The people, we're not fooled by the Rays and the city's deceptive sales tactics and talking points. Ken Welch is selling out the working class of St. Pete to the Rays. And as the city council, you have the opportunity and the responsibility to stop this. History is repeating itself. It's your duty to serve your constituents, not the business interests that run this city. And what the constituents need is housing and not a new stadium. Public housing specifically, not more public-private partnerships that are just a shift of public wealth to private hands. We need to call this deal what it is, which is a tremendous waste of public money. This deal is deeply unpopular. If the city isn't completely controlled by corporate interests, they will put the brakes on this deal to reexamine it and allow for there to be a true democratic process in this redevelopment. Thank you. Madam Chair, the next two speakers is Pat Fling and Peter Kent. Please state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address counsel. Pat Fling, 1201 86th Avenue North, St. Pete. I'm here representing two different organizations. First, I'll represent FAST. Any time public funds are used for housing, it should be allocated for those who earn 80% or less of the area median income. These are the people in our community who are at most need. And we know from the Schimberg Center at the University of South Florida that there are over 16,000 people who are under 80% AMI. Representing Sierra Club, we want the vote to be slowed down on the Rays-Hinds Stadium, that the agreement should meet environmental standards, including that we should ensure that the stadium meets Category 5 hurricane standards and it is an evacuation zone for the general public, for those who can't afford to flee the city in case of a storm. Also, it needs to be able to clean up Brooker Creek, which is an environmentally contaminated site, and it should be attractive as a natural environment. And lastly, the stadium should be net zero. It should not be generating and using more energy than it's producing. You could do this by solar panels. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Peter Kent, retired commissioner of Public Works, residing at 8 Academy Way in St. Petersburg. Today, the council should vote against Ordinance 585-H, which authorizes a July 11th public hearing. Chair, I'm sorry. Anything related to the public hearings needs to wait until the public hearings. Thank you. Did you understand that? Can I skip that part of it? Yes. You have to keep your gun around. There's one of the most consequential votes ever taken by the city council. If approved, the administration gets to take back up to 60% of the property taxes paid by the downtown CRA and give it to the Raines-Hines project without a vote. It is taxation without representation. If this ordinance fails, then the $362 million will instead go... References to the ordinance are not appropriate at this time. Our general comments about the gas plant redevelopment are, but not the ordinances themselves. That comment would have to wait until the public hearings. Did you understand that? I'm not hearing you. I don't... So any comments, open forum, you cannot speak on a public hearing item. You can speak on any other item. So the comments previously that were about the gas plant redevelopment deal as a whole are permissible in open forum, but not specifically the ordinances. You would be able to speak to those, but not until the public hearings. Can I put in a card for... You may. So did everyone understand that? Thank you. I got some no's. Not everybody. You have some no's. Well, when you get up and speak, if you start speaking toward anything that is... that's a public hearing item, we will stop you. Okay? First of all, how much time do we have left? Ten minutes. Ten minutes. Ten minutes. Thank you. Can you call the next two speakers? The next speaker is Ron Diner and Patrick Crawley. Please step up to either podium, state your name, and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address counsel. I'm Ron Diner. I live at 1385 Brightwaters in St. Pete. I think that you have to say no to the proposed Ray's Heinz deal if the city is asking you for a vote by July 12th. You need time, complete information, and outside experts, none of which you will have by then. Each of you is elected by all the voters. You need to make sure you have what you need to make a proper decision, to do what matters to voters, to do what will make like butter for them. If a vote is called for by July 12th, you need to vote no because you haven't had all your questions answered. You must require the city to get a current appraisal based on the planned zoning. You have an appraisal which was done just last year for the police headquarters, which is one block away for over $14 million an acre. Is the land not worth for a gas plant $500 or $600 million more than what is proposed in the deal? You need to hire outside counsel to review all the legal documents, but only after they've been provided to you in final form. What is reasonable, what is unreasonable, and what is missing from the documents? You need to evaluate the affordable housing provisions and the ability of the developer to opt out. You need to review all the other city priorities which were recently provided to you, including $5 billion worth of stormwater needs. You need outside economic and development experts to help guide you through the pluses and minuses of the structure of the land development deal and the stadium deal that requires the city to borrow over $700 million in shares, not one nickel in the revenue from the stadium. You need expert advice on environmental considerations. You need the city to conduct a traffic and congestion study. It's not sufficient for the Rays-Hines to say that the loss of 5,000 service parking spaces is not a problem. You need time to learn what your constituents want not and not based on what a few may say to you when you run into them. If you are not prepared to consider the overwhelmingly negative opinions of the deal as expressed in the Mason-Dixon poll recently completed, you should require the city to hire an outside, equally respected polling company. The city of St. Petersburg council members should vote no if a vote is recorded by July 12th. It is not the duty of the council to attempt to negotiate on behalf of the city. Under the city power, the city charter, the power belongs to the mayor. It is your duty to vote no on a motion to approve the product of the negotiations if the proposal is not in the best interest of St. Petersburg. Thank you. And I'm sure the next two speakers is Dylan Dames. I'm sorry. My apologies. That's all right. My name is Patrick Causey. My address is 1985 Carolina Avenue Northeast. I am a resident of St. Pete and have been a resident since 2007. I'm also on the Board of Governors for the St. Pete Area Chamber of Commerce, and I'm here to speak in support of the Rays-Hines proposal. I want to address the misconception that this deal, and we're hearing it today, that this deal is nothing more than a handout to a wealthy sports owner at the expense of taxpayers. That's simply not the case. This deal is not just a deal to build a stadium. It's also a development deal to develop the surrounding area. The development will include the following, 5,700 multifamily housing units, 1.4 million square feet of office space, 300,000 square feet of retail space, 700 hotel rooms, 1,200 affordable housing units, a 2,500-person concert venue. Excuse me, Mr. Causey. Let me let them handle this first, and then you can finish. Thank you. Go ahead. Got it? All right, because I couldn't hear you. That's okay. $50 million in equitable investments and a partridge in a pear tree. This is therefore similar because we're dealing with a baseball stadium and developing the surrounding area. It's similar to what we saw happen at the Battery in Cobb County, Georgia. And there was actually a study that came out in 2023 that talked about the benefits to the taxpayers based on the Battery. And in 2022 alone, the Cobb County taxpayers received $400,000 more in tax revenue than they actually paid for debt servicing, meaning that the project is now turning a profit for the taxpayers in Cobb County. Property values in the Battery rose from $5 million in 2014 to $736 million last year. Moreover, $38 million in tax revenue was provided by the Battery to the county, state, and school district in 2022 alone, almost $10 million of which went to the local school board. These aren't projections. These aren't numbers that are paid for by outside influencers who have a vested interest in trying to sell you a lie. These are verifiable facts of benefits that the residents of Cobb County have achieved because of that deal. And because this deal is very similar, we have both the stadium and the surrounding development happening, I think we can say confidently that the residents of St. Pete will receive a similar benefit in the long term. This is just one of many reasons that I think City Council should support this proposal. Thank you. The next two speakers is Dylan Dames and Aretha Hope. Please state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address Council. Hi, Council. My name is Dylan Dames at 12001 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Street North. I'm here on behalf of Faith in Florida. In college, I started volunteering and organizing in St. Pete, and then I moved here in 2022, not only to a vibrant, creative community, but a progressive one. When I visited my aunt who lives in Jacksonville, she took one look at my septum piercing and said, you got to go to St. Peter, get out of Florida. So I was like, okay, cool, I'll check it out. I say all this to say that I believe in this cabinet and this administration. I wouldn't be here testifying. I definitely wouldn't be here shopping, learning, playing music, or starting a family if I didn't believe in you and all of your capacity to develop in a way that prioritizes the concerns of the public. In an economic and workforce development meeting about Tangerine Plaza, I went to, Council Chair Deborah Fick Sanders said, in rough terms, I'm not a fan of selling everything away. I want to see this lot stay city-owned. We're all afraid of this word, but we face it every day, gentrification. We need to stop selling these valuable commodities to partners who don't have the same care and concern for the community as we do. In the same meeting, Council Member Gabbert shared, it's harder to keep private corporations' feet to the fire. This should be the city's responsibility because the city's not going anywhere. I love these perspectives, I do, but I only wish they extended past your discussion of Tangerine Plaza and into the gas plant. On the gas plant redevelopment, Council Member Driscoll, however, did share with a local news outlet that either the county or the Rays could be putting in public art out of their own funds rather than the city handing money to someone to hand it back to us and pretend they paid for it. Now, I don't say these things to embarrass or criminalize anyone sitting on council. I have great respect for the task that you have taken up, and I understand that it's not for everybody. I couldn't do it, so thank you so much. I even meet with some of you, and I enjoy your company. And to be honest, during the CBAC proceedings and the Cal meetings, it really stressed me out to see city council having difficulty interacting with some of the terms of this agreement because city council is all we have. I have no power to influence the Rays, and neither does anyone else in this room. You're all we have, so you can understand why it brings me great distress to see you confused about a historic development. So here today, where we're at the halfway point of a redevelopment so legendary, this is a call in. I'm actively going against some of my more radical peers who've helped me get here today by calling you in. There's still time. I'm begging you to consider the documented opposition to the shape of this project and hold your leverage because your leverage is our leverage. Your power is our power. You are all we have. I think it's safe to say we've graduated from promises to black people, and now we're talking about obligations. These are things that residents need, and I just urge you and implore you to consider that you are only shot to get this right. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. Good afternoon, members of council, our honorable chair of the council, administrators, and all who are present. My name is Aretha Pope, Jr. I reside at 2624 13th Street South, a lifetime resident of Lake McGorry Shores. I am the current economic development chairperson for the St. Petersburg Branch NAACP. I am born black and have been black all of my life. I'm a civil rights advocate, the former chief of staff to Martin King III, the oldest son of Dr. King. I've served in many significant capacities on economic development, stadium development, working in the U.S. Congress and in the U.S. Senate. I am here to speak proudly on behalf of the gas plant development I have written you previously. I stand principled with the organization that I represent, the NAACP. I stand principally based on the MOU, which I respectfully disagree with, and I am the co-author, along with the firm that I also am affiliated with, the Aerial Business Group, who wrote that and agreed with that through the Council of the Rays. I want to say this to everyone, the work takes a concerted effort to understand economic impact, what it means to not have a stadium when everything and everyone else in this region, it is not just about a stadium and stadium economy. It is about the overall economic impact, the value-added proposition to this city in housing, in training, and workforce development, and what I refuse to admit to or phrase as affordable housing because the rent is too damn high. It's not affordable. I call it sustainable housing. Let's get serious. Let's get real about what is happening. There is no other opportunity in this region greater than the impact to our city than this development. The Rays have been principled stewards of good faith in our community. I know them well. I work with them well. It is not an assumption that I present to you. I say let's be purposeful. Let's be absolutely on task and on target. I thank and commend everyone on city staff who's done the homework. You are very competent. Nobody needs to go outside of you to necessarily advise you on the sustainability. Populous is one of the greatest environmental stewards, developers, and our Rays are our greatest partners and advocates building into our economic value and our social value. Thank you, be principled, be targeted, and let's move forward. Thank you. Thank you. So now we will close open forum and move to our legal item, I-1. Joining us is the Assistant City Attorney, Joseph Kelly. Good afternoon. My name is Joe Kelly. I'm an attorney with the city's legal department. I'm here today to discuss a settlement in the case of Andy Ebro, the city of St. Petersburg. This case involved an accident involving a police vehicle that ran a red light. The plaintiff had no prior complaints of injuries, so the injuries from this case appear to be accident-related. The plaintiff accumulated approximately $50,000 in medical bills. He also received a recommendation for neck surgery, which could potentially drive his future bills substantially higher. The case was originally set for trial this week, but the judge took it off the trial docket so we could present this settlement to you all. So today I would present for your approval our proposed settlement, and pending your approval, we would settle the case for $70,000. Move approval. Second. We have a motion and a properly seconded for I-1. Can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, can you please tally your votes? Now that all present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, a motion to approve agenda item I-1 passes unanimously. Thank you. We will now move to our report item, F-1. Joining us is Economic Development Director, Brian Kaper, and Assistant City Administrator, Tom Green. Hi. Good afternoon, City Council. Good afternoon. This item is a request to increase the not-to-exceed amount of the engagement letter with Fager, Drinker, Biddle, and Reith by $550,000 from its current amount of $950,000 to $1.5 million. City Council approved the increase up to $950,000 back on March 21st of this year. Since then, we have worked tirelessly with our outside council on the documents related to the historic gas plant project. And the current amounts are very close to being exhausted, so this increase will cover any remaining work that needs to be completed by our outside council and allow us to successfully complete the drafting of these agreements. Mr. Green is going to walk through a summary of the expenses that have been made to date related to the historic gas plant district. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and City Council. Well, each time we seek an appropriation for resources with respect to the historic gas plant and the stadium project, it has been requested that we do a summary of all expenditures to date. And so, the item on the screen and what was provided in your backup is a summary of all the expenditures for the various outside professionals that we have engaged since fiscal year 2020 through today. Highlighted in yellow on this table is the $550,000 we're seeking today. And so, just to summarize, you can see that over those four fiscal years, we have expended a total of $2.4 million on various professionals. And it is separated on the table by different categories, including inner circle sports, Victus, for the economic development study. And I'll just point out, and it's evident here on this slide or on this table, the inner circle sports and Victus has been a shared expense with Pinellas County. We also have expenses for HR&A, the real estate consultant, public financial management, Fragrine Drinker, et al., Bryant Miller & Olive, our bond counsel. And the most recent one that we discussed yesterday at the Cow is Skanska, our owner's rep. So, that summarizes every dollar that has been deployed for various outside professionals. And we are certainly able to answer any questions that you might have. And, Chair, if I could just add a comment. Yes. I just want to make a clarification. Good afternoon, City Council. Yesterday at the Cow, there was some discussion about project costs. And I was, if you remember, I was digging through the agreement looking for the definition because I thought the numbers were in there, but they weren't. So, I did some further research on that. And I just want to be clear with counsel, so I'm up front. In the project costs, there has been an agreement related to the outside counsel fees that will be reimbursed as part of the project costs. And the city administration agreed with the raise that that number would be $750,000 of project costs and reimbursement for outside counsel. So, I just want you to have that information. Thank you. Council Member Hanowitz. Thank you, Chair. So, I pulled this item for several reasons. First, this has to do with the gas plant redevelopment. And I think that anything that has to do with this deal, given the size of the project and the public interest, has to be on our regular agenda, not on consent items. So, that was the main reason I pulled this. Also, the last approval was $400,000, and we were told at that time that would get us through the rest of this process, and y'all would not be coming back again. Now, clearly, you're back. And now the increase is another $500,000. The last time you requested money was March 21, 2024, and here is June 14, 2024. To me, it's clear, obviously, the attorneys are putting a ton of time in this, but my concern from the get-go was the speed at which this is going. And to me, when I look at the bills and how they're increasing, it's because we're having attorneys work around the clock, and this is being pushed as fast as possible. So, I have problems with the deal. I have problems with the fact that we are going as fast as we are going on this, and I think the billing shows that. So, I just wanted to make sure and put that on the record again. Thank you. So, Chair, if we could just respond to that, just also for the record and just to let people know our concerns around timing. First of all, it is our hope that we do bring the final documents to City Council on July 11th, but we've said that, you know, that is if the documents are ready and completed two weeks in advance, and the city attorney has time to review those top to bottom. Other reasons why we're trying to hit this timeline is we really, if this goes forward, we really want the surrounding development in Phase A to open at the same time as the stadium. And the more time it takes for the approval to happen, the more difficult that is. So, we need to get Heinz active in permitting and raising equity in order to complete Phase A on time, and that is one of the reasons why we would like to move forward on the 11th. We've also shared with City Council that there is a new affordable housing, large-scale development potential for funding that came out from the state. Now, we're reviewing that. We're not positive that the development will be able to apply for that, but it is a potential $25 million opportunity from the state for affordable housing with an application deadline of July 17th. So, if we were able to have the development agreement approved on July 11th, we would be in a better position to potentially apply for that funding. So, just wanted to share that with City Council. Councilmember Hanowitz. Thank you, Chair, and Rob, I appreciate also the fact that you clarified what happened yesterday at DeKalb, because when I read the project costs, it wasn't clear what that included, and I know it matters what's in that budget. And the budget we have is preliminary, and it's not clear what those numbers are going to be, so we're going to prove something without knowing what those numbers are. And now we know that they have only agreed to $750,000 for our portion of attorney's fees. However, there is no limit to their costs in terms of their professionals in that project budget, is there? I would have to talk to Mr. Silverman about that and look at their project costs and what caps are in there, but we could certainly get back to you in a minute. Okay, because from what I read is, obviously, there is payment for professionals, so it would be interesting to see if they're limiting our costs, $750. Obviously, they have to pay everything above and beyond once our monies are expended, so if this goes, if they're paying for all our costs now, that means it brings down, right, they have to pay out more on their end. And I think that's why they're putting limits on what we can put in as costs, and I don't see why those costs, our costs, are any different than theirs. I think all our costs should be in there, and then once those monies are exhausted, then their monies have to come in. So that's why we should just put in all our costs. But anyhow, so we can have that discussion. I understand, and that's why I wanted to make it clear. Yeah, thank you so much. Move approval. Thank you. Now that we have a motion and a second for F1, clerk, can you please open the machine for voting? Councilmembers, please cast your vote. Now that all present councilmembers have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda item F1 passes 5-3. With Councilmembers Floyd, Hannah Witts, and Mohammed voting no. Councilmembers Driscoll, Fitzs, Sanders, Galbraith, Gerdes, and Montanari voting yes. So now we will move to our new ordinance item, E1, and joining us is Assistant City Administrator Tom Green and Debt Financing Director Ann Fritz. Clerk, can you please read the ordinance title? Ordinance number 585-H, an ordinance of adopting amendments to the in-town redevelopment plan IRP for the city of St. Petersburg City, increasing the redevelopment program budget in amended table 2 from $232.354 million to $574.854 million to fund the stadium project and historic gas plant redevelopment infrastructure in the IRP west of 8th Street, providing an extension of the city's TIF contributions through 2042 and allowing modifications to TIF contributions to the IRP redevelopment trust fund by the city and Pinellas County, providing for severability and providing for an effective date. The public hearing for this item is July the 11th, and we do have some cards in. Good evening, Madam Chair and City Council. This evening, we are seeking approval of the first reading of Ordinance 585-8. This ordinance is a companion to the second amendment and restated interlocal agreement between the city of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County. To summarize this ordinance, this incorporates into the in-town redevelopment plan the four actions from the second amendment and restated interlocal agreement. One, this extends the TIF district to 2042 for city contributions only. Number two, it adds the two projects, the stadium project for $212.5 million and the historic gas plant infrastructure for $130 million. Number three, the county surplus. Once the county reaches its $108.1 million cap, we will calculate the surplus amount, and those resources will be available to pay debt service on the STADCO debt, assuming the stadium is completed. Number four, the flexibility to set the percent funding levels annually, and that amount is to not exceed 60%. Additionally, we incorporate the revised table two and updated various sections of exhibit one of the in-town redevelopment plan with narrative to reflect the sought-after changes in the second amendment and restated interlocal agreement. Finally, as we pointed out yesterday, as pointed out yesterday by Council Member Hanowitz, thank you, by the way, we will update footnote number three on table two. We do not intend for any additional resources from the TIF to be allocated to the stadium or historic gas plant project other than what we just are adding and the $75 million, of course. That footnote was simply missed, and we will correct. Thank you, Madam Chair. We are ready to answer any questions that City Council may have. You said we have cards on this? Yes, we do. The first two speakers is Mary Kattek and William Kilgore. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. We'll have three minutes to address Council. Who was the first card? Mary. Mary. Mary. Okay. Thank you. Hey, everybody. My name is William Kilgore. I reside at 2550 28th Avenue North, and I'm an organizer with the St. Pete Tenants Union. Thanks, Chair. And, yeah, I wanted to speak on this extension of the TIF, and my objections to extending the TIF, regardless of whatever the project is. I don't agree with that. You know, what the TIF does is it creates a bubble in downtown, you know, where all of this wealth is being locked away. You know, that's why we have – and downtown is great. We love downtown. But it's – you know, the problem is is you have some of the top, like, taxpayers in the city, these big corporate landlords, these condominiums with these investors, they're half empty, you know, paying this tax money that's going right back into this district and, you know, increasing the value of their investments. That's all this is. And I think it's wrong, you know, to be extending that and locking that wealth away when there's other needs in our neighborhoods and communities, you know, things that need to be addressed, you know, elsewhere in the city. You know, and look at – like, I'm thinking in 2042, like St. Pete 2050, St. Pete 2042. You know, what's that going to look like? You know, we're going to have, like, this, like, you know, effectively, like, class segregation. I mean, that's what this is. It's going to be this, you know, nice little bubble downtown area, you know, and everywhere else is, you know, going to be having difficulties, you know, getting services and working people aren't benefiting from all this tax money. All this does is benefit the investors and the rich property owners in this TIF district. And so I don't think this should be extended for any reason, you know, and it's – yeah, it's wrong. Thank you. My name's Mary Katok, 5910 Biogram Boulevard Northeast. I'm against the modification at this time, especially for the stadium. The stadium is not resolved. There's many elements of it that need to be more equitable, and to start putting money – extra money into TIF for the stadium prematurely, I feel, is not correct. But at the same time, and piggybacking on this, I have a dear friend of mine. She lives in my same neighborhood in Shore Acres. She's opening up a clinic on 17th Street and Central Avenue. She had gotten permission from the landlord to have six months to renovate the property. And in so doing, she still has no electric hookup. Duke has not done what they need to do. She can't even get a water – Madam Chair, this doesn't appear related to the agenda item unless there's a connection. In what way? Are you speaking to the agenda item or something different? I know you – The TIF, the TIF item. I was just making a correlation that, you know, piggybacking what the other gentleman said about having monies to go toward other things at this point. Nothing specific. But just to draw the example, I mean, there's community people that are trying to open up businesses that can't even get the services, basic services they need to move forward with their businesses. You know, even putting in a water meter. So, anyway, at this point, because of my previous statement, I'm opposed to that amendment and – and – and – and flourishment of the TIF account at this point. Thank you. I'm sure the next two speakers is Jabbar Edmund and Jay James. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address counsel. Hello. My name is Jabbar Edmund. I'm a resident of St. Petersburg, Florida. I'm against this because TIF dollars in the CRA were used to eliminate black, right, and it was used to fix the community. And I think if we use another – what, I think it's 15, 20 years or how many ever years that's being asked to join this, we will underserve many different community members. Because this is the largest tax base, kind of, in the city, one of, if not the largest. And if it's just used to fix or repair the stadium, a lot of the community members will not have resources that's needed from these tax dollars. I think that the TIF needs to stand as it is, and if there's any other need for funding or resources, that it comes from the redevelopment itself. If it comes from naming rights, if it comes from property sales, if it comes from any other different arrangement besides the TIF dollars, because these dollars have been targeted as a way to relieve the financial stress that comes from a stadium, right? The financial, what do you call it, encumbersome or whatever y'all call it, I think that the reality is there's elements of the community like Child's Park, Campbell Park, that needs these tax dollars that will be trapped inside of a TIF district. And that will only go to the stadium or the redevelopment or whatever the TIF is designed for. And the reality is that the TIF has served its purpose, right? I know a lot of y'all won't say this, but the TIF that was built for the Tropicana site has kind of served its purpose. The city of St. Pete downtown has been redeveloped. A lot of the blight is gone. And these dollars are going to be needed at a Child's Park for a housing program or at a Campbell Park or a Lake McGorry Shores. Because if we don't intentionally finance these deals through the resources that's available, a lot of our community members will be suffering because these tax dollars are needed in other areas of the community. And if these TIF dollars remain inside of this CRA, I think that the problem is that we will go to paying for a redevelopment that should be paying for itself. Thank you. Hello. My name is Jay James. I'm a lifelong resident of the city, third generation native of St. Pete. And I do not agree with the existence of the in-town redevelopment CRA. The CRA legislation was originally meant to redevelop blighted or poor working class communities. Yet the vast majority of the CRAs across the state have been used to develop the opposite. And downtown never needed one. It's weird that the first one we get in the city is the one that's in downtown. You know, it took, what, 40 years for us to get this south side CRA, you know, an area that this law was actually passed to actually redevelop and have funds used in the area. You know, there have been several esposé articles written about the misuse of CRAs. Much of what is happening in Orlando, you know, the tourist traps over there, most of that is in CRAs, you know, just like downtown. Downtown should not be in the CRA. It's plenty developed. There's no need to redevelop downtown. And to trap, as folk have said, the tax funding, the tax monies that people are paying in downtown to stay in downtown continues to create an imbalance in services throughout the city. You know, the areas that need it aren't getting it. You know, we always say, oh, there's no money. Well, we have CRA money somehow going to the stadium, but there's no money for the actual programs that communities need, you know, you know, like funding free after school programs for youth, you know, money that's being trapped in the CRA could go for that. And, yeah. And if I remember correctly, when the CRA was originally developed, they excluded the drop. And I don't know. It's just weird. The CRA shouldn't exist. I am against extending and expanding the CRA. Thank you. The next two speakers is Peter Kent and Carrie Mueller. Good afternoon again. I'm Peter Kent, still reciting at 8 Academy Way, St. Petersburg. Today, the city council should vote against Ordinance 585H, which authorizes a July 11th public hearing on allowing the mayor to give $362 million in city property taxes to raise Heinz. It is one of the most consequential votes ever taken by any city council. If approved, the administration gets to take back up to 60% of the property taxes paid within the downtown CRA and give it to the raise Heinz project without a vote. It's taxation without representation. If this ordinance fails, then the $365 million instead will go to help pay for citywide needs in poor areas of the city where property tax revenues do not cover all of the costs of the city services. Some examples of projects that could be funded are affordable housing, improving the stormwater system in areas subject to flooding, and expanding the city's water and sewer plants without rate increases. Talk about a lack of transparency. Do St. Petersburg residents understand why their top property tax bills keep going up despite the massive increase in property taxes paid by all the new downtown construction? This tax loophole's formal name is the In-Town Community Redevelopment Act, or CRA. CRAs are permitted to be set up only in slum or blighted areas. In 1982, the city and the county jointly set up this in-town CRA. Pinellas County is declining to request the CRA extension past April 7, 2032, yet the mayor wants to extend this slum area designation for another 10 years. Without this CRA, 10-year CRA extension, the proposed raise-hide bonds would almost certainly require a citywide vote approving the use of property taxes to repay these gifts. The recent Mason-Dixon poll indicated that 72% of the city voters think the raise-hides deals should be renegotiated, 74% think it's unfair to the city taxpayers, 82% think the deals should require approval by city voters, and 38% said that they're less likely to vote for city council members who vote for this current raise-hides deal. Today, stand up and please vote to slow down the rush to approve this raise-hides deal by voting against 585H. If it passes today, on July 7th, please vote against approving, allowing the mayor to extend the CRA until 2042. Otherwise, $362 million of city property tax revenue that should have gone to urgent citywide needs will be gifted to the raise-hides by your actions. Thank you. Hi, my name is Carrie Mueller. I live in Campbell Park at 1147 James Avenue. The in-town CRA should not be extended for the use of subsidies for not just the stadium, but also for infrastructure for a private real estate development. The funds for the in-town CRA should be used for the public, for the taxpayers, and for buildings located within the CRA. The municipal service center is a building that could have benefited from the CRA funds, and it has been neglected. The CRA was established in 1986 because downtown was economically disadvantaged. But we are not disadvantaged. We're one of the best cities in the United States. We don't need to divert our taxes to private real estate. We don't need to subsidize private real estate development. We don't need to give land away and pay for a private developer's infrastructure. Our tax dollars should go for infrastructure for the public's needs first. As more and more people move into the high-rises on Central and Beach Drive, the demand for tax services will continue to go up. And as time goes on, cost will continue to increase. And if we divert 50% of the property taxes from when the CRA was established, it will be siphoned off to pay for the stadium and infrastructure subsidies for 30 years, which will leave a hole that will have to be paid for by other taxpayers. And property taxes are already exorbitant, and increasing them increases the cost of living in the city. Property taxes are passed on to renters, which further exasperates rental housing prices. We have $700 million of stormwater projects that need to be funded. They should be prioritized. With our tax dollars, a lot of residents have homestead tax exemption, and they don't know how much property taxes have gone up because they're capped. But right now if you use the property tax estimator on the Pinellas County Assessor's Office, you can see that a two-bedroom house in Kenwood, just a small home, is $11,000 a year in property taxes. That's almost $1,000 a month, and that gets passed on to renters. They also get reset when you buy a home. They're based on the previous owner's homestead tax exemption. So it gets reassessed, and it will jump your mortgage payment up substantially. And that happened to me, my first home in Florida in Broward County. But I was shocked when my mortgage payment for my two-bedroom home in Campbell Park went from $1,800 to $2,500. It's $700 a month increase because escrow also requests. So please say no. Thank you. Thank you. The next two speakers is Jamaica Williams and Chase Harreld. Is it the last one again? Chase Harreld? Hey, Jamaica's not here. I wrote that out for her so that she could, she was against a few things on the ordinance list. Hi, my name's Chase Harreld, 3242 19th F South. Good to see you all again. We've heard from several people about much better uses of our public funds. You've heard from me a million times. I don't want to, like, reiterate that. But if we do have to, you know, use this TIF money, if we have to spend it on, what did you tell me the other day? It was to be spent on tourism and hospitality. But to me, if we're going to have to spend that money on tourism and hospitality, that should also include the workers that we need to, you know, run these places. People like me, people like a lot of my coworkers that I've met for working in bars and restaurants for a long time in the city, they need places to live. So if we're not going to spend that money on, like, infrastructure, and hopefully we won't spend that money on billionaires' little playthings, then we could spend that money on, again, low-income housing to house residents to work in our businesses. Because if we don't have people that can live and work in the city, then no one's going to be here. No one's going to be doing your art, serving your lattes, serving you food, working your bars, you know what I mean? For subpar wages at the Rays Stadium for half the year, like, no one's going to be here doing that because we won't be able to afford to live here. There's going to be no character in the city. It's going to be a dead city if we continue to let the Rays leech off of us. So by continuing to give them more money for this project, by extending this, this ordinance is asking, then we're just continuing to let ourselves die by giving off our publicly created wealth to someone who does not deserve it. Like I said, you guys know how I feel about it. You know how a lot of people in here feel about it. Elections are coming up soon. I know it's important to you guys. So just consider that, please. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Hanowitz. Thank you, chair. First of all, I want to thank staff for confirming that change about removing footnote three. And I just wanted to check with legal. It's still there right now. So if someone makes a motion, do they have to make sure do they have to say something regarding that to take it out? Yeah, I think that's best. And it'll it'll be shown in the materials for second reading. Yeah, I just want to make sure whoever's going to make that motion. I'm not making a motion, but I want to make sure if anybody else makes the motion. So, uh, Tom, um, I want to check with you real quick. Um, the 50% TIF resources that are captured through this extension between, we talked about this yesterday and that's why I'm asking you. Um, the TIF resources that are captured because of this extension between 2033 and 2042, as it is right now, it's supposed to end in 2032. This extends it. Are those monies all going to pay bonds related to the stadium and infrastructure related to the redevelopment? So it's part of the overall cash flow. Um, so, um, it's going to pay for, yes, the bonds it's going to pay for the pier. Well, after no, it won't pay for the pier. It could pay for some of the, uh, pay as you go projects. If we haven't completed them, like the sea walls, the projects east of eight street. Um, and I think those would be it. Yes, ma'am. Okay. I was just looking at, and just for, for those who are maybe following this, I was just looking at page 54 of the presentation that includes the spreadsheet of all sources and uses for, uh, the historic gas plant and stadium. It shows from 20, 2033 to 2042. It looks like all the monies as of now are going just to the stadium and infrastructure related to the redevelopment. I just want to make sure I get that right. I think, I think now that I'm looking at that same page. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um, and then from my calculations, that total sum, and maybe you confer, I, I said it yesterday. Maybe you confirmed, but it's $239.5 million, right? That what, what this based on the assumption that 7% growth, I want to make sure this is based on assumptions that that's the money that's going to be captured. So this is basically $239.5 million that's going to stay in a tiff that doesn't go to the general fund and to be used for all things that the city needs to pay police fire union, you name it, whatever. It could be used generally throughout the city. Correct? Correct. Okay. I would also add to that if I may. Yeah. That there is an exact mirror image of amount going into the general fund to fund current operations. Right. Additionally, because of the flexibility we're seeking, and I'll call your attention to that far right column of 54. Yeah. Um, we don't need to be accumulating resources in the tiff fund. So we could turn down the amount of the tiff from the current 50% forecast to something lesser to allow more resources to flow into the. Or you could do the opposite because you're, what you're asking for in this also is an extra 10%. So you can increase it to 60%. Right now, the level's 50. You can actually go up to 60%. So if you go higher and increase the 10%, then that extra 10% stays there. Correct. That is exactly right. Right. Um, and so, yes. So if we exceed that 7% growth, we would have the ability to turn it down. If we didn't achieve that 7% growth, there may be some pressure to increase the 50%. Right. But based on the forecast of 7%, we don't anticipate needing to increase it. Right. No, I just want to make sure because you talk, you know, when we talk about an extension of something, we hadn't talked about the monies that we're talking about. And that does not include the county money. County is not part of this extension. That's correct. Typically when you have a tiff, it's both the county and the city. The county has said we're done with it. Okay. Well, and if I may add that. Yeah. Um, you are correct. Typically, um, it is a city and county function, but there is precedent are in town west. We extended that tiff district for city only contributions and the county is, is out of that one, but we are continuing with the in town west. Um, no, I, I just want to make it clear that that's the only money that we're going to be seeing. Um, and then this started back in, I want to get the date. Right. Was in 1982. Correct. Okay. So it's 43 years ago. Okay. That's all the, that's all the questions I have. Um, so I mean, legally, and I, and I think a lot of people made a lot of good comments here. Um, it may meet the requirements for blight, but given the development pattern, I think in downtown. What's happening now. This is not the same Pete of 1982. They can extend this. They can have a tip for 60 years. It doesn't mean you have to have a tip for 60 years. That's statutorily. You can, but you don't have to. Is that? And I think legal could answer this. That's correct. Council member, because the, uh, redevelopment, the CRA is prior to 2002. It's eligible to be extended out to 60 years. Right. And did they change the law on that? A lot changed a while ago for the max CRA. And what's the max? Um, I think it's 40. So it's 40. So at one point you could go up to 60 and now, and they've decreased it to 40. Right. Correct. Okay. Um, so, you know, what I want to comment on that, on, on that is that right now legally, and for those that may not understand, it may legally meet the requirements for blight. But I understand what everyone's saying because there is no blight. All that area is developed and the purpose to me of that Tiff and CRA has been met. That's why downtown has flourished and this redevelopment project or another one or whatever happens there, depending on what happens here on city council is going to develop just like all of downtown because all the areas around there have developed. So, you know, I think there is a point to be made that you don't have to, uh, extend the Tiff for that development to occur and put in $239.5 million into an area that clearly leaps and bounds is growing day by day, more so than other areas in the city. So I just want, want to emphasize that, um, the other thing on the county portion, I had watched a meeting for those, um, that don't understand the county's out in 2032 and they're happy about it. You know why? Because their money now can be used in other parts of the county. And they made that very clear at a meeting when they discussed this, how happy they were that now it's great because now they can use money for other things and it's not tied down to the downtown Tiff and that's why they're not going to be part of it. Um, so the other, the other issue, you know, I think that we need to understand is that this money stays there. It's pretty much going to the stadium and to the redevelopment of that. There can be a portion that's going to go to some other projects if there's extra money, but that's where the money's going to go. It's not going to go for all the other services that are needed in the city or even in downtown. We may, there may be other needs in downtown and there may not be enough money for that because the majority of it is going to be going to the bonds and paying for those bonds. So I just want to make that clear. And for those reasons, I am not going to approve this. Thank you. Council member Floyd. Thank you. Um, the first thing I want to do is publicly state that I think it's wild that we would start to vote on any of this before we see the final documents. So just express my frustration there. Um, but I want to ask a couple of questions and talk about tips in general. First, um, we talked about in committee, the reason we're extending the tip and how it makes it easier for us to finance this project, but it's not necessarily necessary to finance this project. Is that kind of how the conversation went? That's that is correct. Okay. Um, all right. Good. I would like to just elaborate just a second. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah. Because, um, the TIF revenues are non ad valorem revenues. And, you know, the goal here is to, uh, protect capacity so that we can, uh, it gives us flexibility to, uh, finance other projects down in the future. So that's kind of the strategy and the reason. Yeah. So since we're going in this direction, I'll just continue on this line of thinking, which is, um, you know, it's important that the TIF revenues, which come from property taxes, but go into the TIF and then their TIF revenues instead of ad valorem revenues, which is just general property taxes. Uh, that's important because that's how we issue the, uh, bonds is so that we don't have to use ad valorem taxes. If we were to issue bonds using ad valorem taxes, what, what would, what's the difference? Is that a thing that we could do? Yes. And anytime a Florida city or county issues, um, bonds or debt secured by ad valorem revenues, it requires a referendum. Oh, okay. All right. Um, a referendum would be required if we didn't have the TIF and we still wanted to use the ad valorem revenue that's in that area. Okay. That's an interesting point. I think, um, I want to talk a little bit about TIFs in general. Um, not really a question. I just want my public opinion to be known. Um, I was really excited when I got elected to do the exact opposite of what we're doing here today, to have a conversation about ending the TIF. If you are a resident of this city and you look out, uh, at what's going on downtown and it's, it's exciting. You're like, wow, look at all these cool new buildings, things to do. Uh, I wish some of this could be in my neighborhood. You care about the TIF if you've ever thought that to yourself. Uh, because the TIF locks tons of wealth downtown where we're doing our biggest building, um, where every time, you know, a new condo comes, that's not for most of the people in this room. We can't afford the condos that come downtown. Uh, but every time a new one does, it does increase property taxes downtown, which theoretically could be used to, uh, better our lives, better government, public services, better, um, infrastructure in the city. But because of the TIF, we're locking right now, half of all of that money downtown. And, uh, you know, that's a large subsidy for downtown and all of the developments there, um, that I, I maybe understood the reasons for in the past, but I definitely don't understand today. And so, um, I really would have hoped, uh, and kind of expected to an extent based off conversations I had before, uh, that we would be able to end the TIF and start investing in our neighborhoods more. Um, so I'm frustrated today that we're moving towards extending it, um, when it's not necessary and really is one of the ways that we can avoid sending something to a referendum. Uh, I think that's, uh, that's a source of frustration for myself. And I just wanted to make sure people were aware of it. Thank you, chair. Council member Driscoll. Thank you. I'm, I'm glad to see that there's so much interest in how CRAs work and how TIF money works. And I encourage, um, everyone, including my colleagues to continue to explore that and understand better how it actually works. Um, thank you for bringing this forward. Um, and I, as I mentioned yesterday in our committee of the whole meeting, we touched on this just a little bit. And I did say that we should have a little bit more conversation about what happens with surplus and whether or not we need to determine now, um, that it would go to the general fund because we don't know what's coming as things move forward with this redevelopment. And so my question is by passing this today, are we tying our hands, um, or would we have the opportunity to look at this at a later date as far as with the surplus, not the, not the base? Yes. Yes. So as I explained yesterday, um, future amendments can be made to the in town plan and the, uh, the table too. We're able to, but as we are currently the, the item that you're asked to approve today only approves the addition of those two projects that we talked about, but that does not preclude us from future, um, uh, projects to be added. And if I could, if I could council member, I would just add to that and Tom, you can correct me if I'm wrong. I think in the past, the county has been more, more flexible about adding projects when they're no longer in the tip. So that could actually increase our flexibility. And, and if I could just go back to, um, one, a different question for just a moment, Madam chair. Um, you know, I want to talk a little bit about the timing, you know, this is the first reading. Um, and, uh, you know, to, to in an effort to have this be ready for its, uh, for the official public hearing on July 11th, when we anticipate approving all the documents. That's why we had to schedule this for this time. And I just wanted to talk, talk about that. It's a scheduling issue that we needed to have this discussion today. All right. Thank you. And then seeing no further requests to speak, I entertain a motion. Move approval. Second. And council member, if, uh, if you wouldn't mind, including the revision that was noted at the, in the presentation. I'm sorry. Uh, I'll move approval with the, uh, deletion of footnote number three. Of, of, of a portion of, of that portion of footnote number three. The portion of the footnote number three on amended table two. All right. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Now that it's been properly motioned and seconded, can you please open the machine for folding for E1? Council members cast your votes. Now that our present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda item E1 with the correction to footnote number three. Passes five to three. With council members Floyd, Hanowitz, and Muhammad voting no. Council members Driscoll, Fick Sanders, Gabbert, Gerdes, and Montaneri voting yes. Thank you. We're gonna now go ahead and just move into, um, our public hearings and we'll take up item J3 of our public hearings. Chloe, can you please read the title? Ordinance number 586-H. An emergency ordinance concerning the dates of the city's upcoming general election and primary election. And the dates of qualifying for those elections. Making findings regarding those dates. Ratifying November 5, 2024 as the date of that general election. August 20, 2024 as the date of that primary election. And June 4, 2024 through June 18, 2024 as the dates of qualifying for those elections. Providing for severability and providing for an effective date. And Madam Chair, we do not have any cards on this one. Move approval. Second. Well, I was going to introduce our Assistant City Attorney, Brett Pettigrew. But it seems as though you've talked to us enough about this. Madam Chair, I think it would probably be advisable for him to give a summary. Yeah, okay. So joining us is Assistant City Attorney Brett Pettigrew. We're gonna go ahead and get the presentation. Thank you Chair, Vice Chair, members of Council. This is a clean up item and I will be brief. In 2022, voters in the citywide referendum approved shifting the city's elections to even numbered years to coincide with state elections. In an abundance of caution, the ordinance before you was prepared to address an inadvertent omission from that ordinance. That was discovered following last week's meeting of City Council. The ordinance before you will eliminate any possibility of confusion or inconsistency as to the dates of the upcoming city election. Or the qualifying period for those elections. You will do so by confirming the dates that have been consistently used by the city since at least August 2023. Because qualifying for those elections is currently underway. This is brought to you as an emergency ordinance to allow for immediate confirmation of those dates. This ordinance is again clean up legislation. It maintains the status quo and adoption will have no, require no changes by the city, the supervisor, any candidate or campaign or any other member of the public. I welcome the council's questions. Thank you. Seeing no further requests to speak, can you please open the machine for voting. Now that all present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes. Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda item J3 passes unanimously. Thank you. Now we'll move to item J1, which is the first reading and public hearing. Clerk, can you please read the title. Ordinance number 584-H, an ordinance of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida. Approving a development agreement for property generally bounded by First Avenue South to the North, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And 10th Street South to the East, Interstate 175 to the South, and 17th and 18th Street South to the West. Recognizing that the subject agreement is by and between Heinz Historic Gas Plant District Partnership, a Florida joint venture developer, and the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, a Florida municipal corporation, authorizing the mayor or his designee to execute the agreement and providing for an effective date. The second reading, the second public hearing is scheduled for July the 11th, and we do have some cards. We have some cards. Joining us is our urban design and historic preservation manager, Mr. Derek Kilborn. How are you? Thank you. Good evening. As you just said, Derek Kilborn, manager of historic preservation. Before I begin, I just want to acknowledge that our planning and development services director, Elizabeth Abernethy, has prepared most of the materials here, and I'm presenting on her behalf this evening. What we're here to talk about first is the vesting development agreement, and then later I'll be presenting separately on a rezoning application, both related to redevelopment of the 82-acre Tropicana Field site, which we are also referring to as the historic gas plant district. It's important to say at this point that tonight is a first reading and first public hearing only. So as part of this presentation and action, you are being asked to set the second reading and final public hearing, which will come later. There is no final determination that you are making this evening. And I think that's an important distinction to make so that it is understood by both this council and anybody who's following along. This is just a necessary regulatory step on a timeline that includes many different moving parts. And this allows the conversation to continue so that you can continue working on the overarching umbrella agreement, which is being handled separately. There are two agreements that are being discussed here. So the other thing I wanted to do was just point out the two differences. This presentation is on the vesting development agreement. This is a standard regulatory tool that is sometimes used for land use and development cases. It is generally applied to redevelopment projects that are going to extend over a long period of time or have multiple phases. This is a way to vest development entitlements so that as those projects develop over a long period of time, it is setting kind of the guardrails to make sure that it can proceed as originally reviewed and approved. It is, again, one piece. This is assigned to just the land use portion. You also have this separate redevelopment agreement. This is a unique agreement that stands alone and is an agreement between the multiple parties that sets all the finer details of what you were discussing, for example, yesterday at the Committee of the Whole. Okay, so moving into the vesting development agreement. The boundaries of the project are shown here. And all the parcels are part of the master plan for the redevelopment. City code provisions, in addition to Florida statutes, govern these proposed development agreements. And the draft attached to this report complies with the agreement requirements as demonstrated. Tonight, I will be providing an overview of the findings in the report related to compliance with the city's comprehensive plan, the land development regulations, and an overview of the public facilities analysis. So what is the purpose of this vesting development agreement? It provides a unified regulatory plan for the entire district where the city's land development regulations will apply, and to the district as a whole, including floor area ratio, open space, parking, use requirements, and public art. Documents that provide public facilities will be available for the proposed development plan for the next 30 years. The public facilities analysis included in the staff report provides the review of these facilities, and I'll be reviewing those in the next few slides. The last bullet includes a requirement referring to an annual tracking report to monitor phasing compliance with the LDRs and milestones in the redevelopment agreement. I know there was some discussion at the Committee of the Whole yesterday and a reference to phrasing from time to time. In this particular document, you will see a specific reporting requirement on page 5 of 7, and that does have a January deadline. So there are reporting triggers that are included in these packages. Moving through the consistency review with the comprehensive plan, the staff report provides a detailed review of relevant policies from our future land use element, our housing element, and our transportation element. The first one here, land use 2.5, specifies that new development will be infill where there is access capacity, and the development agreement supports the redevelopment of an infill site consisting of the Tropicana Field Baseball Stadium and its associated surface parking lots, which is served by public facilities with access capacity available, as shown in the analysis and included in the report. Also in the report, there is a roadway segment analysis. Land use element 3.4 addresses compatible land use transitions and buffering, and the location of the district north and east of two interstate highways provides a physical separator to adjacent neighborhoods to the south and west. The proposed uses will be similar and consistent with the uses to the east and north, creating an orderly transition. Land use element 3.6, the proposed intensity of the redevelopment plan is within the allowances of the existing central business district future land use category and DC zoning designations, with no increases in development allowances contemplated or proposed. The district is consistent with the existing pattern of the general surrounding area, where the majority of uses are mixed use urban scale developments. The redevelopment will replace surface parking lots with new buildings conforming to the downtown design requirements, and the redevelopment plan with an appropriate mix of uses will reestablish this neighborhood as a well-integrated component with the surrounding neighborhoods and business districts. This is something that we often work on, which is preserving the historic grid and where possible reintegrating the grid into development sites, which was successfully achieved in the concepts presented here. Regarding housing, the development agreement with multifamily housing options and provisions for affordable workforce housing units furthers the goal of the comprehensive plans housing element, where the mix of uses proposed within the district will create a complete neighborhood connected to the surrounding neighborhoods and business districts. The development agreement is an example of a city partnership, which will provide an expanded opportunity for the city of St. Petersburg to implement its housing opportunities for all plan, and the advantage Pinellas housing action plan by providing needed affordable and workforce housing units. Transportation element 3.1. In response to transportation element 3.1, a roadway segment analysis memo was provided by the Heinz historic gas plant district partnership, and attached to the report which demonstrates that there will be no deficiencies to the local roadway system. And consistent with transportation element 5.4, the development agreement requires submittal of a traffic parking management and micromobility plan to address arrival, departure and onsite circulation, parking and multimodal transit. This plan will address major downtown events within the district. Land use element 5.3. The proposed development agreement will not have an impact on the city's adopted levels of service for public services and facilities, including potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, recreation and stormwater management. The public service analysis included in the report for the proposed uses in the district demonstrates that there will be public services available for the planned redevelopment. And this is reinforced again by the fact that the underlying central business district future land use map category does not change. Staff finds that the proposed development agreement is consistent with the city's land development regulations. The agreement allows the district to be redeveloped in a unified manner with an overall project wide floor area ratio of 3.0. The agreement provides that the city's LDR will apply to the district as a whole, including building setbacks, distances between buildings, floor area ratio, floor area ratio bonuses, floor area ratio exemptions, open space, parking, use requirements and landscape. Each building phase will be reviewed for compliance with the DC zoning regulations and design requirements at the time of permitting based on the current land development code. Additionally, the city's land development regulations include landscape code parking regulations, stormwater, floodplain, noise and signage regulations. The 10 acre minimum project wide open space requirement will satisfy the open space requirement for each individual building or phase, providing for larger open space areas which will be more accessible to future residents and visitors to the district. Public art will be provided where each building or phase will need to provide public art, with an option to aggregate this requirement over multiple parcels, allowing a larger art contribution in lieu of several individual pieces. Building height is unlimited, subject to bonus approval over 300 feet, as further governed by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Albert Whitted Airport overlay regulations. The city has adopted level of service standards for potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage and recreation and open space. The level of service impact analysis concluded that the proposed redevelopment will not have a significant impact on the city's adopted level of service standards for public services and facilities. In summary, there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development within the historic gas plant district. Minutes from the community planning and preservation commission hearing were attached to the report. And the commission discussion, which was highlighted in your city council cover memo, included several points. The commission noted the importance of the agreement and the positive impacts of redevelopment, replacing of existing surface parking lots, establishing a planned redevelopment for the entire area, creating a walkable and complete neighborhood, establishment of a new African-American museum, continuation of St. Pete's baseball tradition and honoring the historic gas plant district. Commissioners expressed some concerns related to fiscal and financing issues, which will be addressed by, of course, this council and the staff in the larger discussions about the redevelopment agreement. The commission expressed some concerns about a lack of a citywide plan to address hurricanes and severe weather water surge and future budget needed to address such a plan. They talked about and asked questions on level of service for traffic and future capacity of the interstate. They expressed some concerns regarding the language related to provision of 600 affordable housing units and language which might allow construction of some units through an option to buy out. Questions on the timing for the minimum development requirements for the 30 year build out period. Questions on the annual tracking report. They generally expressed support of the project. We did have a question regarding Oak Lawn Cemetery. I should say the former Oak Lawn Cemetery and potential reservation or dedication of land for remembrance. And then finally, commission had requested that council listen to the CBA and take their time in reviewing the documents. So that itemized list again was included in your city council cover memo at the time of submitting our report. We had one email sent that relates to both the rezoning and the development agreement, which expressed concerns about stadium traffic parking deck locations and green space. Finally, in conclusion, again, as I stated in the opening, this is a first reading and first public hearing only. The ask today is that the council set the second reading and adoption public hearing for July 11 after completing your public hearing portion for this evening. That concludes our initial presentation. And obviously we have staff here available to answer your questions. Thank you. Thank you. We do have public comment. Can you go ahead and read them? The first two speakers is Tom Tito and Lou Brown. Please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address council. Thank you, council. I'm Tom Tito. I live at 622 12th Avenue South. And I'm here on behalf of the Bartlett Park Neighborhood Association. We're asking you to vote no on this. We've been studying the issues. And like many members of the public, we like the community benefits that were promised. They seem to disappear in the final contract. Although I think you're telling us the contract's not quite final yet. Give yourself more time, please, to get this right. You seem to have given a firm deadline but an artificial deadline. You have to get it done by July. If you just slow down a little bit, give the Brays all the time they need to extend the lease. Maybe you need another few weeks, maybe a few months. I'm still hearing on the news that there's going to be 1,200 units of affordable housing. I heard that on the TV news last night. I heard that the Brays owner is putting $50 million of his own money into the museum. These community benefits sound great, but they're just not in the contract. And I don't know where the misinformation is coming from, but I think the media is trying to do a good job. But they're hearing it from somewhere. And as the truth comes out, the Mason-Dixon poll has shown you that public support is evaporating about as fast as the community benefits disappeared. And we like the benefits. There's hundreds of millions of dollars of public money here. There's no reason we should be deleting community benefits that really are important to the neighborhood. I've been in the neighborhood 50 years. I was appointed by the city to the module 16 advisory committee and we voted against the original stadium. The difference between the original gas plant and the one now, people had somewhere to go. It was a hardship and it was wrong and it was immoral. The city had no business clearing out that neighborhood, but they did move to other neighborhoods like my neighborhood of Bartlett Park, Charles Park, all through the south side. Now, affordable housing is not there and people are being moved out of the city entirely. I have a friend who moved to Ruskin. We've got people who are telling us their kids, their grandkids can't buy a home, can't even rent a home. So that's the housing crisis is of prime importance to the south side neighborhoods. And please slow down this process and take time to do it right. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Council. My name is Lou Brown. I'm a realtor here in St. Pete. And I appreciate the mention of Mod 16. My father was an original member. Excuse me, Mr. Brown, would you state your address, please? 3767 30th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida. Been a lifelong resident and I appreciate the hard work that you do as you move forward. Good to see you all. I'm here in support of the amendment. I know it's not perfect. Nothing is. I also know what was here before the first stadium was built. I did not live in the gas plant area, but it was part of my community. I saw what was happening and I feel much better about the current raised ownership in terms of fulfilling their requirement. I also appreciate the hard work you're doing to make sure that we get everything that we are promised, that we are needed. But I've seen what has happened. I remember when the sidewalks used to roll up at 530. No need to go downtown. Obviously, that has changed. And as that has developed, our city has developed. We've become from a small town to a thriving community. We've got a lot of work to do. We also have a lot of work to do with equity, diversion, what actually needs to happen, diversity. And that is what's building our community. And when I see it building, I appreciate it. I also noticed many of the concerns are legitimate and they need to be considered. And I think you're doing a job considering those and they need to be included. But if we can move forward and continue to build to be what we need to be and remember some of the obligations, there's a reason the stadium is here and not in Tampa. If you notice, there are other things in Tampa that are allowing it to grow. This was St. Pete's peace to grow with it. And that has happened. We are not what we used to be, but we're not what we will be. But we need your help. We need your support. And you need to know that the community is behind you. If it was perfect, everyone would be in line. It's not perfect. Continue to perfect it, work with it. But let's get this done. Madam Chair, the next two speakers is Gary Gibbons and Mary Caketop. Please state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address Council. Good afternoon, Council. My name is Gary Gibbons. My address is 829th Avenue North. As St. Petersburg City Council members, you sit in your elected seats as fiduciaries of the city's finances and its assets. Your constituents have placed trust and confidence in each of you to act with honesty and in good faith, to perform diligent oversight, to practice financial responsibility regarding your decisions. This is especially true when you're voting on the largest financial project in the city's history and borrowing money at historic levels, as well as selling properties owned by the city. Furthermore, because the public has no ability to vote on this project, your due diligence is even greater. So why are we discounting the value of the land? Why is the city even considering locking in a price, notwithstanding the fact that some of this development won't happen for the next 20 or 30 years under the present contracts? This is particularly galling since the parties who are the proposed partners of this public-private partnership absolutely have the ability, the financial ability, to pay market value. They do so every day in their businesses. And I might add that I pay retail every time I go to a raise game, and I've gone to 20 this year. I'm going to 20 before the season's over. I bought those tickets. And I'm a fan, but I want this deal to be right. So I ask you again, why are we giving discounts? And as written, the developers locking in a sweetheart deal with no requirement that they actually deliver what everybody has said they want, which is the affordable housing piece of this. The timeline for delivering that piece should not be 20 or 30 years. It needs to be accelerated. And the penalties for not building are not sufficient. If they don't build it at all, they pay about $67 million. Well, if they have the opportunity to flip these contracts to other developers, they may well, we may not be dealing with the Rays-Hines group. We may be dealing with somebody else who may say, nah, I'm not going to build affordable housing. That would be a crime for what happened in the gas plant district. So please slow down, check this contract out, make sure that it has good provisions in it about approving anybody who might be an assinee of the agreements so that we know who we're dealing with. Thank you. Good evening. Mary Katok, 5910 Bio Grand Boulevard in Shore Acres. Rays are not going anywhere. They're not. So whoever is holding any doubts or anxieties or fears that they will go somewhere, they're not. We worked hard to get them in here, and they're going to stay here. They've tried to go elsewhere, Tampa or Ybor City, Montreal. The MLB, Major League Baseball, has two other teams that they're trying to find homes for and find franchises for. So at this point, even if the Rays did want to go find better accommodations elsewhere, they wouldn't be approved because they already have a home. A new stadium does not make a better team. The New York Yankees won 27 World Series. Their first stadium was built in 1929. Their second stadium was built in 2009. Eighty years later, they proved themselves. A team must earn it. Anybody. I mean, if we come from the old school, where you earn what you get. But at this point, particularly in regard to the real estate, the land, especially public land, and the control of such land is where our control is, our power. People are coming to St. Pete in droves, not only domestically, but abroad and internationally. Please, your land is your most valuable, valuable asset. Pearl S. Buck wrote The Good Earth. If you haven't read it, please read it. It's a very interesting lesson in land ownership. To give away this land for pennies on the dollar is a betrayal to the public. We, the people of this city. The Hines did a similar project over in D.C. where they actually had to lease the land to build their development. You know, there's such a thing, yes, there may be a willing seller and a willing buyer, but the terms are the most important part. Why should we, if you will personally own this land privately, would you give it away? Private market expects to get top dollar for their property, but why on a public level we are dealing less than that? I urge you to please look into your heart and see and put yourself in our position as a public entity. Would you approve this level of agreement that is really not equitable? The affordable housing will never happen in a private market. I can't stress that enough. I'm a real estate broker. I've been in the business 35 years. Once housing goes into the private sector, it is at their whim. Whatever the market can bear will be what the sales price will be and what the rental prices will be. The best way to show your appreciation for the working class and give them what they've been struggling for. Develop that private housing yourself on public land. Make it a public housing project and then you can never go back from there. So in conclusion, thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you. The next two speakers. The next two speakers is William Kilgore and Jabbar Edmund. Please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address Council. Hey, everybody. William Kilgore. I reside at 2550 28th Avenue North and I'm an organizer with the St. Pete Tenants Union. Thanks, Chair. Yeah, I want to speak on the redevelopment deal. This deal is rotten. It's rotten. Every little aspect of it's rotten down to the terms and conditions. You know, a lot of that stuff's over my head, but I've heard a lot of the discussion. A lot of council members have brought up really important points about it, you know, but, you know, fundamentally this is rotten, you know, in the sense that we're handing over all of this wealth, public wealth. This is our money. This is public wealth and we're giving it to a private corporation. You know, we come in here all the time and like feel like it's haggling over, you know, a couple hundred thousand dollars for some youth program or, you know, housing or whatever we need, you know. And, you know, but it's just when, you know, the raise asked for it. When a corporation wants money, it's just sure, here, and you know what, we'll do it all on your terms. I don't even know what's really been negotiated here. I don't feel like it's even been negotiated. I feel like the administration has had their, you know, their mindset on we're going to do whatever the raise want. You know, it doesn't seem like it's been negotiated well. I mean, I guess that's what $50,000 to your election campaign will do. But, you know, it's wrong and people have a lot of problems with it. So, you know, as far as the housing, it's just been, you know, bait and switch. They had promised it was the vast majority of it was going to be at 80% AMI or below. And then they lowered that number down to 600 units. Now they added, said they're adding another 50. I mean, we're just looking at these numbers. I mean, the vast majority of the units being built on site or market rate. It's not things I can afford. It's not the tenants that we work with, the members of our organization, can afford, you know. And so it's how are we giving all this money, you know, when we have people sleeping right out here, just a couple blocks away over at Mirror Lake every night. People just, you know, in total, you know, despair and, you know, and we're giving all this money to somebody who can completely afford. They could build their own stadium. They can finance whatever they want. They don't need our money. Public money needs to be used on public needs. And that's what it gets down to. It's not even just the details of the thing itself, you know. Or it's like, you know, there is going to be something. There's got to be at least a return or profit sharing or something, something, that we're actually getting something back, not just some PR fluffy, you know, we're getting some community benefits that aren't even set in stone. And they can renege on it any time. So I just wanted to share those thoughts. Thank you all very much. Yes, sir. Hello. My name is Jabbar Edmund. I'm a lifelong resident of St. Pete. I think we got to decide who do we serve. Take your address for the record. My address is St. Petersburg, Florida. My address is redacted. You already provided it. No idea. My address is redacted. Can you give a neighborhood? I'm St. Petersburg, Florida. Child's Park. What neighborhood y'all want me to? Is that okay? All right. Thank you, y'all. All right. We got to decide who we serve. Is it special interest or is it the people? Sometimes it's a blur between which one is which, right? I support growth in St. Pete. I actually support progress. I do not support progress at the sake of the people. Gas plant residents moved away for progress, not profits. So if you remember, the gas plant residents moved away and said, we're moving away because of progress, but now we're at a 25-, 30-year impasse where it's becoming a profit-driven situation where the residents are not benefiting from those profits. I'm here to speak for the gas plant residents that are dead and gone and the ones who are at work trying to pay their water bills and trying to pay their light bills, and they can't make it to this meeting today. I'm here to speak for those who are scared and don't want to speak their mind and don't want to be blackballed or said that they're against or against progress. I am born and raised in this community. I grew up in the gas plant neighborhood right in the shadow of the Tropicana development. I watched Tropicana Field be built. I watched the parking lots be laid. And as I sit here today, I think that the issue that we are not addressing the most is the community members who move away for this progress that we're here talking about today. And that progress is now being turned to a profit-driven movement. This is a situation where I may never be able to move back into the gas plant. I may never be able to open a business. I may never be able to follow my family's footsteps because of the reality that's in front of us. And I think that at City Council, as a citizen, I voted for several of you City Council members, and I also helped advocate for several issues here at City Council. And I'm asking and requesting that City Council pause on this vote. And I'm asking City Council to re-look at this agreement. Thank you. I'm sure we have someone in Zoom. But since this is a public hearing item, there are no Zoom speakers allowed. Only in person. The next two speakers is Amy Elliott and Jay James. Please step up to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address Council. Hi. My name is Amy Elliott. I'm actually a resident of Dunedin, 1169 Overcash Drive. I'm here to support the community. I'm also a county resident and a business owner. And I'm asking you to do the right thing by making sure that you put some teeth into this contract and the enforcement. I heard a lot of questions during the Committee of the Whole yesterday about apprenticeship, local businesses being able to be a part of this. And I'm of the opinion that we should be building communities, not displacing people that have already been displaced. So I've asked before and I haven't heard if anyone has looked into the Inflation Reduction Act finance that's available. You can get 30% back for things like solar, battery powers, solar storage, EV charging stations. You get extra incentives for affordable housing. So if we're overlooking hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe there's something else that we should be looking at instead of just saying yes or no. It's yes, but put some teeth in this. So for me, I'm here to support the Sierra Club initiative for affordable housing building for, you know, for local workforce housing also for green space. You know, we've got USF. We've got Eckerd College. Are they involved in protecting Brooker Creek? I'm also here for clean energy upgrades. We should have a micro grid. That should be a facility that is the pilot program for a series of resilience hubs in the community where they're turning churches and resident and I'm sorry, restaurants into respite centers after storms and hurricanes. Again, the Inflation Reduction Act has financing and funding available for this. I help bring PACE, property assessed clean energy to Florida. I've done so far the only project in Pinellas County, giving $300,000 to a Gulfport bed and breakfast. There is money available. It doesn't have to necessarily come from the taxpayers. So the micro grid needs to be something that services the stadium, but also the residents in the case of storms. It needs to be clean energy, not diesel powered. We know Duke, you know, is in love with fossil fuels. We can do better. We also need community solar as part of this. You have so much leverage. There are so many energy burdened households. We can have Duke power provide a voluntary program for community solar. And I have plenty of partnerships that will come in here and help with that. And again, the apprenticeships, the kids that are sitting there in the streets right now could be at Jacobson High School. They could be at Dunedin High School learning the trade. And this is where you can market that, make them part of the community and build up the next community of leaders and business owners through this project. Thank you. Thank you. Hello again. My name is Jay James. My pronouns are they, them, and theirs. I'm 2042 27th Street South. I'm a lifelong resident of this city, third generation native of St. Pete, seventh generation native of Florida as a whole. My peoples are from Florida. My peoples are from St. Pete. My family helped build a lot of what's around here now. And I was here back in 2007 when the Rays, you know, first proposed the sales stadium on Albert Whitton. And, you know, that was not approved. Then, you know, we've been going through the rigmarole with the Rays for the past dozen years about, oh, we're going to go to Tampa. You know, we would not want the stepchildren of the Rays for a long time. But now we want to give them a billion dollars. And, you know, I'm a Rays fan. It's the only baseball team I've ever been a fan of. You know, I worked for the Rays back in 2008. You know, I consider myself a lucky charm. I worked there the first year we went to the World Series. You know, I've worked with some of the people that are leadership of the Rays, but I am disappointed. First, the land was stolen from the Tokabaga native people. Then it was stolen from the black folk in St. Pete. And now it's being given away to billionaires. Heinz is one of, if not the largest developer in this country. I originally went to School for Architecture. I researched some of the buildings that Heinz developed. They developed—Houston would not be what it is right now without Heinz. So they definitely have the experience and the resources to, one, actually build something that the city needs and not get it for nest-or-nothing prices. Some of this land was public housing, and the rest of it was affordable housing. And now, again, we want to give us a fraction of the housing to be on-site. The off-site, how about—we need all the affordable housing we can get. You know, let's get affordable housing here, plus what they want on the off-site. You know, it could be all together. And somebody asked earlier, who would be here to honor the legacy of the gas plant? We are the people. You know, we can't depend on the corporation to do that. Corporations care about money, point blank. You know, somebody mentioned the battery earlier in Atlanta, you know, but they failed to mention that the Braves moved from a stadium that destroyed the mechanics field, Turner Field. This all has a history of destroying black communities for the profit of billionaires. This is, yet again, more and more broken promises. And again, what are y'all voting on? We don't have a final document. What are y'all voting on? Just to be quite honest, what are y'all voting on? There are no guarantees for affordable housing. Like, how are we voting on something when it is not addressing the actual needs of our city? Thank you. The next two speakers is Dave Maletti and Susan McGrath. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address Council. Hello there. Dave Facetti. Address is 4220 17th Street North. Thank you, Council, for having us tonight. I just want to reiterate a lot that was said tonight. Again, there's no final contract. There's no set in stone. There's a lot that is unknown. And I just think, you know, selling an asset that is growing in wealth for a discounted rate for providing infrastructure costs to a private organization is just not something a city should be doing for its residents. There's a lot more value that can be had from this partnership and agreement that can grow into something good. I think there is something there. I'm a big race fan, and I just hope we can get there. And as long as there's more development to this and get some, as someone said, some more teeth to this contract and actual benefits in stone that we can get behind. So thank you for that. Good afternoon. Susan McGrath, 2732 Burlington Avenue North in historic Kenwood. I've owned my home there for almost 30 years. Thank you, Council members, for your attention and your years of work on this. It is appreciated. I know it's count. It's endless and all of you know me. So to begin with, all of these folks who are here speaking out, whether I share their opinion or not, are here because they care about our city. And many of them are friends and colleagues of mine. And we happen to be on different sides on this issue. But they're here because they care about the city and they want to see us be the best we are. So just a couple things I want to talk about. I mentioned that I've owned my house for almost 30 years in historic Kenwood. Someone talked about the taxes in Kenwood earlier. And it's expensive to live in Kenwood now. And the taxes are high. But that's not because of the millage rate. And I know Council knows that. But that's because the value has increased. And the value has increased in our homes because of the good guidance that this council and councils from many councils before have done to make the city attractive and viable and thriving and what it is today. So we are a more expensive city. But that's because more people want to live here because we're a great city. I have worked in downtown Tampa for many years. And someone was here talking about I don't remember this gentleman over here about the difference about what we were before the raise and what we are now. We have come a long way. And if you think cities like Tampa and other cities around the country would not want this deal, you're sadly mistaken. We've seen them trying to get the deal. And we're just fortunate that we're at the plate now to have the opportunity. And Jabbar talked about the gas plant folks and the people who are displaced. I personally, the way I look at it, I think it is a unique opportunity that the mayor that leads the city's family was actually displaced by the gas plant originally with the original stadium. And now we have that mayor who has lived through the experience to help guide us through this process and try to get to the right place. So I know everyone cares and they have great value to what they're saying. But we have been talking about this and working about this for a very long time, way before this administration, all during the last administration and probably the one before that. So use your good guidance, use your, and I know you will do the right things. Get it done. Thank you. Madam chair. Next two speakers are Jordanas Mola and Jalisha Black, please approach either podium. State your name and address. You have three minutes to address city council. Hi, my name is Jordanas Mola. I use your pronouns and I live in 2000 Gandy Boulevard North. Um, and I wanted to, uh, state my, um, expression against, uh, the gas plant redevelopment project. Um, also wanted to mention, I live in Brandon Gabbert's district. Um, and then I also wanted to mention, um, that city council will be on break, I believe, starting to tomorrow. And so until July 7th, um, and if the proposed second meeting will be on July 11th after today, there's really only four days where the city council will be in session to review. So that's not a whole lot of time, uh, regarding the summer break for this to continue to move forward. Given the number of people, um, here today who are speaking out and asking for the deal to be slowed down. Um, a second thing I wanted to mention is that the city mentions on their website. That's one of their pillars for progress is considered to be housing opportunities for all. Yeah. We keep hearing people here speaking out today that this deal does not guarantee housing opportunities for all. So, um, it does not reflect the city's values. Um, if the city continues to move forward with the deal. Um, also wanted to mention based off the fiscal year, 2024 city budget statistics. Um, so based off the information that was provided, um, on the city government's website for the different graphs breakdown in terms of how much revenue we are coming in with tax money and what we are doing with that money. Um, it says about 565 or 500, 364.5 million dollars is considered our general fund expenditures, which is the money that we are spending from our budget. We are spending from our city council budget. And about 8 million of that will go to housing. So in reality, less than 3% of the budget is going to housing. So it's really hard to believe when the city says one of their five pillars of progress is housing for all, one less than 3% of the city budget is going towards housing. And through that general fund revenue, 72% of the revenue coming in is tax paying dollars. Um, the last thing that I wanted to mention as a lot of other people, um, mentioned is just to echo how the historic gas plant district was a vibrant community specifically. And predominantly black people that were pushed out and with the construction of the building of the highway, uh, continue to displace the community and that they are owed reparations and programs that support things that thing that support things that the community actually needs. Such as housing youth programs and more myself and other people have, um, canvas door knocking done events in child's park, which a majority of the people who were displaced now live. And they are asking for things, the top two things that they asked for are housing and youth programs. So we really want to make sure that the people that are being displaced in the generations after them are getting those reparations through programs, through the things that they are asking for. Um, and lastly, just reemphasizing to not rush into the rush into the deal as it needs significant changes. Thank you. Good evening. Madam chair, Mr. Vice chair, council, all city and staff in your respective places. My name is Jaleesa Blackshear. I reside in the neighborhood of Palmetto park. Um, so when I think of this development, uh, agreement and I think of the raise, I have come to a theory that the raise will never win a world series until there is a gas plant restitution fund. And when I say that I get laughs and that's okay, but I truly believe that if there is a fund dedicated to the descendants of the gas plant district and it can be proved. And this is Gen X, Gen Z, Gen A, Gen Y, and generation beta, then they should be required and entitled to some type of program and on a, um, on a reoccurring basis. Um, I, I, I personally believe that the CBA was initiated and codified for this particular, um, redevelopment project and it was brought to my intention that the raise have agreed to commit 50 million, only $50 million to a minority business enterprise fund or pool. Um, but from what I'm under what's being communicated to me that, um, there's not enough talent in this pool. So then I questioned, well, where, where's that money? Where's that money going to go? Um, time after time, you hear administration after administration that it is an atrocity would happen to the residents of the gas plant district. Well, if this potential $100 million bill of sale goes through, where's that money going? Is it going to go to the general fund for more operations? Because if it does, there's, it's going to continue to be an atrocity. Um, and there's also, uh, all these things popping up, um, in regards to, um, masking the term of renewal by saying, uh, reimagine St. Pete. Well, if the federal government is given $1.2 million to knock down the wall, which is 175 by 75, um, that boulevard is required to have the center line down in the center line down the boulevard actually has been proven to increase speed. So that is also something for council to consider. Um, about two weeks ago, I was in Cambridge at a workshop with Jeff Speck. And he said, well, if you knock down these walls, you don't need that federal money because the cash flow from that land itself will generate that immediately. So I also would like council to consider that as well. Um, and I yield my time, Madam chair. Thank you. Next two speakers, Carrie Mueller, Lima Ahazan. Please approach either podium. State your name and address. You'll have three minutes to address city council. Go ahead, ma'am. Okay. She didn't indicate whether she was for or against. No. Let's go. Yes. All right. Hi everyone. My name is Lama Ahazan. I live in Coquina key 33705. The city of St. Pete is continuing to push in multiple ways to make it harder for the residents of the city to survive. As a member of dream defenders, like your Donos was mentioning earlier, we have gone into communities, um, and have actually talked to members about what they need to feel safe. As she mentioned, one of the top answers that we heard was people need affordable housing. That's not something that they make up. That's the thing that they genuinely need to feel safe. Imagine what it would be like if you did not have the safety of your home. And this is the reality of too many people in St. Pete. It is becoming too expensive to live here. The city's attempt at quickly pushing this deal through with the abhorrent deal that exists today with the Raines Hines is another slap in the face to the residents of St. Pete. Moving forward with this deal as it exists today only considers the needs of the real estate developers and not the people. The people know what they need and they need to be able to afford to live here. This deal does not allow for that. It doesn't even guarantee that the units would be built for affordable housing. And if they did, they won't even be built for another decade. We need our taxes to invest in our communities now. We're struggling. We've been struggling. The city has an obligation to develop public land in a way that is not discriminatory. And the current deal does not do that. St. Pete is actually one of the most segregated cities in the U.S. And we continue to see that today. Anyone who thinks that it's more important to have a sports team than taking care of the needs of the people needs to reassess their priorities. Say vote no on expediting this deal. The Rays are not going to leave. It's okay. We have time. The people are so much more important than anything that a corporation can potentially commit to. Also, I just do want to call out that low-key racist comment earlier that the person should be fortunate that they come from descendants to be involved in this deal. We see that a lot around this because, unfortunately, as I mentioned, St. Pete is a very segregated place and racism does continue today. And that is the population that is predominantly being impacted by this. So not only think of how this deal has impacted communities historically, but how moving forward with this deal would continue to impact predominantly black and brown communities today. Karen Mueller is back. Hi. This is Carrie Mueller from Campbell Park at 1147 James Avenue South. And I'm asking to give more time to review the development agreement because there are still so many unanswered questions and red flags within the development agreement, which was very clear from the committee of the whole meeting on both the redevelopment and the stadium. There was many issues with who the property could be transferred to and it was stated that that's going to be fixed for the next agreement, but it needs to be fixed. And the council needs to have a chance to review it and make sure that these types of like glaring problems and red flags are addressed before it goes to a vote. So I just wanted to state that since I moved to Campbell Park, I've learned so much about the history of the gas plant descendants and residents. And we have neighbors who previously lived in that area. And, um, to me, it's just astonishing that we have used what, um, is called a restorative justice project to basically transfer public funds and public assets and land to private developers. And it's branded is providing community benefits, but the community benefits advisory council made 11 recommendations, including increasing the, uh, affordable housing, increasing the apprenticeship, uh, set aside requirements, disadvantage workers and businesses in the vertical construction, which is not included. So we do not have any, um, we do not have any disadvantage business set asides for, uh, workers or businesses or apprenticeship set asides in the vertical construction. It's only in the infrastructure, which the public is funding. So if it's more expensive, they don't care because we're, we're funding the infrastructure. We're not requiring the developer to comply with lead certification. They don't want to pay for the certification, even though we're providing, you know, $287.5 million for a stadium, $142 million for infrastructure, a deep discount on the sale of the land purchase. And they don't want to pay for lead certification. And I was astonished yesterday, listening to the stadium cow that people, um, indicate they're going to basically duplicate the standards in the building. Um, methodologies within lead without actually paying for this, excuse me, that certificate, which I think is a copyright infringement, but you know, whatever people want to do. I'm sorry. Um, so the CPPC asked the council to listen to the CBA. And I would again, ask for that as well, because we made recommendations and none of them are being included within the actual development agreement. And I think the public needs to understand that what was put into the impact report is no longer actually in the development agreement. So please delay the vote. Can you read the next two cards? Next two speakers are Rebecca Finkenberry and Andrew Walker. Please approach either podium. You'll have three minutes to address council. Thank you. Close. Rebecca Finkenberry. Uh, I live at 301 2nd Street North downtown. I've been a homeowner and a taxpayer in the city of St. Pete since 2000. Um, I want to keep the raise. I think they're very important to our economy. They're something that makes St. Pete cool. But I honestly, the more I see and hear and read about this deal, this is not a good deal for me as a taxpayer. And I urge you to look at some of the questions that have been asked by the council. I appreciate all the council members who've asked great questions. I watch you on TV. I don't come in here and freeze to death in this room. Um, and for me, there's still unanswered questions that I really hope that you will deal with before you approve this. So let me hurry through this. Um, I don't understand why you're not going to get another assessment of the value of the land. I don't think there is anything that guarantees that anything is going to get built except the stadium. Why is there such a small amount of public open space and parks? Why do the raise have so many outs if they don't like what's going on? Why doesn't the city have more outs if we don't like what's going on? Why is the city paying for all of the infrastructure when in other cities the developers pay for the infrastructure? Why is the city putting so much money up front and the raise not putting up anything until the stadium starts to come out? Why is the city even having to pay for the community benefits instead of the raise doing it? And what happens if and when the raise are sold? What is our assurance that we're going to get any return on our investment? And what actually happens to the deal if we're dealing with another owner? So, uh, one of my biggest things is that we are building for the new future. We're building for not just the length of this contract, but the sustainable development. I don't hear mentioned at all. I don't hear solar. I don't hear energy, water. It looks like we aren't really living up to the agreement that St. Pete has about 100% clean energy. So I urge you, if you're a fiscal conservative on this council, I do not see how you could prove what I have seen so far and what I've heard so far. I urge you to wait. This feels like a train coming out of the station. And I think all of us don't know how to stop it. We don't know how to really have input. And it feels like that the July 11th is kind of an artificial date. I urge you, please get more information. Get your questions answered. If they've been answered and I didn't see it, good for you. But please get it answered before you approve this contract. Next two cards. Yeah, Andrew Mordecai Walker. Um, I guess I urge most importantly is that you really consider the facts of the matter. Uh, I really didn't plan to speak. Excuse me, sir. Can you state your address? Oh, 231 Driftwood Road, uh, Southeast. Um, I actually grew up at 1224 Fifth Avenue South, where I, I 175 exists now. I had to move. My parents, uh, had to move because of the, uh, baseball, uh, and the Tropicana development. Um, I helped them move in 1980. Um, so my dad is the oldest living ancestor. Uh, or, uh, legacy person from, uh, the border of Gas Plant and Camel Park. So I grew up in Camel Park. I grew up in, uh, Gas Plant. Um, what we call Boogers Creek, not Booker's Creek as a kid, uh, looking at minnows and that sort of thing. So, um, so like I said, I wasn't planning on speaking, but I've heard some things that in my mind, I'm not sure if they're factual. So first of all, I want you to make sure that the council really considers the facts of the matter. Um, I, the environment really needs to be considered, uh, because Booker's Creek, um, is an important connector from the bay. Uh, like, uh, the other segment that goes over where the bridge is, um, Thrill Hill, um, those are all connectors and important waterways. Uh, so I, I value that and water management is important. Transportation is another important piece. And some people have challenged me that transportation, uh, is, should be considered just as important and might be more important than the stadium deal. Uh, I say, does it have to be either, or can we include transportation a little bit more focused with, with this deal? Uh, I think that might add some value. I worked for Michael Ray Funeral Home, which was on 5th Avenue as a kid. I worked at Lincoln Cemetery cutting the grass during the summer when I was in college. Um, and so Oakline Cemetery, my dad saw bodies being exhumed when he was on the way to work to Perkins. Um, and so I know the importance of remembering the ancestors and honoring that. That's an important part of this. Um, the open space environmental piece is important. Uh, the affordable housing I think can be met in here. And so, um, I'm, I'm a legacy and a dream deferred by Langston Hughes. Uh, for me, um, is like a raisin in the sun that withers if it's not honored. Um, and so, uh, honor that, um, the legacy of my ancestors. Do you have the next two cards? Next two speakers, Nick Carey, Jamaica Williams. Please approach either podium, state your name and address. You'll have three minutes to address city council. Uh, hey y'all, uh, Nick Carey, 10th street north. Um, I'd love for the race this day. Um, I'd also love a yacht, but I can't afford a yacht. Uh, I could probably ask for a loan. Maybe I'd even be approved, but I wouldn't be able to afford the basics of my family's life. Our city already isn't meeting the basic needs of many in our city. Folks can't afford housing, transportation, childcare. We currently only fund maintenance on about a third of our roads. Uh, there are parks that need to be upkept and maintained. Neighborhoods across the city are subject to flooding. Our climate crisis worsens. We live in a city on a peninsula on a peninsula. If we're going to take out loans, let's do it to address these basics. We can't afford this yacht, but the Rays can't. I and many others in this room personally know many people who have had to leave the city. Y'all probably know people who have had to leave the city because of some of these issues. And I desperately wish that the city would show the same enthusiasm and care into keeping Aaron, Laura, Cuth, Misha, and many more here for the next 30 years as many folks seem to be about keeping the Rays. The Rays don't make St. Pete special. We do. They can afford to stay and many of us can't. Please invest in what makes St. Pete special. All of us. Ms. Williams is not present, but she's against. Reverend Andy Oliver. Is that the final card? No, we have two other ones. Excuse me. Let me. Yes, please. Michael McGrath and Kenneth Mack. Please state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address counsel. My first or is he first? Michael. Very good. Okay, then. So I'm already on the clock. My apologies. Okay. Well, good afternoon, folks. My name is Michael McGrath. I'm an organizer with Sierra Cliff, Florida. I just want to thank everyone again for taking the time to hear public concern. Excuse me, sir. Would you state your address? Oh, yeah, of course. I'm 1560 Central Avenue. I'm over in the Edge District, actually right across from the Trop. You know, I think the number one thing that we're imploring you as, you know, folks here who are coming here tonight really is to pump the brakes in this entire process. Let's think about this for a second, right? This is a 30-year stadium deal and also massive redevelopment for our city. And I don't think this council should be strong-armed into this entire process and rushed ahead with all of this. I think you guys should take the time to pump the brakes on all of this to get this deal right, to make sure you address the lingering community concerns. Before today's meeting, I sent each of you an email with a letter signed by a dozen organizations across St. Pete, asking you really to do the exact thing. I'm going to read a portion of that. The undersigned cannot support the current iterations of the development agreements for both the News Ray Stadium and the stored gas plant redevelopment for various reasons. The sale of the land, your fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers, the inclusion of sufficient affordable housing, the lack of meaningful apprenticeship and employment opportunities, environmental and sustainability concerns, and more. The Sierra Club has our concerns. We've emailed you and also met with many of you about them as well around clean energy, climate resiliency, and also making sure that we have more green space amenities for the redevelopment area as well. But there are other groups as well that have concerns. And I think it's incumbent upon you all as elected officials to listen to those, right? And just make sure that we slow this process down and, you know, have an additional workshop or two and not rush this vote. Because let's face it, guys, I think we all enjoy going on vacation. And the last thing I want to do while I'm on my vacation is be thinking about work. And I don't think that's fair for you all if you have to go on summer recess and also on vacation and have to be thinking about what's upon you all as a massive decision that's going to come across our city for years and years to come, right? So I would really encourage you all just to make sure you just take the time to get this process and also this development agreement correct because otherwise, you know, we're going to be thinking about this, you know, 10, 15, 20, 30 years from now and think, what if, right? What if? So really, once again, please pump the brakes on this entire process. There's no need for us to be able to vote on this on July 11th. There should be additional workshops, in our opinion, as it relates to this, to address the longstanding community concerns. And if you'll just bear with me for a moment. I think, you know, really with really thinking about, you know, how are we going to get more definitive standards of this, right? How we can get teeth that actually make sure this is the thing we actually want here are legal requirements as opposed to just being lofty aspirational goals. Because if it's not in writing, it's not going to happen. So thank you so much. Thank you. And oh, I also sent the letter in physical platform as well. So you should all have that as well. So thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Kenneth Mack, and I reside at 1837 20th Avenue South. I apologize if you can't hear me very well. I just had oral surgery. So I might struggle a little bit. But I was born and raised at the gas plant district, born at Mercy Hospital. I was three years old when we moved from the gas plant district to where we live today. And so that's over 60 plus years. If you know my story, I've been away from St. Petersburg for the last 43 years. I lived in Houston for 30 years and Dallas for 10. And I've seen this happen with the Houston Astros when they built a new stadium. I saw it done with the Texas Rangers when they built a new stadium in Arlington. And disadvantaged communities were impacted. But what I saw also was those communities spring and become vibrant. The same thing can happen here. I support this deal, and I hope that city council will as well. There are many pros and cons that we can find to this deal on either side. It's never going to be 100%, as one has said. But I do believe that we need to move forward. I do believe that we have a deal on the table that is workable, not perfect. But I do believe that it's the best thing to do. Being that I am a descendant of the gas plant district, I remember my mother, Johnny Mack, and I remember how she struggled to get us to live in that area and move away. And this is indeed, I believe, a good representation for those of us who are descendants and that we are going to get value from this deal. So I would encourage us to move forward with it. So I'll stop at this point because I'm finding it harder to talk now. But I do believe that this is a good deal for the city. And you're going to find that there are going to be housing issues, city service issues, green space issues, environmental issues. That's all over the country. It's in every city in this country. That shouldn't be a determination as to whether or not we move forward. Thank you. I'm sure the last speaker is Andy Oliver. Quote Council. Oh, Andy Oliver, pastor of Allendale, United Methodist Church, 3803 Haines Road North, born here in St. Petersburg. It's on my birth certificate. To quote Councilmember Floyd, this is wild. It's wild that you're about to vote on something without final documents. It's this important. There are so many of you who I know take special care to make sure you do your due diligence and carry out your job, making sure all the I's are dotted and the T's crossed. And this is wild. It's wild that we're undercutting democracy by sandwiching these two votes strategically on either end of your break, which limits the ability to give you feedback and meet with you. It's wild that I've been here so many times, like for a rent freeze, when so many of you have voted no because you've been lawsuit averse. And yet you seem not to be bothered by the legal concerns that have been raised. It's wild that we're going this fast. That was last speaker. Thank you. Councilmember Hanowitz. Thank you, chair. And I want to thank everyone who has participated today. It's important for us to hear from everyone on this issue. And it's we have a very limited amount of time. And even though we're not making a final determination today, I want to highlight what has been said about as to our previous, you know, in our previous votes. We are making decisions based on drafts and not final documents. I cannot emphasize that more. It is our duty to do our due diligence, and we can only do that appropriately with final documents and not being rushed through the process. Not only that, it does not give the general public, not just those that are typically tuned in as to what happens at city council, the details of this deal in its entirety and provide input as to those details. This is important for transparency and public discourse and is the underpinning of a democracy. As the scheduling stands, there could be possibly just one more public meeting where citizens could provide input. Needless to say, we will get documents during council break. And some of us have plans and trips that were appropriately planned based on a schedule of a break for city council. I have done my best to have robust discussions and conversations with neighborhoods and residents in my district regarding the details of the deal from the time the term sheet was without even without complete contracts. I've encouraged actually all the residents to actually read documents and not listen to someone else's opinion. Imagine that people reading documents and however, though, it's difficult because when you have drafts with documents and they can continue changing at some point, people just get tired of doing that. So even though this is a regulatory document and it reflects a lot of the deal, which I and others have expressed issues with. It's a draft again, not final the items described in the vesting agreement that we have development agreement to have before us has exhibits B and C, and that includes the target plan and minimum development requirements. And I'll just read an exhibit. See some of those minimum development requirements where people have had issues with include the affordable workforce housing units, which is 600 units. And it says there, or as may otherwise be mutually agreed by developer city, again, an issue that we had. And again, an issue that is being worked on and we don't have a final document open space. The minimum requirement is only 10 acres. You know what? We gave them a discount for the land for 14 acres. 14 acres is a discount on the land. That was what was presented in the committee of the whole of the original one. And yet the minimum that they can give us is 10. And then the daycare facilities and all that which they were supposed to provide additional information. This is all in the document that we're that we're put forth today to to provide a vote on community benefits. There are traffic concerns that have been expressed at yesterday's meeting. We don't even have the traffic and parking management plan, which is supposed to be done, I believe, by the time of plotting. So just given everything that has been said and continuously said about this, and I feel the need. I feel like I'm repetitive. I think it is important for us to have all the information before we do this is a rush process. And for that, I am voting a no. Council member. Thank you. Thank you. I want to start shifting gears a little bit and just say, thank goodness we did not have this meeting on the same day as that cow we had yesterday. That would have been terrible. And the reason that it got changed was because we asked for it to get changed. So, you know, it's completely possible that we could ask for future changes. But before I get into any of that discussion, I want to ask legal a question because legal is drafting the documents for us. We're voting today. I actually wish I'd have brought this up during the last item. We're voting to set public hearings for July 11th for these agreements so that we can have final votes on July 11th. Legal, can you tell us for sure that we're going to have finalized development agreements for the stadium and the broader development two weeks before the July 9th cow? Can you all confirm that that's going to happen? I mean, as I said yesterday, I can't guarantee a particular date. What I've said is we'll continue to work hard like we've been doing, but I couldn't give you, I can't guarantee a particular date. Yeah, that's understandable. And so we're setting the final votes for the, you know, the TIF stuff, now the vesting development agreement, the rezoning. We're setting these final dates and we're setting these public hearing dates and we could get there and the documents still aren't ready. And there's no guarantee that they will be ready. And so personally, and I'd love to hear from my colleagues about this, I'm uncomfortable with that. And I would like for there to be some guarantee that we're not going to set these public hearing dates and then get there and, like, the development agreements aren't even complete yet. Like, I don't want to vote on this stuff until those development agreements are complete. And so I'm uncomfortable and I wish I'd have brought this up earlier, but, you know, I think we can have a discussion about making sure these public hearings don't happen until those agreements are finalized. I'd love to hear administration. Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much. We mentioned yesterday in the Cal that we wouldn't bring forward the documents on July 11th unless the city attorney's office had a chance to review them and was comfortable and you had them two weeks in advance. It would be our plan that we would deliver the documents two weeks before July 11th. You would have the Cal on July 9th, so you would only have the documents for the Cal for approximately 11 days. They would be the same documents that would be prepared for city council. If the documents are not ready, our backup plan would be to move the vote to July 18th. We would have to issue a new 15 day notice for the vesting development agreement. We could bring all the documents to you on July 18th if the documents weren't ready for the 11th, except for the rezoning, which requires a 30 day notice. So that would have to come back in August. That's our backup plan. Okay. Why are we doing that instead of just getting the final documents and then setting all of the dates? Why are we like having to change constantly, which is what we've had to do throughout this process the whole time? Like, it feels to me like it would be just in administration's best interest to just say we'll get the documents done and then we'll have the vote. And that way, you know, there's no situation where it's, oh, oops, we don't have them done. We have to change the dates because, you know, that's not going to be great for y'all. I just wonder why we're doing it this way. Well, I mean, I think I referenced earlier why July 11th was an important deadline for us. It is very important to get Heinz started in the permitting process and raising equity for development in phase A. And we're also trying to potentially apply for the large scale regional impact affordable housing application for potentially $25 million for affordable housing. So it's just one week, though, like if we would feel much more comfortable with that other week, like it is only one week for permits and getting financing lined up. It is one week. And, you know, that week would mean a lot to us, I think, because we're we are going on a break and I'm not, you know, like, oh, I need my vacation or anything like because I need to go out of town. I do need a mental health break. That's for sure. My blood pressure has risen and I'm only 32. So I definitely need a little bit of time to unplug. But, you know, I would just be much more comfortable if we weren't rescheduling and we've been doing it. It's affected council business throughout the past three months, four months. We've had to reschedule multiple times and it's been frustrating to deal with. And so I would like to, you know, I mean, if my colleagues have anything to say about it, I'd love to hear it because I'm not comfortable setting the public hearing dates when I don't know that we'll have everything in front of us on those days. So I'll leave it there for right now. Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair Gerdes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I had I had two questions, but I figured one of them out. So I'll ask the other in the in the one, two, three, in the fourth, whereas it says up to two parking garages. Is that I thought yesterday? It's two. It's two. I mean, is there a reason it says up to two other than just I mean, okay, not that to my knowledge. No, I just know parking was a big part of the conversation yesterday. And so up to two caught me off guard a little bit. I just because I'm next and Councilmember Floyd asked the question. I the flexibility of it doesn't bother me, but that's just me. But the interest of twenty five million dollars for affordable housing interests me. And if we have the ability to get that and documents are done 14 days in advance of the council meeting, which is what we've asked for, which we we've agreed to ask for, then I want to go. I want to try to go get that if that's available to us. If it's not because the documents are ready, then that's that that that is what it is. And we're just not there. But the ability for that, having read having read those docs that we got last week on that on that opportunity, that to me and for and having documents 14 days ahead, I don't want to miss that. And so if that's if that's the case, I would rather keep the flexibility. If we don't have the docs, then we vote on the 18th. That's that's how I feel about it. But I want to I wanted to at least answer your question. That's all I had. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Muhammad. Thank you, Madam Chair. So we've seen presentations and renderings, but we know that paperwork is what matters. I've only seen drafts. It's probably going to be a little bit redundant. Councilmember Hanowitz kind of stole a lot of my thunder. But it's really in line with that not having final documents, only drafts. The drafts that we've seen include selling the land, and not only selling the land, but selling it based upon an appraisal that undervalues the land, which is also a common practice in African American communities where our properties are consistently undervalued. Not just developments, but personal residences. We're making motions that require us to move things in real time that are still in the documents and have yet to be cleaned up. So before moving forward, I would like to see the complete documents, documents that include all of the exhibits, not just placeholders, blank pages, and promises that we'll get those to you later. We've had questions about ownership of assets, which is also a fundamental principle of equity, and I have not seen how that is going to be addressed, and would like to see that before moving forward. We discussed things and have made suggestions for things to be added to and removed from the actual agreement, not just presentations, not just conversations. And I would like to see whether or not those changes were made before we advance this to a second and final vote, because this is not the final, but the next vote will be. I'd like to see those things first. I do plan on taking that mental health break. Whew. Just that alone was like a, just the thought of it is I'm looking forward to. So I would, to your point, I would like to see the final documents. The constant changes of dates, I think that's also adding to the confusion. When you hear the council is voting today or council is voting next week, you have people organizing. And as a community organizer, when you're rallying people and you're moving people to try and take off work, to try and make arrangements for childcare so that they can come in and participate, that flexibility that we enjoy, the community does not have that. And so those opportunities to engage are limited and minimized by that flexibility and us consistently moving these things. And it causes a lot of confusion. And also July 8th, July 18th is the date that I believe that the millage rate is going to be coming. And so we, another thing that we're talking about that's getting lost and buried in these conversations is the budget. And, and like, we're not, it's just a lot that a lot of moving pieces, a lot of parts, and I'm not comfortable voting to advance this. So I will be voting no today. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Um, council member Driscoll, you haven't had a chance to speak yet. Thank you. Do we already have a motion and a second on this item? No, ma'am. Okay. I'll move approval. Second. Thank you. Council member Martinieri, you haven't had a chance to speak yet. Thank you. I just wanted clarification. So, uh, in the, in the PowerPoint presentation, the recommendation is to conduct this first reading and public hearing on a proposed ordinance and set the, uh, second reading and adopted public hearing for July 11th. So if city council is taking action, are we saying that we don't need to take action to if the documents are ready and we're going to, and we're going to slip to July the 18th? Uh, there, there's two parts to it. Council member one is the process of moving this forward to, to the next step. Uh, and the other process, the other part of it is when that next step will occur. Uh, so they could be combined into one motion. Obviously the motion now would be July 11th. Um, the question I think that council member Floyd was asking is, should the, not to speak for you, was, should that date be definitive or flexible? Was my understanding of, of his comments? Well, I, I want to, I, I understand what, uh, council member Floyd, I understand your concerns. I've got the same concerns and I've had them for a long time. I want to, I want to make sure we have the documents in time so that we can, uh, do our responsibilities as, as the city council and approve this. Uh, I'm willing to move this forward, uh, with the schedule that we have, but I don't want to give any wiggle room, uh, when it comes to getting the documents, uh, in time for us to do the review that needs to be done. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Well, let me push my button. Um, so thank you. We, it's been motioned and seconded, but what I want to, um, chime in and, and say, um, everyone says that they need a break on chair. Guess what? Um, the stress comes here too, as well. Thank you, Administrator Gerdes, for putting the option out of having that flexibility. And I think it was made clear, um, by a unanimous vote that we require the documents two weeks prior. So if we don't have those documents two weeks prior, we won't be discussing those documents if we don't have them two weeks prior. So that's a given. That's not even a conversation. We voted on that. Um, the date that we have the application. That we have the option for. Um, we have graciously discussed that date to move it back if it is required to do so, but it is also a general consensus that we need final documents, final drafts. And I don't think that anyone has ever underscored that request. Um, so with that being said, I am going to vote for the motion as is, but if we don't have those documents, we cannot read and discuss them on July. It's a given. It's a given. We voted on that. Um, and so we will definitely follow the necessary protocol, um, to, uh, and again, thank you. We have not as a council, and I've stated this so many different times. We have not as a council asked for a delay in these days. As a council, we have never. We have been very gracious in this process. And I thank you all for your graciousness, um, in trying to get this done. Um, and it has allowed us, believe it or not, to move some needles that we would not have normally been able to move. So I appreciate the delays with that. Um, but to go back to answering your question, I'm going to support it as is with the knowing that we've already voted. If we do not have those documents two weeks in advance, we cannot discuss those documents. And I would not expect anyone to want to have that discussion, especially when council has been so gracious in this whole process. So I don't know if that's enough, um, moving forward. But we have a motion. We have a second. Councilmember Floyd, I know you do want to, to speak, and I'll go ahead and relinquish the floor to you. Thank you. I'll be quick. Uh, I just want to confirm with legal, like, you know, what we voted on previously was about committee of the holes in two weeks. And the last time, did we get two weeks last time with the information? I think it was a day. Yeah. So I just like, you know, I mean, um, it hasn't been locked tight is part of my concern. Yeah. As I recall, the new business item, it was, it was should. Yes. Yeah. I think that's why there was, from a legal standpoint, some, some flexibility in that amount of time. Does the new business item still apply to the next committee of the whole meeting? I would not view that initial. I mean, look, let me preface with, it's whatever all of you want. You know, it's whatever council decides as a body. Based on my recollection of the new business item, the two weeks was prior to the initial, my understanding was that it was prior to the initial cow. Mm-hmm . So I, I am not aware of, I mean, I would refer to council member Montenari. It was his new business item. I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth. My understanding is it was two weeks prior to the first cow, that there's no specific required time period before a follow-up cow. Follow-up cows really weren't addressed in the new business item. Okay. All right. Thank you for that clarification. Um, I have all sorts of comments about the agreement. Um, uh, but you know, this is just us setting first hearing. If you want to get, um, the hot takes, you'll have to come to the next meeting. Unfortunately, you don't know when that meeting is scheduled right now for sure, but you'll find out later. Yeah. Yeah. Um, so, uh, I'll, I'll leave it there for today. I mean, I, I feel like this is a different conversation than the last time we had it about scheduling, uh, on the dais. Um, I, uh, but I see that, you know, it's, it's not the same. So I'll just, uh, I'll just, uh, be voting no today and look forward to having a full discussion when we have final documents. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Hanowitz. Thank you, Chair. Okay. So I have read out some of the things that I think are still pending. So as to agreements, we still have to address all the open issues. We have to finalize the documents. These documents have to be thoroughly reviewed. So attorneys, cause I know for a fact, they haven't had a chance to review the redevelopment agreement. Jackie, have you had a chance to review the redevelopment agreement? Not, not the gas plant redevelopment agreement. Okay. We have four more agreements that we don't have to our amendments to our new agreements. So we haven't gotten those. We don't know what the county is going to do. Jackie, can you unequivocally say that two weeks is going to be enough time to completely and thoroughly do all this? I would reiterate what I said yesterday to Councilmember Flood. I can't guarantee a particular date. We're not quick to give up on any timeframe. So I would say it's really the same thing. We will do our best every day. I can't guarantee anything. And would I acknowledge that as a very heavy lift? Yes, I would. Yeah. I mean, I'm just trying to, I mean, knowing what we reviewed yesterday, Jack, and we all did, those were heavy documents. Legally, it was tough to even get through Article III. And they still, when I went through it, there was a lot of cleanup that needed to be done, which is normal. It's normal in the process. You draft stuff. You go, you know, this paragraph doesn't match this paragraph in the agreement. You've got to make sure all those things are in order. There was a ton of that. And then you have the other agreements that we, the redevelopment that has a lot of work to do. And then we have the county. And then the county schedule. And I just think that, I mean, we are on break. We go tomorrow on break. I have a flight at 11 o'clock. And I'm gone. Which, by the way, this is what we're supposed to do on break. I do. I'm not packed. Because we had the big cow yesterday. And trust me, I've been preparing for every meeting. This is not because I will be prepared. Trust me, one way or the other, I will be prepared. But my point is, it is not the right thing to do to any of us, including the attorneys, to put these deadlines and timeframes that honestly, based on the information we have, seem really unrealistic. So I'm not expecting you to answer that. But there was no question there. I'm just saying, and I'm just putting it into record. So I just want to make it clear that there's still a lot of work to be done on this. We still have the county votes. The county votes yesterday were said, that's going to be towards the end of the month. Right? That's my understanding. Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, you know, they have more time. And we have all these agreements. And we're supposed to get a vote by July 11. That doesn't make sense to me. So that's my two cents. Thank you. So I just want to state, I know Jackie hasn't had a chance to look at the development agreements. But that's why our legal team were split up because Jackie is not, she couldn't do it all by herself. So I just want to make that point. And thank you, Attorney Dima, because you have been the one that was responsible for that and not Jackie. So I just want to clarify that as well, that it was a team effort. So it really should not be contingent totally on Jackie reviewing the documents. Although we trust you and we want to make sure that we get everything covered on that. But I just wanted it to be clear that you had not had a chance to review that, not because that wasn't your responsibility, but you divided the responsibility amongst the legal team. So with that being said, and also I don't think I've taken a vote since I've been up. I mean, a vacation since I've been on council. So I will be working through my my council break and try to get some rest. But is there anything that you wanted to add to any of that? I'd say the only thing I would add is I think every agreement that comes out of the city attorney's office is my responsibility. Okay. So with all due respect, especially to Michael Deeman, our outside council, that that's the one thing you said that I would have everything this contract, other contracts, other ordinances ultimately are my responsibility. I know they are, but I know the conversation that we had. So I just wanted you to know that we want to make sure that you we know that you're not a superwoman, but we appreciate you doing everything that you have to do to review this. And I just want it to be clear that it is your responsibility. I do get that. And I want you to have that opportunity. But I also want us to have that lead time, although it wasn't clear. I think we do need to have that lead time for us to review those documents before moving forward. So again, there are a lot of moving pieces and there are a lot of things bits and pieces that are being said. But at the end of the day, we do have the opportunity to move the date if that is the requirement of the process moving forward. We do have a motion and it's been properly second. Can you please open the machine for voting? Now that our present council members have voted, can you please tell and announce the votes? Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda item J-1 passes 5-3 with Councilmembers Floyd, Hanowitz, and Mohamed voting no. Councilmembers Driscoll, Fick Sanders, Gabbert, Gerdes, and Montanari voting yes. Thank you. We will now move to item J-2 and joining us is Derek Kilborn again. Chair, this is a quasi-judicial item. Okay, I forgot. Yes, it is quasi. You need to read that. Go ahead and read the ordinance? Mm-hmm. Okay. Ordinance number 793-Z, an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, by changing the zoning of seven publicly owned parcels, generally located south and west of Tropicana Field, and bounded by I-175 to the south and 18th Street south to the west. From downtown center dash 2, DC dash 2, to downtown center dash 1, DC dash 1, providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances and provisions thereof, and providing for an effective date. The second reading, the second public hearing is scheduled for July the 11th. And we do have some cards, Madam Chair. And Chair, if I may, before we get started, and particularly with respect to public comment, I'd like to remind the body that this is a quasi-judicial proceeding and that the testimony that you may or may not hear, it must be probative to the inquiry that's going on here. In particular, you're looking at a competent and substantial evidence standard. So I would just caution the board to make sure that you're only considering evidence that's related to the rezoning, particularly, and its consistency with the comprehensive plan, and not general pronouncements about other things that may be happening in the vicinity with the larger project. Madam Chair, do you want me to swear people in? Please. Speaking on this item, please stand and raise up your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay. Okay, thank you. Good evening again. Derek Kilborn, Manager of Cities Urban Planning and Historic Preservation Division. This is rezoning case number ZM17. It is a city-initiated request to amend the official zoning map from Downtown Center 2 to Downtown Center 1 for a 24.33-acre site consisting of seven publicly owned parcels located to the west and south of Tropicana Field for the purpose of redevelopment of the historic gas plant district. And you can see the boundaries of the rezoning are delineated here within the hatched lines to the west of 16th Street and then to the south of 5th Avenue. The surrounding land uses are mixed use. As shown on the exhibit here, there are several recently completed projects and several new projects that are proposed or under construction in the Edge District. As noted in the staff report, the future land use of the subject property is Central Business District with in-town activity center overlay. There is no change to the underlying future land use category. The city and county owned DC-2 parcels outlined on this map are the parcels proposed to be rezoned to DC-1, so you can see their proximity to the existing DC-1 category. Prior to 2007, the entire area of downtown west of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Street south, including the subject parcels, was zoned CBD-4 Central Business District 4. This unified zoning district, which included Tropicana Field, was intended to provide for the appropriate development in support of the stadium in downtown at that time. In 2007, as part of the citywide rezoning referred to as Vision 2020, the Tropicana Field site was zoned DC-1 and the off-site parking area to the south and west were zoned DC-2. The primary criteria associated with the rezoning are consistency and compatibility of the requested designation with the established surrounding land use and zoning patterns and the provision of adequate public services and facilities. The existing zoning district of DC-2 is described in the code and intended to provide for intense residential development that still allows for a mixture of uses that enhance and support the core and surrounding neighborhoods, including the dome stadium. The proposed zoning district, DC-1, is intended to provide for intense mixed-use development, which creates a stronger mixture of uses that enhance and support the core. Both DC-2 and DC-1 west of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Street, south, allow for the same base FAR approval of 3.0, the same bonus FAR streamline approval between 3 and 5.0 FAR, and the same bonus FAR public hearing approval thresholds between 5 and 7, as shown in the table on the screen. The maximum density in any downtown center district is limited by far only, and there are no dwelling units per acre limits. Key differences in the DC-1 and DC-2 zoning districts are that DC-2 has a greater emphasis on intense residential development, while DC-1 emphasizes a mixture of uses encouraging office and employment. The proposed rezoning will provide a unified zoning designation throughout the planned redevelopment for the historic gas plant district as further detailed in the historic gas plant district development agreement, helping to create this new downtown neighborhood that will be compatible in density, intensity, height, and uses with the surrounding downtown districts and neighborhoods to the north and east. A couple comprehensive plan elements that we'd like to highlight, although additional elements, goals, objectives, and policies are featured in the staff report. The first is LU 2.5. The subject amendment is supporting redevelopment of the Tropicana Field Baseball Stadium and surrounding parking lots in an area served by public facilities with access capacity. The associated vesting development agreement includes a public facilities analysis demonstrating available capacity for the redevelopment, including the parcel subject to this rezoning application. LU 3.4 addresses transitions and buffering. The subject site is located at the northeast intersection of two interstate highways that provide buffering and act as a physical separator to adjacent zoning districts to the south and west. The proposed zoning change from DC 2 to DC 1 is consistent with the neighboring zoning to the east and north, creating an orderly land use transition. Additionally, the land use category of central business district, as I mentioned earlier, remains unchanged. LU 3.6. The proposed intensity of the redevelopment plan is within the allowances of the existing CBD future land use category and the DC zoning designations with no increases in development allowances contemplated or proposed for the project, including the parcel subject to the rezoning request. Again, this is shifting the focus slightly from residential to mixed use, which includes office and employment. LU 5.3 addresses concurrency and levels of service. The proposed rezoning will not have an impact on the city's adopted level of service standards for public services and facilities, including potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, recreation and stormwater management. The associated vesting development agreement provides for the public facilities analysis for the proposed 3.0 FAR and project uses as discussed in the presentation that we just gave. The district is not located near any city deficient roadways as detailed in the staff report and the included roadway segment analysis. Our transportation team is here to answer any questions you may have about that information. The Community Planning and Preservation Commission conducted their review on May 14th. They had several questions on the future plans for Interstate I-75. They had questions on the location of the garages related to comments received from the Central 16th Homeowner Association, which were included in the package. And they had concerns regarding environmental conditions and remediation related to Booker Creek. The Commission ultimately made a finding of consistency with the city's comprehensive plan and voted 6-0 in that regard. There was one public comment received from the Central 16th Homeowners Association. That particular submission was in regards to both the rezoning and the vesting development agreement. So we did highlight this in our previous report and presentation. Again, expressing concerns about stadium traffic, parking deck locations and green space. Those concerns are more specific to the vesting development agreement and particularly the redevelopment agreement, not necessarily the rezoning under consideration here. So in conclusion, our recommendation for today is that you conduct the first reading and public hearing of the proposed ordinance. And that you set the second reading and adoption public hearing for July 11th, 2024. That concludes our initial presentation. Thank you. Thank you. I know we have a comment on this. Two cards. Okay. Thank you. Can you read the first two names? Lima. Okay. She's against. And Jamaica. Williams. She's not here. She's. And she's against. Jay James. Please state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address counsel. Hello. Again. For the third time. My name is Jay. James. Pronounced day, them and theirs. 204227th Street South. I'm speaking because a lot of people, I was trying to explain earlier the differences between DC2 and DC1 to some of my friends. And like, they're like, I don't understand the difference. I understand the difference, but this again could be used for just more housing. You know, we want to add office there. We want to add retail there. Great. We need retail. People need to buy groceries. But we could just keep it DC2 and just make it all housing. That area, specifically the part that's 16th Street to 275 from 2nd Avenue to 5th Avenue was once Laurel Park, which was once affordable housing. We could just make it back affordable housing right there. You know, it was public housing before. Let's make it public again and build affordable housing. Instead of changing the DC1, we could put offices that, I don't know about y'all, but I have my job. We're closing our office because everybody was remote. So like, I don't think, we don't need more office space in the city. You know, I know downtown has the lowest vacancy rates of the area. Yes, I'm a nerd of many things, so I know that. But we still don't need more housing, more office space. Just make it our housing. That's it. Madam Chair, no more cards. No more cards. So we have two recommendations legal. Can we handle both at the same? Well, first of all, Chair, because there was at least one person who provided testimony, staff needs to be asked if they would like to cross-examine and then also be able to provide closing statements. Staff has no cross. I figured as much, but I just wanted to make sure we're checking the procedural boxes. That's why I want to check. That's right. Yes. Yes, ma'am. Okay. So can we handle, take the motion for both? They asked two recommendations to conduct the first reading and then to set the second reading. Yes. Yes. Madam Chair, that's correct. One motion for that, as well as, I don't know if administration wanted to have an opportunity for a closing statement prior to that. As part of rebuttal, closing remarks, I can't address the comment that you just received. So the transition from DC2 to DC1 is recognizing kind of the urbanization of the downtown from what was a heavy residential area into more of this commercial mixed use that is proposed through this larger redevelopment agreement that is being worked on. Um, we have been working hard to expand housing opportunities throughout the city. Um, obviously this council and the administration has worked together on expanding accessory dwelling units, expanding, uh, small to medium sized multifamily projects through NTM one zoning. We are bringing forward, uh, changes to the target employment, uh, center local overlay, which is going to be introducing new multifamily opportunities. Um, and then immediately following that we also are bringing forward, um, additional recommendations to increase multifamily density around station areas and all commercial mixed use categories, uh, throughout the city, except for in those coastal high hazard areas. So we are addressing multifamily, uh, citywide. Um, in this case, we have an opportunity to provide more access to office square footage and employment opportunities. And that's why this change from DC2 to DC1 is being recommended. Uh, but that, that was the only comment I wanted to provide in response to that. We, we don't have any other comments in closing move approval thing that we have. Okay. Council member Floyd. Uh, thank you. I just was wondering if legal could speak to something that's been floating around something about, uh, Florida's prohibition against contract zoning. I just would love to hear what you all have to say about it. Sure. In this situation. Um, I, uh, I, I, I've seen at least once one instance where that was, uh, that was brought up and, um, I can categorically say that it's unfounded and a fundamental misunderstanding of land use and planning law in the state of Florida. Um, the development agreement that you just voted on, uh, coupled with the rezoning is what makes this not contract zoning. Contract zoning is a legal term that dates back prior to the, the, the Florida development agreement act, which is what the vesting DA was, is being reviewed pursuant to. Um, a lot of rezonings were contingent on kind of backdoor smoky, you know, back room, uh, dealings or, yeah, no, give us the rezoning. We'll get this. That's not really how rezonings go. Rezonings are to take one set of permitted uses in a zone and then go to the next permitted set of permitted uses for the new zone. It doesn't specify exactly what's going to happen there. What the vesting DA does and what Florida law provided for is to have this public and transparent development agreement process to say, hey, look, we're the, you know, we as a city could get behind this, but here's what, here's how we want to parameterize it. So contract zoning without the, like, without a development agreement. Yeah, that's, that's, that's not permissible anywhere in the country, but because of the development agreement act and the vesting development agreement, that transparent process is exactly what was invented to make sure contract zoning behind closed doors wasn't happening. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Easy enough. Council member Driscoll. Thank you. Quick question for Derek, um, regarding the concerns that were expressed by the central 16th homeowners association. Um, I know that wouldn't be today, but can you explain at what point the concerns that they have would be addressed as far as the, um, construction or design elements of any kind of parking structure nearby? Sure. Well, they're already considered entered into the public record as part of our, uh, previous presentation on the vesting development agreement in this rezoning. So staff and the administration is acknowledging those comments have been received and will be considered going forward. Um, any type of review process associated with each individual parcel as it, uh, comes forward in the future will also be an opportunity for comments to be provided. Um, and considered in the city review. And that's something that in all likeliness, they would be notified. Yes. I mean, the, the, the conditions of how those projects will be reviewed and approved are set forth in not only the vesting development agreement, but the kind of comprehensive umbrella of the redevelopment agreement, which you are still working on. Right. Right. Right. So the concerns that they have can be addressed more specifically when we have more specific plans, but I appreciate that. They did speak up, make sure everyone sees them because it's, it's, um, a very small development, relatively speaking. And we want to make sure that they are, are heard as well as this moves forward and we get some specific plans going. Thank you. Thank you. We've had a motion and properly seconded for. Can you please open the machine for voting council members, please cast your votes. Now that our present council members are voting, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam chair, motion to approve agenda item J2 passes five to three. With council members Floyd, Hannah Witts and Mohammed voting no. Council members Driscoll, Fick Sanders, Gabbert, Gerdes and Montanaro voting yes. Thank you. So now we will move on. Do we have any cards for a second open forum? We do, um, the next person, the person will be Phil Compton and Kirk Thorson. He's waving. Okay. Literally waving. Okay. Um, Chase Harold, Michael McGrath, uh, Lima, um, Alson, Loretta Riem, Riemann. Looks like Lauren Brown, Lou Brown. He's gone. And Jabbar Edmund. Okay. All right. Everybody left. Do we have any announcements here? Gerdes. It is Miss Patty's birthday, June 19th. She probably didn't think I knew. I sandbagged her. Yeah. Juneteenth. Yeah. Uh, let's, let's sing Miss Patty. Happy birthday. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, Miss Patty. Happy birthday to you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Council member Driscoll. Thank you. As, as we look ahead to our next council meeting, which will be on July 11th. Um, I see that we do have in our calendar, um, four hours of committee meetings that morning. And, um, depending on how things go, it could be, uh, um, a late night. And so, uh, I just wanted to remind the committee chairs to, uh, be mindful of that as you prepare, um, for that scheduling and the agenda for July 11th. Thank you. Thank you. We, we, we, we got the scheduling. We got it. We got it. We got it. Any other announcements? Any other announcements? I will say I meant to do this yesterday and, and please forgive me. I wanted to, um, acknowledge the eighth anniversary yesterday of our post nightclub victims. And I did not do that. My apologies. And I just want to recognize the fact that it's been eight years, um, since that has happened. And we still want to tell the families, victims and all impacted and involved, um, that our prayers are still with them today. And with that being said, we call this meeting adjourned. You know what? I don't care how you hit this thing.