City Council - Oct 05, 2023

Welcome to the City of St. Petersburg City Council Meeting. Your elected officials are Mayor Ken Welch, District 1, Copley Gerdes, District 2, and Council Chair Brandy Gabbard, District 3, Ed Montenari, District 4, Lisette Hanowitz, District 5, and Council Vice Chair Deborah Figg Sanders, District 6, Gina Driscoll, District 7, John Muhammad, and District 8, Ritchie Floyd. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. We will call to order the October 5th, 2023 City Council Meeting, beginning with a roll call, please. Before we do roll call, if everyone who wants to come into chambers can go ahead and come in and have a seat, please. We'll close the doors and we can then do roll call. Please, Clerk, roll call, please. Gabbard? Here. Montenari? Here. Hanowitz? Here. Vic Sanders? Here. Driscoll? Here. Muhammad? Here. Floyd? Here. Curtis? Here. This morning, we will begin our meeting with an invocation that is going to be given by Reverend Kevin Loughran from Grace Lutheran Church. This will be followed by a moment of silence to honor fallen first responders. And then after that, please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Will everyone please stand? Good morning, everybody. And greetings from Grace Lutheran Church and School. Let us pray. Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for your providence and love for us that you would gather us together and cause us to live in such a wonderful place as St. Petersburg, Florida. We thank you for our devoted civic leaders and the pride that they instill in all of us, the way in which they make this a safe place to live and prosper. We pray that you would continue to smile upon us, shine forth your blessings upon us, be with everybody that's gathered here as they discuss matters that are important to the running of our city. Lord, give us this divine wisdom that comes from above as only you can give. And we pray this in the name of your Son who loves all. Amen. Amen. Please join me in a moment of silence as we honor our fallen first responders. Firefighter William K. Walker, last alarm, October 10th, 1948. Police Officer James W. Thornton, end of watch, October 16th, 1937. Police Officer William G. Newbury, end of watch, October 17th, 1937. And Police Officer Eugene W. Minor, end of watch, October 25th, 1929. Thank you. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. You may be seated. Thank you, Reverend Laughlin. It's always great to see you. And thank you for being here with us this morning. Thank you. All right, council members, we have an agenda before us today. We have one request to add item F2, and with that change, I'll entertain a motion for approval. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Seeing no request to speak, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Approval of the agenda passes unanimously. All right, and next we have our consent agenda. Move approval. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second for our consent agenda. Clerk, do we have any cards on the consent agenda? We do not. Okay. Seeing no request to speak, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Rule of the consent agenda passes unanimously. All right, very good. Now we are going to go on to take up our awards and proclamations. Joining us today, we have distinguished delegates from our sister city, Takamatsu, Japan. And we also have a few familiar faces joining us. So I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to the mayor to do some introductions. So we are joined by Mayor Kenneth T Welch. Good morning. Madam Chair, members of council, our great city team, our special guest from our sister city, Takamatsu. I'm introducing our former mayors who are here today and then the delegation will be introduced by our spiff's team. I'm honored to be joined by our former leaders of our city, Mayor Bob Ulrich. I have to make y'all stand, I'm sorry. Mayor Rick Baker. And I'm convinced he waited until Northeast finally beat Lakewood to come back. Mayor Bill Foster and Mayor Rick Kreisman. We're blessed to have our former first ladies with us as well. I want to acknowledge y'all. Thank you all for coming today. And we'll proceed and the delegation will be introduced. Thank you. All right. Very good. Thank you. And thank you everyone for coming this morning and joining us. Always great to see familiar faces in the chambers. So at this time, clerk, I believe we have a video presentation to get us started. We'll see you next time. 高松市は高松市にとって初めての提携都市です。 そして今年、セントピーターズバーグ市と姉妹都市提携60周年という記念すべき年を迎えました。 1957年6月の日米首脳会談で、岸首相とアイゼンハワー大統領が日米新時代来るの共同声明を発表し、 高松市でも青少年に海外研究の機会を与え、夢を持たせようという機運が高まりつつありました。 そこで外務省にアメリカの都市との提携推進をお願いしていたところ、紹介されたのがフロリダ州のセントピーターズバーグ市でした。 その後、両市議会の議決を得て姉妹都市縁組が成立しました。 今から60年前、1961年10月5日のことです。 この頃はまだ海外渡航が自由化されていなかったため、 両市の市長が直接会い、名役所に署名できたのは1967年3月6日のことでした。 それではここで、両市の概要をご紹介します。 高松市は世界の宝石とも称される美しい瀬戸内海に面し、温暖な気候と緑豊かな自然に恵まれ、古くから海上交通の要所として発展してきました。 国内各地への交通アクセスに優れているほか、ソウル、上海、台北、香港と直行便で結ばれ、海外からも多くの観光客が訪れています。 過去最多の来場者でにぎわった瀬戸内国際芸術祭2019の成功等により、拠点都市高松の認知度も上がっており、 2019年12月には世界最大規模の宿泊予約サイト、booking.comが発表した、 2020年に訪れるべき目的地トップ10の中に、日本で唯一選出され、世界から注目されています。 次に、セントピーターズバーグ市についてご紹介します。 セントピーターズバーグ市は、アメリカの南東部、フロリダ州のメキシコ湾側で、タンパ湾に面しています。 フロリダ州は、ケネディ宇宙センターやディズニーワールドがあることで有名です。 人口は約27万人。太陽の輝く街、サンシャインシティと言われるほど気候的に恵まれており、 洗練された都市型リゾートとして、トロピカルな風情に満ちた観光都市です。 温暖な気候のため、かつてはメジャーリーグのチームにキャンプ地としてよく利用され、 現在はメジャーリーグのタンパベイレイズの本拠地となっています。 また、アメリカ中規模都市の中で、アートの街として、 2010年から3年連続第1位に選ばれました。 市内には、ダリ美術館をはじめ、いくつもの美術館があるほか、 ダウンタウンはウォールアートで埋め尽くされており、 明日ともにアートが街にあふれています。 では、漁師のこれまでの交流を振り返ってみましょう。 漁師は遠く離れてはいますが、これまで様々な交流を行ってきました。 1962年、高松第一高等学校から英語教諭が、 現在のエッカード大学であるフロリダプレスビテリアン大学に派遣されました。 記念すべき第1回の姉妹都市派遣留学生です。 以来2001年まで、学校の教員や市職員をエッカード大学や市役所へ派遣し、 語学研修や行政研修を行いながら、市民との友好親善を深めました。 一方、1966年、フロリダプレスビテリアン大学の卒業生が、 商兵英語教師として初めて高松第一高等学校に赴任しました。 以来、商兵英語教師は、英語の授業や部活動の指導を担当するほか、 市民との交流活動に積極的に参加してきました。 現在のニッキー・クローネンさんは、51人目の商兵英語教師です。 ニッキー・クローネンさんは、これまでの取り組みに加え、 幼稚園や保育所などへの出前講座を行い、 子どもたちに楽しく英語を教えています。 また、984年、セント・ピーターズバーグ市からの最初の高校生新前研修生が来校し、 ホームステイをしながら、高松第一高等学校の授業やクラブ活動に参加しました。 以来、毎年夏に高校生を新前研修生として受け入れ、 これまで64人が日本文化に触れるとともに、 アメリカの文化を高松市に紹介するなど、 漁師の友好に大きな成果をあげています。 このプログラムは、2006年にセント・ピーターズバーグ市の財政難のために、 打ち切りというピンチに陥ったことがあります。 この時、愛媛県宇和島市出身で、 当時タンパペイレイズで活躍していた岩村昭則選手から資金提供の申し出があり、 事業は続けられることになりました。 また、岩村選手からの提案で、 2008年からは高松市からも高校生を派遣するようになりました。 翌年以降は、公益財団法人松平公益会の助成を受け、 公益財団法人高松市国際交流協会が毎年派遣しており、 研修生はホームステイをしながら、 サマーキャンプに参加するなど、 親善交流を行っています。 民間主体での交流も活発で、 1969年以来、 セントピーターズバーグ市のエッカード大学の学生や教員がたびたび来校しています。 2010年からは、 日本語学科の教員が香川大学で夏季研修プログラムを実施しています。 一方、2003年から2005年まで、 日本語指導助手を高松市からエッカード大学に、 毎年9ヶ月間派遣しました。 両市は、節目の年など機会あるごとに公式訪問団を結成し、 お互いを訪問しています。 2009年には、 大西市長がセントピーターズバーグ市を訪問し、 アートリンクジャパン2009や、 日本の世界遺産写真展の開会イベントに参加するとともに、 エッカード大学やセントピーターズバーグ大学を訪問しました。 そして、 姉妹都市定期へ50周年を迎えた2011年10月には、 高松市の公式訪問団と市民新税訪問団の総勢73名が、 セントピーターズバーグ市を訪問しました。 本団は、記念式典、記念行事等に出席するとともに、 市民新税訪問団は、 エッカード大学でお茶や着付けのワークショップを行うなど、 草の根交流を深めました。 また、同年11月、 セントピーターズバーグ市の公式訪問団が来校し、 姉妹都市定期50周年記念式典に出席したほか、 記念食事や市内視察を行い、 相互理解を深めました。 2021年は、 姉妹都市定期60周年という節目の年です。 本来であれば、 公式訪問団の相互派遣を行うほか、 各種記念事業を実施し、 市民の皆さんとともに、 60周年を祝うところですが、 新型コロナウイルス感染症の感染拡大を防止するため、 新しい形での記念事業を実施することにしましたので、 主な事業をご紹介します。 まず7月に、 漁師をオンラインでつなぎ、 大西市長とセントピーターズバーグ市の リック・クライスマン市長が、 それぞれが実施する60周年記念事業や、 今後の交流の継続について、 トップ会談を行いました。 高松市が毎年実施している、 高松市障害者アートリンク事業の一環として、 NPO法人ハートアートリンク、 およびセントピーターズバーグ市の NPO法人クリエイティブ・クレイが共同で、 日本のお祭りや、 セントピーターズバーグ市のシンボルである、 ペリカンをテーマに作品を制作しました。 これらの作品を使って、 ダンスも制作する予定です。 また、8月には、 高松市中央卸売市場内の一般公開施設である、 海町商店街の壁に、 スプレーアーティスト大輔さんの協力を得て、 60周年を記念した、 壁画を制作しました。 セントピーターズバーグ市の、 四季の5色のカラーをバックに、 白砂のビーチやペリカンなどが描かれ、 この扉を通じて、 高松市とセントピーターズバーグ市が つながっているというイメージのもと、 制作されました。 この壁画がきっかけとなり、 若い世代の姉妹都市制度や、 セントピーターズバーグ市の認知度が高まるとともに、 市民の皆さんの国際感覚の寛容につながることを期待しています。 中学生同士の交流事業として、 香川大学教育学部付属高松中学校と、 セントピーターズバーグ市のサーグッドマーシャル中学校が、 ビデオレターでの交流を行うこととしています。 ビデオレターの作成に先立って、 商兵英語教師のニッキー・クローネンさんが、 付属高松中学校で、 セントピーターズバーグ市を紹介し、 生徒からの質問に答えました。 小学生同士の交流事業についても、 高松市立東上田小学校と、 セントピーターズバーグ市のサンダーリン国際バカロレア校が、 オンラインやビデオレターで交流するため、 準備を進めています。 また、公益財団法人高松市国際交流協会は、 セントピーターズバーグ市との交流事業の継続と発展を目的として、 両市の中学生・高校生を対象としたウェビナーを開催したほか、 小中学生同士の絵画の交換も行うこととしています。 そのほかにも、市内の児童生徒に、 セントピーターズバーグ市を身近に感じてもらえるよう、 学校給食を通じた取り組みを行うほか、 香川国際フェスタでは、 商兵英語教師ニッキー・クローネンさんによる、 オンデマンドクラフト教室を実施し、 アメリカ文化を紹介することとしています。 高松市とセントピーターズバーグ市は、 これまで文化・教育などの分野で、 多くの交流を積極的に進め、 相互理解と友好を深めてきました。 今後も素晴らしい関係が続くよう、 皆さんと一緒にセントピーターズバーグ市との交流を推進していきます。 At this time, I would like to welcome Mr. Stephen Barefield, president of SPIFS, which is St. Petersburg's International Folk Fair Society, to introduce the Japanese delegation. Thank you very much. I have with me also an interpreter, so we're going to share the microphone here. Before I make that introduction briefly, I would like to mention that Nikki Cronin, whose name you kept hearing in the film, the 51st teacher from Eckerd College to go to Japan, is with us today. Nikki, could you stand and identify yourself? Here we are. And we also have with us the very first, who went from Florida Presbyterian College. Jane, I believe it's our 53rd person, is there currently this year in Takamatsu, so we're so glad that program has continued. Now, for introductions to our group here, I'd first like to introduce Mayor Hidetonishi, and City Assembly Chair Yoshihito Shiraisu. Let's catch up here. Just the names. Just the names for them. Just the names for them. Yeah. Just the names for them. Nikki's and James Mia's . I will introduce you today. First, Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. pleasure to bring Mayor Onishi up to the stand. I'm looking for confirmation that I've remembered the order of events. Onishi-san? Good morning, everyone. Good morning. I'm going to translate. I am Onishi Hideto, Mayor of the City of Taka Matsu Japan. It's a great honor and pleasure for me to visit the wonderful St. Petersburg City Council Chamber and to meet Mayor Welch, Council Chair Gabbard, and the members of the St. Petersburg City Council and everyone here today. 私ども高松市公式訪問団は昨日午前中に高松市を出発をいたしまして午後の10時ごろ セント・ピーターズバーグ市に到着したところでございます。非常に長い長い一日でございましたけれども 今朝このセント・ピーターズバーグ市の市役所に到着した際には多くの皆様方が暖かくお迎えをいただきまして またこうやって神聖な議場に入らせていただいて 議会の様子も伺えることができて 本当に嬉しく思っておるところでございます。改めまして心から感謝申し上げたいと存じます。 We, the official delegation from the city of Taka Matsu, left our city yesterday morning and arrived in St. Petersburg around 10 p.m. that took about 24 hours and it was a long trip. When we arrived at St. Petersburg City Hall this morning, we received a warm welcome from many people we know and for which I would like to express my sincere gratitude and this is kind of amazing opportunity for me to stand in the city council chamber here today. 今回私どもは2021年に セント・ピーターズバーグ市と本市高松市の姉妹都市提携が60周年を迎えましたことをお互いに祝い さらなる交流の促進を図るために参ったところでございます。 コロナ禍によりまして2年延期という形での訪問になりましたけれども 今後の両市の友好を一層に一層深めてまいります上で きまことに素晴らしい機会を今回得たものと存じております。 We are here to celebrate the belated 60th anniversary of our sister city relationship and to further promote exchange between the two cities. I am very happy to have this opportunity to visit St. Petersburg finally after two years in the making due to the pandemic. And I believe that this is an outstanding chance for us to further deepen the friendship between our two cities. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Although this will be a short visit, we hope to further strengthen the bonds of friendship between St. Petersburg and Takamatsu. And I'd like to ask for your support in promoting mutual and meaningful exchange programs between our two cities. I would also like to invite Mayor Welch, Council Chair Gabbard, and members of the St. Petersburg City Council to visit our city Takamatsu. As I conclude, in the presence of the former mayor of St. Petersburg, I am very moved. And I'd like to thank you all again for allowing me to visit the beautiful City Council Chamber and extend my sincere wishes for the bright future of the city of St. Petersburg. Thank you very much. We also have brief greetings from the Assembly Chair, Mr. Shirai-ishi. I'm Shirai-ishi. Chair of the Takamatsu City Assembly, which is the same thing as the City Council in our city. And I am very happy to visit the city of St. Petersburg and the City Council Chamber this morning. Especially meeting the Chair Gabbard and Council members and everyone here today. This morning, when I came to City Hall, I was so impressed. It's such a beautiful city hall. And even more, I was impressed by the warm welcome we received. The entire delegation appreciates your kindness. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 8月5日に姉妹都市提携を締結いたしました そして2021年には提携60周年を迎えたところでございます まさに今日10月5日ちょうど63年前になりますが ちょうど今日ですね63年前の今日でありました 一口に60年と申しますが半世紀以上にわたる漁師の歴史は これまで漁師の交流を担当されてこられた方々の 本当に大勢の方々のご努力は言うまでもなく 市議会の皆様の強い支えなしでは 到底考えられなかったことと存じております オクトーバー5、1961、 62年後、 exactly today 高松市と聖ピーターズバーグが姉妹都市になりました 60年、2年の友情がありました and we celebrated the 60th anniversary in 2021 and without the hard work of pioneers of the sister city relationship and of course with the support from the city council we were able to make this friendship grow and we really appreciate your support 今回の訪問団は3泊4日という大変短い時間でございますが 時間の許す限り一人でも多くの先頭ピーターズバーグ市の皆様とお会いしまして 60年を超えるこれまでの漁師の交流をお祝いをいたしますとともに 今後の交流が末永く続いていきますよう その絆を深めていくことができればと存じております although our stay this time is very brief only four days and three nights but we would like to meet as many people as possible in St. Petersburg and celebrate together the 62 years of friendship and into the future Thank you 最後になりましたが 市議会へご招待をいただきましたことにつきまして 本当にあのギャバード議長のはじめ セントピーターズバーグ市議会の皆様に 改めて感謝を申し上げる次第でございます ご参会の皆様のご検証ご多幸を心から記念申し上げまして 私のご挨拶にさせていただきたいと思います Once again thank you Chair Gabbard And all the city council members, Mayor Welch And all the former mayors And everyone here today And I wish the happiness and good health for everyone Thank you very much At this time I'd like to invite Mayor Welch To read the proclamation for SPIFS and give a few comments Thank you Madam Chair What a special day for us all Thank you all for being here I think we all understand that we all can learn from each other And that we're all connected Do I need to pause? OK Alright We'll make sure you have a translator You're trying to stop a mayor from talking So that's an adjustment for me OK thank you You gotta share the mic too 皆様おはようございます 本日はこれより SPIF 国際民族フェア協会に関して 公式の声明を発表させていただきたいと思います I'd like to give a special thank you to Mayor Onishi and the delegation from Takamatsu for making a long voyage to be here in St. Petersburg with us today その前に謝辞を述べたいと思います Takamatsuよりお越しの施設団の皆様 Onishi市長をはじめとする皆様 長い旅を超えられて Saint Petersburgに来ていただき大変ありがとうございます I'm also very grateful to all of our past Mayors for your leadership and for nurturing this relationship for 60 years We have a little bit over that 60 years But it's a very positive relationship また過去前市長の Saint Petersburgの市議会市長の皆様にもお礼を申し上げたいと思います 62年という長い道のり 両市の交流を関係を育って育んできたその努力に大変感謝しております もちろんこの長い時間の間に私はちょっと変わったようですけれども 全てとてもいい方向に向かっていると私は思います I'm very interested in moving this relationship forward Of course due to COVID Mayor Christman could not make the visit to Takamatsu last year Celebrating the 61st Anniversary Mayor Onishi and I had a Zoom meeting Late night for one of us Because of the time difference But there's so much that we have in common A coastal city interested in sustainability Resilience And wouldn't you know There's technology involved And so Mayor Onishi has a smart city initiative That is outstanding And I think we can learn a lot from it So I'm very interested in sharing knowledge and information And extending and expanding this relationship going forward 前回60周年の時は前市長であるクライスマン氏は残念なことに COVIDのせいで高松市を訪れることができませんでした したがって私と大西市長は夜遅く Zoom会議などで交流を続けていました 高松市とセントピータスバーグは大変似通った特質を持っています まず港湾港や浜辺のある都市であること そしてサステナビリティを重視していること そして力強さ忍耐強さを重視していること それに加えてもちろんテクノロジーもここに加わってくるわけです 高松市はスマートシティイニシアティブ つまりスマートに運営する都市計画を方々しておりますので 私たちセントピータスバーグのチームは そこから大いに学ぶことがあると感じており そのためにこれからいろんな知識であるとか ノウハウであるとかを共有して 関係をさらに深めていきたいという所存です 60年という長い期間にわたり パートナーシップが培われてきたわけですけれども そのコラボレーションの中には St. Petersburg Folk Festival Days and we'll be joined by some of the SPF folks today. Oh man, beautiful. Steven, you want to describe the folks that are with us? Thank you all for joining us. Did you want to hold this proclamation? And the proclamation reads, whereas the vision for St. Petersburg is to be a diverse, vibrant city guided by principled progress and intentional inclusivity where innovation, partnerships, and ingenuity create opportunity for all. Are we going to interpret this part of it? Yes. Okay, so it's that. St. Petersburg Folk Festival Days 多様性に富、生き生きとした都市であり、かつ推進、そして国際的な包容性に導かれるものであります。 そしてそれとは、革新、パートナーシップ、本質的であることが、市の皆様にとって機会を創出することにつながります。 And whereas, since 1975, St. Petersburg International Folk Fair Society, also known as SPIFS, has celebrated diversity, culture, and heritage for residents and visitors to the city of St. Petersburg, reflective of this vision. And whereas, SPIFS, the only independent, multi-ethnic organization of its kind in the United States, was founded as an umbrella organization of ethnic groups who joined together to present a festival during the U.S. Bicentennial celebration. And whereas, SPIFS has been recognized by the Library of Congress and is included in its local legacies in Washington, D.C. And whereas, SPIFS's annual October Folk Fair highlights myriad culture, ethnic crafts, foods, and entertainment represented by all who live, work, and play in St. Petersburg, creating opportunities to learn about, enjoy, and foster respect for one another. Now, therefore, I, Kenneth T. Welch, Mayor of the City of St. Petersburg, do hereby proclaim, October 19th, 20th, and 21st, 2023, as St. Petersburg Folk Festival Days in the City of St. Petersburg, and encourage all citizens to join us in this noteworthy observance. Thank you. Very well done. Thank you all for joining us. Madam Chair, turn it back to you. Thank you. So, council members, at this time, I would open it up for council member comments. I did want to ask Mr. Barefield, Mr. Barefield, will we be able to have translation for the council member comments? Okay, wonderful. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Council members, council member Montaneri. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to welcome Mayor Onishi, Chair Sheila Ishi, and the members of the delegation from Takamatsu. And I also want to thank all the former mayors of St. Petersburg, all the members of SPFs, and for being here today. 62 years is a long time, and we've had a wonderful relationship with Takamatsu Japan. And I'm so glad that you all have made this trip to celebrate our relationship with our two cities, and I'm looking forward to visiting Takamatsu Japan soon. まず、高松市長大西様、高松市市議長白石様、そして高松市施設団のメンバーの方皆様、ようこそ。 また、セントピーターズバーグシティの全市長の皆様、スピーフのメンバーの皆様、今日はここにいらしてくださいまして、ありがとうございます。 62年というのは、大変長い期間です。 そして、その長い期間にわたって、この素晴らしい漁師の関係を持てたことを、私は大変うれしく思っております。 また、高松市からの皆様が、この大変な旅行をして、セントピーターズバーグ市で漁師の関係を祝福することに、この機会を大変、大変うれしく思っております。 Thank you. I just want to close in saying the relationship between the city of St. Petersburg and Takamatsu, Japan, is very strong. We do have a large contingent of Japanese businesses here in the state of Florida, over 140, with over 24,000 Japanese people adding to our economy. So, our relationship is strong on the city level, and on the state level, and I welcome you to the city of St. Petersburg. Thank you. 高松市とセントピーターズ市の関係は非常に強いということを、ここで述べておきたいと思います。 と申しますのは、日系の企業の塊というか、そのグループがこのセントピーターズにございまして、それは140社を超えます。 また、個人にしますと、4,000人以上の日本人がここに住んでいらっしゃいます。 というわけでして、市レベルでも、また州レベルでも、この関係というのはとても強いので、これからを大変楽しみにしております。 Thank you, Madam Chair. Council Member Driscoll. Thank you, and thank you to everyone who joined us here today from St. Petersburg and those who are visiting from Takumatsu. If you think about the state of the world back when this original agreement was made, we had, there was trouble around the globe, but this really marked a new time in the relationships between two cities as an example that could be set for the entire world. Today, there is still trouble around the globe, but the strength of the relationship between St. Petersburg and Takumatsu stands as a beacon of hope for cooperation and true friendship. St. Petersburg and Takumatsu stands as a beacon of hope for cooperation and true friendship. 関係は、全世界に対するイグザンポ、例となると私は思っています。 今日でも私たちは、さまざまなグローバルな問題を抱えています。 それを踏まえますと、セントピートと高松市のこの強い関係というのは、希望の象徴と言わざるを得ません。 What was the last one? I'm sorry, could you repeat the last phrase? I want to make sure that I capture the last phrase that you saw. I didn't have it written down. I can read my own writing. Oh, no, it's okay. The continued friendship between our two cities serves as a beacon of hope. Yes, I think I remember. Me too. 最後の部分を訳させていただきます。 両氏が共に持つ素晴らしい素質、それは友好関係、そして協調、これらを軸に、また補足でいただいたところを入れて、トランスレーションさせていただきますけれども、 それを軸に、これからもさらに協調関係を築いていくことを希望しております。 Thank you. I also want to thank our representatives from SPIFS who have joined us today. You are always a wonderful representation of St. Petersburg as a city for all. And I appreciate all you do to help really elevate our international culture in our city. I'd like to thank our former mayors for joining us today. The fact that we have these former mayors who took the time to be here really makes, sends a great message about how important this relationship is. And I do thank Mayor Welch for helping to honor everyone and make sure that we mark this day as a day of celebration. Thank you. 今はこのセントピーターズの素晴らしい代表でいらっしゃるからです 皆さんがなさっていらっしゃることはセントピーターズの国際的な文化としての側面を非常に持ち上げてくださる存在だと思っております さらにセントピーターズバーグ市の前市長 歴代の市長の皆様にもお礼を申し上げたいと思います 時間を割いてここにいらしていただいているということは非常に強いメッセージをこの場にいる皆さんに送っていただいていることになります そしてセントピーターズバーグ市市長であるウェルチ市長が本日このスピーフに関するお祝いの字を述べてくださったことは非常に素晴らしいことだと感じます Thank you こんにちは ありがとうございます Mayor Onishi Chair Shirashi Welcome to St. Petersburg So I had the opportunity to grow up in a very small town in Indiana who had a sister city, Tochigi, Japan And that afforded me the opportunity to be able to not only learn Japanese Don't ask me to say anything more than I already said this morning Because I'm going to tell you, that was 30 years ago Forgive me, I like to ask people to speak a few sentences in pause instead of a few paragraphs in pause Okay Okay Thank you Please Oh, thank you セントピーターズへようこそ高松市の皆様 私に関して少し申し上げますと実はインディアナ州で生まれ育ちました インディアナ州は Tochigiに姉妹都市を持っています そのため私は少し日本の文化を学んだ機会がございます I can tell you that the experience of living with a family, going to school, and completely immersing myself in another culture that was so incredibly different than how I grew up, honestly changed my life 家族の皆様と住み、学校へ行くといったことを全く違う文化の中で行うという経験が私の人生を全く変えたと言いたいと思います You know, watching the video, seeing the pictures of the kids in school and brought back so many memories to me, but the memories that I really hold most dear are the realizations that I experience that we have more in common as people than we have differences, regardless of where we were born or what our given culture is. 本日のビデオを見て、その中で生徒の方たちが学校でいろいろしているシーンを見て、とてもたくさんの自分のメモリーが戻ってきたんですけれども そのたくさんの思い出の中で、特に私の中で印象深く残っているのが、人々は違うのだということ、その違いの中でお互い共存しているということに驚かされました I just want to say how proud I am to be on a council for a city who has such a rich history, with another city, a rich history of, you know, relationships that have crossed many, many miles and will continue to cross many years and influence many lives for decades to come. So thank you for coming to our city, and I look forward to spending time with you all while you're here. At this time, we're going to take a brief recess so that we can take photos, both with our delegation and with SPFs, so we will do those downstairs, council. So we'll take about a 15-minute recess. We'll go downstairs, we'll do all the photos, and then we'll come back and continue our business. 写真撮影の機会を設けますので、こちらは1階で行うことになります。 Could everyone come down to room 100, all those who are here for Takamatsu, while they're taking the pictures, and thank you very much. So see you in room 100, thank you. Thank you. This meeting stands in recess. Before we start into open forum, I do want to introduce Mayor Ken Welch again, who is going to make a very important introduction to everyone. Thank you, Madam Chair and Council. Another reason for excitement today is the announcement that our new Chief Equity Officer has begun work. As you know, this has been a long journey that many of you were involved in, in the structural racism study, and in budgeting for a new office of equity that would make sure that our principle of intentional equity was embedded throughout the organization, in every department, and with all of our partners. And so we conducted a search under our Chief of Staff, Doyle Walsh, had more than 100 applications, I believe, Doyle, of some very qualified folks. But the one that stood out is someone that many of us know from her work here at the YWCA as the CEO. I moved on to Alabama to lead equity for a statewide organization, and I'm just so excited that Lenise Emanuel has joined the City of St. Petersburg as our Chief Equity Officer and wanted to introduce her to y'all today. Lenise? Thank you so much, Mayor. And I really want to join in the chorus of others who are acknowledging past mayors. Mayor Foster was my first St. Pete mayor, and then there was Mayor Christman. And I missed Mayor Baker by a few months, but I learned of him in Leadership St. Pete and got his books, so I learned of his history. And I'm certainly honored to be working with this mayor because I've worked with him in the past. I have a lot of respect for him, and I deeply believe in how he's leading his administration. And so what I can say with great confidence, being a practitioner in the field and having studied disparity all over the country, St. Pete is perfectly poised to be a national leader in the field and in the area of equity. And I am just so deeply honored that y'all selected me to come home to be a part of all of that. And so I'm looking forward to working with each of you. I'm so thankful for it. I'm going to mispronounce his last name, Montanero. Montaneri. I know him from my YWCA days, Councilwoman Deborah Figg Sanders. I know her as well from my past life here. So I'm looking forward to working with each of you individually and as a collective. Very exciting. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I'm sorry. Councilmember Figg Sanders, you wanted to make a comment, please. I did. Come back, Ms. Come back. I apologize. I missed that grand introduction. But you know, business is business. But I just want to welcome you. You made a difference while you were here the first time. Not to mention you are a phenomenal Alpha Kappa Alpha woman. So you know I have to bring that to the forefront. And I am looking forward to your expertise, your voice. Are they ready for it? I think they are. Are they ready for it, your voice? But more importantly, I am thankful to the mayor for recognizing the need for having someone as strong as you to lead an effort as big as this for the city of St. Petersburg. So I could not let you leave without saying welcome, welcome, much love, and we got a lot of work to do. Thank you so much. Thank you, Vice Chair, and thank you again for being here. So looking forward to working with you. Welcome home to St. Pete. Thank you. Thank you again, Mayor. Okay, we will now move into open forum. Clerk, please read the rules. If you wish to address city council on subjects other than public hearing or quasi-judicial items listed on the agenda, please sign up with the clerk. Only the individual wishing to speak may sign the open forum sheet. Only city residents, owners of property, business owners in the city, or their employees may speak. All issues discussed under open forum must be limited to issues related to the city of St. Petersburg government. If you are speaking to an item on the agenda, you may only speak once, during the open forum or when the item comes up on the agenda. In order to provide an opportunity for all citizens to address council, each individual will be given three minutes and after which the microphone will be muted. If you wish to address city council through the Zoom app, you must use the raised hand feature button in the Zoom app or enter star nine on your phone at the time the agenda item is addressed. When it is your turn to speak, you will be unmuted and asked to state your name and address. At the conclusion of your comments or when you reach the three-minute time limit, you will be muted. All raised hands will be lowered after each agenda item. Regardless of the method of participation used, normal rules apply, including 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 a lot of public comment is disrupted by violations of the rules of decorum, the chair is authorized to accept public comment by alternate means, including by email only. And we do have about four speakers. Okay, do we have anyone in Zoom? Madam Chair, we do not. Okay, so please call speakers two at a time. Okay. Jeremy Tolberg and Tori Walker, please go to an open podium. State your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address city council. You can go ahead. Please first, please. Good morning. My name is Tori Walker. I'm with St. Vincent DePaul Disaster Services. Our address is 2647 Nornia Way, Suite 102-7, Landon Lakes, Florida, 34638. And I wanted to, one, introduce our organization as we're assisting Hurricane Ian survivors. And we look forward to having a partnership with you guys to, you know, encourage referrals from local organizations. So with our case management program, we are disaster recovery. It's a free service in which partners, we partner an individual or household to work with a trained disaster case manager. And with that, we assess their needs and assess their eligibility for resources. The DCM will provide advocacy on behalf of the individual families with FEMA. Insurance companies, SBA, provide survivors with other related resources as well. Some of our partners are the Salvation Army, American Red Cross, FEMA Volunteer Florida, Catholic Charities, and other long-term recovery entities. We will be having a town hall that is, we're trying to go to each city. So we're trying to plan one for St. Pete as well. So I will be reaching out to some of you guys for, to come and join us and see what we're presenting and see our partners as well. So, in addition to that, some may be asking why we're here for Hurricane Ian, but with the FEMA sequence of delivery, the unmet needs, which is volunteer agencies, is the last resort for any kind of assistance for long-term recovery. Any questions? All right. Thank you. Next speaker. Jeremy Tolberg, I live in Snell Isle. Ladies and gentlemen of the City Council, I'm here to speak out against the announced stadium proposal. I know the prospect of a new sports venue may sound enticing, but the potential negative financial impact of a publicly funded stadium should be a major concern to everyone on this council. Contrary to what the mayor or the team may tell you, handing over hundreds of millions of public dollars will provide none of the benefits they're promising. Promises that a new stadium will benefit the local economy are misguided at best. Studies consistently show that economic benefits from stadiums are wildly overestimated. Money spent at a stadium means money diverted from other local businesses. That's a net decrease in economic activity. As far as attendance goes, studies also show that for teams with new stadiums, after an initial boost, fan attendance falls back to average or lower levels within three to six seasons. That's a terrible return on investment for such an amount like this. This proposed deal only guarantees the benefit of the owners of the team and no one else. The value of sports teams has skyrocketed over the past decade with triple-digit increases in franchise values. We can look to Miami for a lesson in how deals like this typically go wrong. After years of complaints and threats, the Miami Marlins ballpark was built at a cost of over $630 million, a significant portion of which was funded by taxpayers. The very next season, team owners sold off their highest-profile players, leading to some of the lowest attendance levels in the history of the team. Even now, it remains below averages at the old ballpark. The debt on the public bonds issued for that stadium, meanwhile, has exploded to over $2 billion. And the team itself was sold five years after the stadium was built, pocketing the owners nearly $1 billion in profit. I believe everyone on this council wants to do the best thing for the city and the people who live in it. That should include safeguarding the long-term financial interests of the people living here. Approving a proposal like this would be a dereliction of that responsibility. Our city and its residents deserve better. Thank you for your time and attention. Next two speakers. Our last two speakers are Beatrice Farrell and Carrie Mueller. Please go to an open podium. State your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address city council. It didn't fall, did it? It's falling. Okay, this is a proclamation. So my name is Beatrice Farrell. The address is 450 8th Avenue Southeast. Good morning, Chair Gabbard and city council members. Members of the mayor's administration and city employees. I want to thank the mayor for our proclamation. It's Digital Inclusion Week. The theme is building connected communities. In St. Petersburg, digital inclusion is a cross-sector network of 30 organizations powered by the Community Foundation of Tampa Bay as one of its four impact initiatives. According to SAMHSA, which is a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Internet access is increasingly recognized as a super determinant of health. It plays a role in health care outcomes and influences more traditionally recognized social determinants of health, such as education, employment, and health care access. Digital inclusion is defined as first broadband at home, fast broadband at home, digital skills to use devices and the devices themselves. I'm here today to express appreciation. Councilperson Driscoll was our first champion of digital inclusion on city council. Thank you, city council members, for funding the digital inclusion initiative. I'd like to acknowledge also Councilmember Mohamed, who was part of the original digital inclusion work group when he was at CDAT. I'd like to acknowledge the library services and parks and rec, Mike Jeffries, Mika Nelson, Richard Koff, Mark Stromath, and thank you to the Foundation for Healthy St. Pete, who was the initial commitment of funding for our initiative. I want to highlight two digital inclusion projects. There is upcoming outdoor Wi-Fi at Child's Park Neighborhood Association. This is in response to a request from them. Shout out to Spectrum, one of our neighborhood network partners. And also, we're fulfilling a request from the Child's Park Neighborhood Association to provide them with upgraded improvements, eight computers for their computer lab. The advocacy organization in digital inclusion is a national digital inclusion alliance. They have a municipal trailblazer award, and we have taken the initiative of completing that award and will submit it to the city for, give it to the city for submission. We look forward to this recognition of the work that the city of St. Petersburg has done with respect to digital inclusion. And we're hoping to continue to make a name for the city of St. Petersburg in the digital inclusion space. We're happy to be a part of this effort. As an aside, digital inclusion started at the Innovation District. Shout out to Allison Barlow. And which started, and actually the city of St. Petersburg is a U.S. smart city through her efforts. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, and thanks for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Carrie Mueller, and I live in the Campbell Park Neighborhood at 12th and James. And I just wanted to speak about all the wonderful events that happened this week in regards to business equity in the community and how they're really being effective already. I just wanted to share some success stories. So it's a big priority of mine to do a lot of community outreach with my neighborhood and get information on resources to some of our residents. And this week, I wanted to share some of the events that were held. First, I wanted to talk about the construction management class that Turner Construction is doing at Bayfront Hospital in District 6. It's an opportunity to partner with prime contractors and get local businesses pre-qualified with Turner Construction to be able to be on their bidder list. And also partner with smaller businesses and go after proposals. So it's very successful. Esther Matthews is in it. She's with all administrative solutions as well as St. Pete Works. So we have some local businesses that are involved that are partnering with some other contractors. I think it's going to be a huge success. And then on Tuesday, the Center for Health Equity held a community event with PSTA to get resources out to residents. And Antonio Brown was there. He was there to talk about the great initiatives that Barbershop Book Club is working on. And my friend, Elaine Chambliss, and I attended. She was able to speak directly to Keonda Darling about the grant application process and also to the Greenhouse, who connected her with a business navigation program that really will help her with her efforts on her business. She has an art gallery. She's an artist. And sometimes when you work for yourself trying to run a business, you get bogged down with all the paperwork. And it's incredibly valuable to have the resources to help you succeed to get through that and get back to the business that you're trying to run. So I just wanted to mention how effective that was to get those resources to people in our community. And then yesterday, I had the opportunity to attend the inaugural Supplier Diversity Day at the Coliseum. It was great to see all the government contracting opportunities and partnership opportunities that are available to local residents and businesses. There is so much information on bidding opportunities with the city of St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, many other cities and counties, school districts, libraries. Also, many of the large prime contractors were in attendance, and they're looking for smaller local businesses to partner with to go after proposals. So it was great to have everybody in the same room talking to each other about all the opportunities that are coming up. And in regards to resources just for our individual neighbors, they even had some resources that were very useful to my neighbor who is trying to get a job with the post office, and she's having a hard time with the application. She asked me if I could help her. It's not really something I can help her with, but at the library, they have a class to help you with applications. And they had a flyer there at the event, and I took a picture of it, texted it to her, and now she can go to the library and get help with the job application. So I just want to talk about how effective some of these equity efforts are for our residents. Thank you. That was the final speaker. Yes, ma'am. Okay, we will close open forum, and we will now take up our legal items. We are joined by Assistant City Attorney Ken McCollum, and you have item J1 and J2. Yes, I also have J4. All right, we'll just take them in order, if that's okay. Good morning, everybody. First up, for your consideration, we have the lawsuit of Charles Myers and his wife, Loretta Myers, against the city. This is an incident that goes back to the fall of 2021, when a police vehicle was involved in a collision with Mr. Myers' vehicle. Unfortunately, he suffered some fairly significant injuries and ended up in the hospital for a number of weeks with a brain injury. His medical bills are excessive, and his wife, due to what was going on with his injuries in the hospital, filed a consortium claim. So we ended up resolving this case at the sovereign immunity cap of $200,000 for Mr. Myers and $30,000 for his wife, Loretta, and we're seeking counsel approval on this matter. Move of approval. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Seeing no request to speak, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. All right, seeing all council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Agenda item J1 passes unanimously. All right, moving on to J2. Okay, J2 is a workers' compensation washout settlement matter involving a former employee, James Culberson. Just by way of facts in this matter, Mr. Culberson is a 61-year-old former police officer who was injured several times on the job and has a number of workers' compensation claims. There are a number of surgeries involved and potential permanent total disability in this case. Outside counsel was able to resolve this pending counsel approval at a mediation for a total figure of $80,000, which we believe is a good resolution to this case. And we are seeking approval in this. Move of approval. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Seeing no request to speak, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Agenda item J2 passes unanimously. And since you're there, why don't we just skip down to J4 and get that one done, and then we'll go to Mr. Patner. Okay, sounds good. This item involves Richard Miranda, who is a police officer that works for the city. Just by way of council's background, there is a companion employment matter. Both of these have been handled by outside counsel. The companion matter, both of these matters were resolved last week at a fairly lengthy mediation. What is in front of you here today for your consideration is the workers' compensation washout settlement. He has six pending open workers' compensation claims involving various parts of his body. There's been a number of medical bills in this case and potential for, based upon his age, which is 51, of permanent total disability payments. It should also be noted there were a number of prior workers' compensation matters that were closed in previous years. As part of the condition of this settlement, effective, if council should approve this matter, he will be no longer with the department as of today, if it is approved. So we are seeking approval. This sum total on this is $245,000. Move approval. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Seeing no request to speak, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, in your vote. Seeing all council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Agenda item J-4 passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. McCollum. Thank you, everybody. Appreciate your time. We'll now move to J-3, and we're joined by Assistant City Attorney Joe Putner. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Council. Joseph Putner here for not a settlement, but I'm seeking authority to make an offer pursuant to Florida statutes, what's known as an offer of judgment, which has a certain legal ramifications to it, an amount up to $65,000 in this matter regarding an automobile accident. It is an accident at an intersection, 16th Street South. It's a big impact. I think all of you should have seen the photographs. Neck, back, and shoulder complaints is currently set for trial in February. Been unable to reach what I believe is a satisfactory resolution through discussions, so I want to make the next step in making, like I said, under Florida statutes, the offer of judgment rule, which we can talk about if anybody wants any more details on that, other than there are some ramifications by doing this, which would be beneficial to the city. Like I said, up in the amount to $65,000, so I'd be seeking approval to do that. Move approval. All right, we have a motion and a second. Council Member Hanowitz. Thank you, and thank you to the City Attorney's Office for all the work that you all do. I just want to make sure that everyone here understands we just went through really quickly four legal cases that we approved, and you're like, wow, that was quick, but we all had meetings with our attorneys. They meet with each one of us, tell us the facts of the case, and go through the details with us, and they're very diligent to make sure that they're protecting the city's interests in these cases. So I just wanted to make sure I put that out there, because sometimes it seems like it goes so quickly in this meeting, but we've had conversations about each of these cases one-on-one, and I know that they have worked very hard to get the best settlement for the city. So thank you. Thank you. So we have a motion and a second. Seeing no further requests to speak, clerk, please open the machine for voting. So, council members, enter your votes. Seeing all council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, agenda item J3 passes unanimously. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Thank you, Mr. Patner. Appreciate you both. Thank you. Oh, happy birthday. We'll get you at the end. I'm going to let him leave. I'm going to let him leave. All right. Yes, sir. Oh, council member Gurdis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, Joe, I'm sure you were trying to run out the building, but Joe is celebrating a milestone birthday. I won't say which one. Unfortunately, it's not 40 or 50. We're running out of options of what it could be. So, but I just, I wanted, we won't sing to you, Joe, but I just wanted to wish you a very happy birthday. I would echo what council member Hanowitz said. The diligence you guys take in each of these, giving us the one-on-ones. I know you are constantly protecting this city. And Joe, very, very happy birthday. Thanks for all the work you do. And hopefully many, many more, my friend. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Happy birthday. All right. Thank you for that, council member Gurdis. So now we're going to go into our public hearings. And we will take up item E1. Clerk, please take the title. Proposed ordinance number 1154-V. An ordinance approving the vacation of a sidewalk easement on lots 4, 5, and 6 of blocks 16 of the revised map of St. Petersburg, located at 234 3rd Avenue North, setting forth conditions for the vacation to become effective, and providing for an effective date. And we have no cards for this item. Move approval. Second. Okay, we are joined by Development Review Services Planner, Cheryl Bregalio. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for being here. But we have a motion and a second, and I don't see any request to speak. So, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all council members have voted, clerk, please highly announce the vote. Agenda item E1 passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for being with us. All right, clerk, can you read the title for E2, please? Proposed ordinance 1155-V. An ordinance approving the vacation of the street corner easement at the northwest corner of First Avenue North, 30th Street North, abutting tract A in the hall's Central Avenue subdivision number 2, located at 3001, 3023, and 3061 First Avenue North, setting forth conditions for the vacation to become effective and providing for an effective date. And we have no speakers. Okay, and we are joined this morning by Development Review Services Planner, Candace Scott. Move approval. Second. All right, so I have a motion and a second, and I see no request to speak. So, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all council members have voted, clerk, please highly announce the vote. Madam Chair, agenda item E2 passes unanimously. All right, very good. Thank you. Thank you. Item E3, clerk. Proposed ordinance 1156-V. An ordinance approving the vacation of the 30-foot wide north-south portion of 2nd Street North, between Gandy Boulevard North and 104th Avenue North, adjacent to lots 1 through 11 of Block 3 of the Bridgeview subdivision, generally located at 10338 2nd Street North, setting forth conditions for the vacation to become effective and providing for an effective date. And we have no cards for this item. Move approval. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. We are joined by Development Review Services Planner, Chevron, or Shervon, sorry, Shambliss. So, thank you for being here with us today. I don't see any requests to speak, so, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, agenda item E3 passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Shambliss. All right, item E4. Clerk, can you please read the title? E4, Proposed Ordinance 558-H, an ordinance creating Chapter 2, Article 5, Division 10, Sections 2-281 through 2-288, Minority and Women Business Enterprise Program, Establishing Findings, Purpose, and Goals. Creating Definitions, Establishing the Authority and Responsibility of the POD. Establishing Solicitation and Contract Requirements Related to Achieving Required Minority Business Enterprise or Women Business Enterprise participation percentages in certain contracts. Creating Provisions Addressing Noncompliance with Chapter 2, Article 5, Division 10. Setting forth Reporting Requirements for the Program, Providing for Conformity with Federal, State, and Local Laws, Providing for a Sunset Date, and Providing an Effective Date. And we have no speakers. Move approval. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. We are joined by Procurement and Supply Management Director, Stephanie Swinson, and Supplier Diversity Manager, Corey Hendricks-Bell. So, hello, ladies. Thank you for being with us today. Council Member Montaneri. We do have a presentation on. And so that you're asking for the presentation? Sure. Okay. Very good. We'll go to the presentation. Okay. So, um. Do you have, clerk's pulling it up for you, just a moment. Okay, yes. So, thank you. Good morning. Um, my name is Corey Hendricks-Bell, the Manager of the Office of Supplier Diversity. We just have a short presentation here about the, um, ordinance and the Administrative Policy Updates. So, first, we wanted to shortly just go over the goal of the Minority and Women Business Enterprise Program. So, the goal is for the creation of equitable opportunities for all members of our community to do business with the City of St. Petersburg. The objective is to respond to the recommendations of the disparity study by creating an MWBE program that addresses disparities in contracting for MWBE firms in construction, architecture, and engineering, and goods and services purchases by the City of St. Petersburg. The key deliverable for this program is that the ordinance will serve as the foundational legislation that will underpin a successful MWBE program for the City of St. Petersburg. And so, this is just our mission. Um, I think you've probably seen this several times, um, but again, it says that our mission is to promote fair and equal business opportunities through the intentional implementation of diversity programs to ensure equity to, in contracts and procurement for all members of our community who want to do business with the City of St. Petersburg. This slide is just an excerpt from the ordinance itself that defines what an MBE is, and that is a for-profit business that is at least 51% owned by a minority or minorities with management and daily operations controlled by a minority or minorities. The business must also be responsible for the execution of a distinct element of a contract, carry out that responsibility by actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved, and possess the skills, qualifications, or expertise necessary to perform, manage, and supervise the work. The WBE definition is just for the women-owned business enterprise portion of this ordinance, and again, it just says that a for-profit business that is at least 51% owned by women or women with management and daily operations controlled by a woman or women. And again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, that business must be responsible for the execution of a distinct element of a contract, carry out that responsibility by actually performing, managing, supervising the work involved, and possess the skills, qualifications, or expertise necessary to perform, manage, and supervise the work. This slide talks about the authority granted by the ordinance, so what is it actually giving us the ability to do? And so the MWBE ordinance establishes procedures and, well, gives us the authority to establish procedures and administrative policies related to certification of the MWBEs that met the requirements of this division, including, but not limited to, determining whether a business is performing commercially useful function by reviewing the following. One would be normal industry practices, whether the business owners perform, manage, or supervise the work involved, and other relevant factors. Also determining ownership of a business by evaluating the customary incidence of ownership, including the right of disposition and sharing in all risks and profits, commensurate with the degree of ownership interest. Re-certification of MWBEs, recertification of MWBEs, and also recognizing certification of MWBEs by other government agencies. We'll also be able to maintain and make available to prime contractors in all city departments a current list of city-certified MWBEs. This, again, is just a timeline, so we've already had the first reading, and today is the public hearing. And within the ordinance, it gives us 90 days to implement after the ordinance is adopted. It also provides a five-year period to sunset, unless it's otherwise reenacted. And in that case, we would have to do another disparity study. This is just an overview of our responsibilities in the Office of Supplier Diversity, and again, we handle the apprenticeship program, disadvantaged workers, MWBE, WBE, if these are approved, small business, enterprises, living wage, and responsible wage. This area here is going over some notable items from the MWBE, SBE, and WBE programs, specifically talking about the creation of the Business Equity Advisory Committee. And this will be a new committee. It's a seven-minute committee consisting of five city staff members and two members of the business community. I would serve as the chair, the supplier diversity manager. The BEAC's purpose is to assess the city's supplier diversity programs and to share opinions and perspectives, study issues, and develop recommendations on improvements of all equity programs inside the Office of Supplier Diversity. The BEAC will meet on a quarterly basis, and so with the creation of this committee, the SBE Construction Committee will be dissolved. Since the primary purpose of the SBE Construction Committee was to set goals, the Office of Supplier Diversity will take over that responsibility, and we will review all projects with an estimated value of $10,000 or more to determine the method of goal-setting for good services, including professional services and construction. Another newer process that we'll start doing is forecasting. So a procurement forecast is a projection or estimate of the future spending or purchasing plans of an organization or department, specifically focused on increasing the diversity of suppliers we work with. This is going to be very helpful for our small businesses, because we'll end up publishing some of that information to kind of let them see what we plan on doing down the road. So next is we wanted to talk about the project-specific goal-setting. So goal-setting is a data-driven process. Project goals will be based on demonstrable evidence of the availability of ready, willing, and able MWBEs and MBEs relative to all the businesses ready, willing, and able to participate on City of St. Petersburg contracts. The Office of Supplier Diversity will use special software that we've talked about in the past, B2G, to review the available certified firms in relevant fields of work on a project-by-project basis to determine the appropriate goal to apply to that project. And so this is just an example of that process. It's going to be really good, because we will have evidence to back the goals that we're setting. So it will be very easy to track how we're coming to the conclusion that we're coming to. Next, we wanted to kind of just briefly go over how we'll measure success of the program. And so a few areas are listed here. We will be looking at the increased opportunities for small, minority, and women-owned businesses, the increased number of certified firms, the increased number of firms bidding and responding to RFPs, the number of companies awarded businesses within the city, increased spend with small, minority, and women-owned businesses, number of businesses participating in capacity-building activities, and the business at impact. So thank you for allowing us to present this to you all. Okay. Thank you for the presentation. Council Member Montanary, the floor is yours. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. We've been talking about this for quite a while, and all along the way, I've been concerned about the constitutionality of an ordinance like this, but it's not just me. Our city staff has been warning us about the danger that we're, when we go into programs like this. And I believe that this is a lawsuit that's waiting to happen here in the city of St. Petersburg. At first reading, I talked about the Richmond versus Croson case, and where the Supreme Court struck down Richmond's 30% MPE quota. And at the first reading, our attorney, Ms. Williams, talked about how we have goals in this ordinance. So I'd like to explore that a little bit more, because you talked about it at first reading that goals are not mandatory, but we have goals in an ordinance. So that makes them mandatory, don't they? The difference is the ability for the contractor to prove good faith efforts. So in the Richmond versus Croson case, there was a 30% quota, and there were no good faith efforts, including in that program. And so what we have here in this ordinance is participation goals not set at a rigid number, like the 30%, but set on a contract by contract basis based on the availability of willing and able contractors to perform the work. And even with that flexibility, let's say the percentage is 30% on a particular project. If a contractor is able to show that they are unable to find WBEs or MBEs to satisfy whatever percentage goal in this example 30% is set, then there are a number of ways to show that good faith effort by reaching out to trade associations, by publicizing the ability of an MBE or WBE to participate. And so if they satisfy that, satisfy that to the person officially designated, then the percentage will not have to be reached. Okay, so you're advising us that the goals that we have in this ordinance won't be looked at the same way as they were back when the Supreme Court ruled on the Richmond versus Croson case? I can say that the design of the ordinance is that there is more flexibility than that case. I can't tell you what a court will do with it, as I've said before, as far as looking at each of the factors in this case. But the ordinance is designed differently than the ordinance in that 1989 case because we learned from that case. that you need flexibility as a part of the goals that are set in an ordinance such as this. Okay, so back in 2002, our procurement department had a outside attorney Colette Holt give us a briefing on this subject. And in that briefing, they mentioned, let's go back. Can you discuss this strict scrutiny, how does strict scrutiny apply for ordinances like this? Why don't we talk about that first and then I'll get into the specifics. Sure, the strict scrutiny standard is the highest legal standard as far as viewing any type of ordinance. It is set by Croson for race based preferences in public contracting. And so with a strict scrutiny standard, a government must show a compelling state interest. And that the remedy used to satisfy that compelling state interest or remedy that compelling state interest is narrowly tailored. And so what Croson told us is that you need a factual underpinning for that. With the Richmond City Council, they didn't have statistics to back up the 30% that were satisfactory to the court. They looked at the difference between the number of contractors utilized and the population of Richmond. And the court said that that's not an effective comparison. And so the standard that we have right now for strict scrutiny, first you have to set that compelling state interest. And you do so by showing an actual disparity which indicates discrimination. And so that's why when Croson was decided, many jurisdictions went the route of disparity studies. So that they could show or not show, as I'll talk about in a minute, that there was a disparity within their jurisdiction or the area around the jurisdiction. And once you have that compelling state interest to defend your ordinance, you'll need to make sure you have a strong basis in evidence. And that's why the disparity studies are done and why anecdotal evidence is included in those disparity studies. Because at the crux of it, you have to prove some type of discrimination. Either that the city actively discriminated or that there was passive discrimination. Meaning the city is infusing tax dollars into private discrimination which is conducted by the industry. Once you've satisfied that, then whatever remedy you choose, an MWBE program has to be narrowly tailored based on the disparity that is shown. And therefore, with this ordinance, it makes sure that each percentage for each project will be looked at to see if the particular minority group that there was a disparity shown in the disparity study. See if it's found to be discriminatory against that particular group. And then the percentages will be set based on the disparity in this disparity study. So there are a number of factors that a court looks at as far as whether it's narrowly tailored. I've talked about one already, which is flexibility in the program. They also look at duration of the program, which is why the sunset was placed in the program. As well as other factors to assure that it is as narrowly tailored as it can be to effectively remedy the discrimination that has been shown through the disparity. Okay, at first reading, you mentioned a case, I believe it was in Tennessee, that was taken up by the 11th circuit. That I believe you said was the first case that was brought forward since the Supreme Court made their ruling in June. Can you kind of elaborate on that? Absolutely. It wasn't an 11th circuit case, it was a 6th circuit, so we are sitting in the 11th circuit. But it's the only case so far with an opinion that has tied students versus fair admissions, students for fair admissions versus Harvard and UNC to a public contracting case. And so briefly, with students versus fair admissions, race-based government action was held to be unconstitutional as far as college admissions because of the way a compelling interest was established in that case, and also it was found not to be narrowly tailored. And Ultima, which was Ultima Services Corporation versus United States Department of Agriculture, that court in the 6th circuit found that as far as public contracting is concerned, you need specific instances of discrimination to establish intentional discrimination for a minority business enterprise program. And so the court looked at what had been done with USDA as far as their Section 8A program. And that program in a nutshell provided a rebuttable presumption that certain minority groups were socially disadvantaged. Because their program was a socially disadvantaged business enterprise program. But certain minority groups were presumed to be socially disadvantaged unless there was evidence presented to the contrary. And so Ultima, who was not a business that would be able to utilize the rebuttable presumption, sued. Because they already had contracts in this particular area. And they would no longer be able to bid on those contracts because they were not presumed to be socially disadvantaged. And they sued on that basis. And the court found that as applied to this particular company, the program was unconstitutional. It didn't shut down the program necessarily. They just found that as applied to Ultima in this case that the program did not meet the strict scrutiny standards. So the program still exists, but of course because Ultima sued and was successful in their case as it applied to them. USDA did have to pay attorney's fees in that case and they did have to change the program as it relates to companies like Ultima in that particular industry. I know I've said a lot, but I will focus on the part of the particular industry because that was a big part of the ultimate case. They did not show that the disparities using the statistics and experts that they brought forward were tied to a particular industry. It included construction and goods and services and professional services. So it wasn't narrowly tailored to achieve the interest that the government put forward. Okay. Have there been cases that similar to what we have before us that have survived this strict scrutiny standard? There have. There isn't a whole lot of case law in this issue, but folks at our home, Hillsborough County, and it was probably 10 to 15 years ago at this point. Their minority business enterprise program was upheld on the basis of a strict scrutiny review. So there have been some and that's the closest one to us. Miami Dades, they had one kicked out and then they redid the program and it withstood a court case as well. Okay, so MBE programs come under the strict scrutiny standard. WBE programs, they have a lower standard, correct? Yes, it's called an intermediate standard. And can you explain the difference and why that is? So the difference is, so for every ordinance you pass, there's a standard. That's a rational basis review when you just have to have a legitimate interest in what you're doing. Strict scrutiny is what I talked about earlier. So in the 11th circuit, what has been established for women business enterprise program is an intermediate standard. So you just have to show that you have a substantial interest in remaining whatever compelling state interest that has been brought forward. So you have just rational, substantial, and then you have strict scrutiny. Okay, all right, in this briefing that we received from Alette Holt back in 2022, they have a slide where it says strict scrutiny as applied and it talks about the program. And there's like four bullet points where under the program must be flexible. It says no quotas or race-based set-asides and no points for participation. In the ordinance that's before us, there's a part where we're giving discounts for evaluation purposes. How is that different than this points for participation? I don't know exactly what they meant as a part of that. I wasn't a part of creating that presentation, but I can tell you that evaluation points are different than the set-aside goals that they may have been referring to. And I don't know if staff wants to comment on it. So this is the bid discounts on page four? Correct. The bid discounts are what we do for IFBs or invitation for bids. We do it currently with SBEs. So if an MBE falls within the disparity chart that we have in the admin policy and we can apply a bid discount, it's not a monetary discount. It's just an advantage they receive based on their bid under $100,000. So we provide a discount for them. But it's not a set-aside, it would be based on the availability of the vendors to perform that project or service for that particular bid. And then on the evaluation criteria, MWBE and SBE are listed as criterias for firms or subcontractors to those firms to be able to give like one to two, three points. But it's not a set-aside, it's not participation, it's just a criteria that's taken into account with all the other evaluation criteria on our solicitations that we currently do now. So my issue with this one part of the ordinance, and there's like five parts of the ordinance that I have a big problem with, but this particular part, when I read this Supreme Court opinion, the student's fair admissions, the Harvard case, it seems like there's a lot of similarities between what we have in our ordinance and what the Supreme Court ruled on back in June. Am I wrong? I never like telling a council member that they're wrong. So if you see similarities, there may be some. But there are distinguishable differences between what they decided in that case and what is the standard for public contracting. So it was more of a racial balancing compelling interest that the colleges presented as far as their compelling state interest. They said they wanted to create future leaders, they wanted to make a more diverse class. It was very broad, racial balancing type, compelling state interest. And that's why the court said that, you know, how do you measure whether or not you're training appropriate future leaders? How do you measure if the diversity of a class is going to make education better for all? And because they couldn't find distinct, measurable outcomes, they found that what Harvard and UNC was doing was not narrowly tailored to achieve the interests. Because we won't be able to tell, one, when to end it. Because that is always a critical factor in these types of cases. How do we know when we have succeeded? Because we don't need to continue, in the words of the court, these types of programs forever. And that's why post-Cruzan and certainly post-fare admissions, sunsets are critical to survival of an ordinance like this. Okay, all right, thank you. Well, and I appreciate you all answering my questions. As I told you, there's five parts of this ordinance that I think we're going to have a problem with. And it's not just me. Mr. Malone, Stephanie's predecessor, told us he offered a lot of warnings going down this path. So I'm very concerned, and I won't be supporting this ordinance. Thank you, Madam Chair. Council Member Mohammed. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start by thanking the staff and legal, and really kind of echoing the sentiment that was given earlier, just about the work that you all do, particularly in the legal department, to protect the city, to make sure that our interests and our risks are mitigated, the due diligence, and also the way that you have articulated it. I think it's very easy to speak, it's not a lot of legalese, whereas, here, two fours. So it's easy to comprehend what you're saying, and I appreciate that. Also, the one-on-one coming through and really having that time to spend with you all. So, first and foremost, I believe the ordinance is vital, because it's a clear response to the longstanding issues that we've had. The systemic disparities that exist in our community, particularly concerning the utilization of minority-owned and women-owned businesses. The disparity study has unequivocally demonstrated that there are stark differences between the availability and the actual utilization of these businesses. This is not merely a matter of statistics. It is an issue of equity and fairness that affects the very fabric of our community. I believe by passing this ordinance, we make a profound statement about our commitment to fairness and inclusivity. We acknowledge that every business, regardless of its ownership, should have an equal opportunity to thrive and contribute to our community's economic growth. This is about, for me, creating an environment where all entrepreneurs, regardless of their background, can compete on a level playing field. Again, a disparity study has provided us with a road map for addressing these disparities. I think this ordinance translates those recommendations into concrete actions. It sets out clear definitions for what a minority business enterprise is. Also what women business enterprises are, and establishes a criteria for their certification. I think passing this ordinance and implementing these recommendations will empower our communities. It opens doors for MBEs and WBEs, allowing them access to opportunities that were previously out of reach. When we empower these businesses, we empower the families and the individuals, and it creates a ripple effect of positive change in our community, and I appreciate your efforts in this regard. I think the way that it is written is accountability. It provides, again, clear guidelines for the certification and establishes the procedures that will prevent any form of abuse or misuse. It's a tool for fairness and transparency that we can hold ourselves accountable to. I've seen the charts, I saw the logic, and I think it can withstand the scrutiny that we've been talking about. As it relates to the sunset clause, I also think that clause, because it's included, it shows that this is not a one-time action but a commitment to an ongoing evaluation and adaptation. It ensures that we remain responsive to the evolving needs of our community, so it's not doing this and it's done, like continuing to review it. So lastly, in closing, I'm going to give this thing two seconds before we hit that. All right. In closing, I would like to urge each council member and all of us to really consider the significance of this moment and what we're doing here. We do have an opportunity to take meaningful action to address the disparities that have persisted for far too long. This is not just about the words on paper, but it's about making a real difference in the lives of our constituents. Passing this ordinance is not merely an option, I think it's a moral imperative. It's an affirmation of our commitment to the prosperity of all members of our community. And I look forward to voting in support of this with resounding support and seeing it implemented with diligence and dedication. So that we can ensure that every business owner, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to thrive and contribute to our community's growth. And lastly, it will be difficult, we may get challenged, but the status quo is never changed by those who are comfortable within it. And so, I'm here for it and we want the smoke, so let's do it, and you have my support. Thank you, Madam Chair. Clerk, do we have comments for this item, public comments? We do not. We don't have any public cards, okay. Council Member Hanowitz? Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Janine, first of all, for providing a memorandum detailing the facts of the cases. I thought that was very helpful because it is an evolving area. I want to touch a little bit about what binding cases are about, and I think City Council will remember when we had a conversation on having a resolution to put rent control on the ballot, okay. That was clearly out of bounds. We could not do that, right? Why? Because Supreme Court case law, on point, it's very rare to find a case that literally tells you exactly the fact pattern that you're doing, telling you you can't do it. There was a Florida Supreme Court case on point on that. We couldn't do it. As a matter of fact, if we would have done it, we would have been stepping out of our immunity. Is that correct? Is that correct? Distinct possibility. Yes. As a matter of fact, we were advised not to do that. Is that correct? Okay. Okay. Okay. So this is, and, you know, there's always case law and different fact patterns that attorneys have to analyze. And, Janine, you've done a good job at kind of laying the foundation of how our facts and our ordinance is very different in this case. And I just want to touch a little bit about that. First of all, what are the binding presidents we have, which are basically U.S. Supreme Court case law on this, right? Because you're interpreting, right? Right. Croissant. Right. The Constitution, right? You have that. You have Croissant. You have fair admissions, correct? And then the Ultima case is Sixth Circuit. We're in the Eleventh Circuit, not binding, right? Eleventh Circuit comes up with a different opinion. That's binding on us, right? So let's talk a little bit about the Ultima facts and why our case, our, I guess, ordinance is different from Ultima. We have a strict scrutiny standard, right? We have to show compelling state interest, right? And we have a disparity study, right? My understanding is that in Ultima, they used congressional findings back in the 80s, right, to show social disadvantage. Nothing current, nothing specific as we have right now. Is that correct? Right. They didn't tie any statistics to the particular industry that Ultima was practicing in. They used national statistics and congressional findings, as you've indicated. So it was not narrowly tailored, right? And ours is. So we're looking at specific areas of industry, right, where there are disparities, correct? Okay. We're looking at specific groups where there are disparities, correct? Correct. We are looking at specific amounts of contracts where there are disparities, correct? Okay. Was that present in Ultima? No. Okay. So when you talk about distinguishing a case from one another, these are the factors that matter. So you can look at it and make an analysis and say, okay, you know what? We have a good chance of meeting our strict scrutiny standard based on the factors present, right? And you've analyzed that, correct? Yes, we have. Okay. Okay. So you can't guarantee that there's never going to be a case. Obviously, people can litigate on everything. Your case is filed every day. But you found that there is a difference between the Ultima case and our case that makes it distinguishable, right? Our ordinance is very distinguishable. But I think I've told all of you in 101s what, of course, a court will do with this case is up in the air. Because of the climate that we're in, the fair admissions case, we believe it's distinguishable, but we don't know what a court will do with it, like other cases that have been overturned. We have precedent, but precedent can be overturned. And in terms of fair admissions, to be clear, again, going back to distinguishability, can you just clarify for everyone what's the difference between this and fair admissions? Fair admissions was a college admissions case, and they were looking at their compelling state interests of diversity of the class, of creating future leaders and things like that, which aren't measurable outcomes. And that's what the Supreme Court keyed in on, the ability to measure when you have succeeded at remedying a compelling state interest, which is the standard. So how can we tell if it's narrowly tailored to remedy that standard if we can't measure it? And here we've, with staff, have tried to create an ordinance that meets a program where you are looking at specific goals on specific projects based on a disparity study that references specific minority groups. It will be different in implementation for staff for an African-American business versus a Hispanic business versus a Native American business based on whether there were disparities found in that disparity study for each individual minority group. Okay, and just before, just one more question in terms of the sunset. How important is the sunset provision to the ordinance? It's critical because the duration of the program is one of the factors that they look at in addition to flexibility, the necessity of the program, and things like that. None of the cases that I've reviewed where the ordinance did not have a sunset provision have succeeded as far as being found constitutional. Okay, thank you so much. All right, we have a motion and a second. And seeing no further requests to speak and no cards, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Okay, council members, enter your votes. Seeing all council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, agenda item E4 passes 7 to 1. Council member Driscoll, Vic Sanders, Floyd, Gabbard, Gerdes, Hanowitz, and Mohammed voting yes. And council member Montanari voting no. Very good, thank you so much. Thank you all. Okay, we'll move on to our report items and take up item F1. And we are joined by Transportation and Parking Management Director Evan Morey. This is our Transportation Disadvantaged Program Bus Pass Subsidy Agreement. Good morning, council. Thank you very much. We do have a PowerPoint presentation to go over with you this morning. Joining me today from my department is Tom Whalen, Transportation Coordinator. Also here today is Ross Silvers with PSTA to help with any question. So the Transportation Disadvantaged Program is actually rooted in state law and a state program that buys down bus fares for individuals who require that assistance. And it is funded to the tune of over $4 million coming to PSTA last year, but it leaves a gap for users to pay out of pocket. So basically what our program or our proposal is that is included in this year's budget is to buy that down the rest of the way to a $0 fare. There's a state definition of transportation disadvantage that's here, and I'll go into the definition locally that's consistent with this a little bit later. PSTA, the transit provider locally, is what's considered the county's community transportation coordinator. So they're in charge of running this. They do this in-house. It is work for them already. It's going to be extra work for them to administer this with invoicing us. So I'd like to thank them for their partnership and willingness to do this with the city. Of course, it furthers their goal of increased transit ridership and access. For Pinellas also has a role in this on a countywide basis and supports the program. So specifically for the Transportation Disadvantaged Program here, there's various services that are available, including door-to-door and regular service, depending on what people need. They could have physical disability or challenges that require them not to be able to use the regular bus, and so there's a program for them. An important distinction here is that the program is for lower-income individuals that would struggle with paying for bus passes or could struggle with paying for regular-priced bus passes or even the discounted bus program. So people have to be below the 200 percent federal poverty level to qualify. But in addition to that, the Transportation Disadvantage isn't just based on income. They also cannot own a car or have other access to rides. So it's for people who really need this service. The remaining that I mentioned earlier is $5 or $11, depending on if the person would like a 10-day pass for the month that they could use at any 10 days during that given month, or an unlimited is $11. So the city proposes to encourage transit ridership by city residents by authorizing or by subsidizing the fare further. Also, because this is for persons with less than $200,000, we will be able to verify residents for people who are currently unhoused through other social service agencies if they'll vouch for the person that they are in St. Petersburg. It is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, as outlined here. Also mentioned earlier that the cost, while it's low, is still a barrier, so we'd like to bring down that barrier. And in the following map will show you that we had a discussion about, and we had a budget line item for keeping Sunrunner free, and unfortunately that didn't move forward. But a limitation of that, and one reason why we look to do this program, is Sunrunner doesn't cover the whole city, it doesn't cover the whole county. So we look for ways to bring other routes in, and so that's what this does, is that if somebody qualifies, they can ride any route in the whole system. And you can see that zero car households, and low income is all across the county, over specific areas within St. Petersburg, and certainly the Sunrunner route didn't touch all those areas. Right now, there's another subsidy that Pinellas County Health Department pays, and so we wouldn't have to cover the whole cost for those individuals. We would step in and pay that difference of $6. And currently, we calculated how much it would cost to buy down everybody currently participating, and that would be $136,000. But we're hoping that more people will participate, and so we've set a budget of $175,000 for year one, which would be a 28% increase. So we do request council approval to authorize the mayor to implement this agreement. It would start November 1st. It would be for three years and expire at the end of fiscal year 26. Again, it would have a $175,000 per year budget, at least initially, and there's a one, two-year renewal option. There's also options to amend the agreement. If we find that we're running out of funds, that would be up to administration and ultimately council if we wanted to add more funds to the program in the future. Currently, if we do run out of funds, the individuals who would qualify would just need to go ahead and pick up that minimal cost until the end of the fiscal year or the new contract year. But with that, I would open it up to any questions. Move approval. We have a motion and a second. Councilmember Floyd. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I just want to ask a couple of quick questions. The process to apply to be in this program from a citizen's perspective, what is that like and who runs that? Is it PSTA that's in charge of that? PSTA does, and fortunately for me, I asked Ross to come along so he could help answer specifics just like that. Great. Thank you. Sure. Thanks. So, Ross Silvers, PSTA. Good morning, City Councilmembers. Yes, so we have a transportation disadvantaged application, and it's one application process whether someone's a city resident or not, but we've just edited with our marketing department that application to specifically be inclusive of this new initiative. So, with this one application, anyone from the county can sign up, and if they're a city resident, then we will use a map that was provided to us by Evan and his staff that verifies that their address is within the city, and then that one additional step will enable them to qualify for paying nothing for their TD fare. The application is going to be on our website, be distributed through many social service agencies, as it is now, and we are in the process of preparing for the first time an application that can actually be completed and submitted from someone's cell phone. So, that's in the works and should be available soon. Thank you. Don't go away. I've got more questions. What kind of documentation does someone need to provide to qualify for this? Like, is there a list of things? Yes. So, what we did is we tried to pride ourselves on being very transparent with this program. So, there's on the PSTA website a transportation disadvantage webpage, and on that page it outlines all the eligibility criteria. It has the income limits, and it has on the application itself, it has a list of forms of documentation that are acceptable to qualify for the program. So, for example, for income, the most common is, you know, two recent pay stubs, and obviously those can be electronic, but also someone providing evidence that they're on access or receiving food stamps, a copy of that kind of documentation. And then for, there's also a list we developed with city staff for documentation of city residents, city residency as well. Okay, specifically, like, there was one thing in there that kind of intrigued me, which was evidence that they can't get a ride from someone else in their household. What does that evidence look like? We don't require any evidence of that. That's simply a self-certification. So, essentially, there's a statement on the application, I do not have access to a ride from another source. And there are specific questions on the application. There are some other programs that provide free rides, like if you're a St. Pete College student, or actually if you're, I think, a USF St. Pete student, or a city staff member, then you would get free rides on the bus. So, there's yes or no questions for those, and a statement at the end that says, I don't have, I hereby certify, I don't have access to a car or a ride to get to my life-sustaining trips. And so, that meets the state's needs to meet the statute. Okay, thank you for that clarification. I just want to point out that this is a little bit of a complicated process. Like someone who's precariously housed or having issues with income at all, it's difficult to collect forms like this. And so, I'd ask PSCA to keep that in mind going forward if they can streamline this at all to make it easier for more people to access this kind of program. Let me just get clarification on the last thing, too, from PSCA's perspective. How, so, the city's buying down the rates, that money is going straight to the rates, none of it's going to the administration of the program? Or, so, my understanding is it's a, you know the money part better than I do, probably. Is it the, how's it working in the contract? We're simply covering the amount that would have come from the citizen. Okay, that's exactly what I wanted to hear. Thank you for that. And then, actually, you started to answer my question, and I guess just to be holistic, to make sure. I just wanted to hear, like, who does ride free on buses right now? And they don't have to fill out a form. They can show an ID or something. Is that the case? Correct. So, we have a contract with a number of universities, so, USF, St. Pete, with also St. Pete College, with micro school, and, of course, with Pinellas County Public Schools. So, as well as the city of St. Petersburg, and I'm going to leave a couple out, but Tradewinds and a couple of the other hotels on the beaches. So, for all those, they do not need to fill out a form like this, but there's a contract that is intended to cover the entire cost of their riding the PSTA bus system unlimited, where this agreement is only to cover what we call the co-pay or the fare. Where, that's, you know, they're paying $11 of the $70 cost that it would normally cost each month to ride PSTA buses under this program. Okay. Thank you for this and for the information. I appreciate it. And I'll just add that, you know, we've had this program for a long time. We work very closely with all the agencies that serve the homeless and those who are low income. And so, I've already been starting to let them know that this may be coming, and we have a press release ready to go. And we'll be sending that out to all the agencies as well, and working with them closely so that they can get this two-page application completed for those who are not already on the program. All right. So, we have a motion and a second. So, seeing no further request to speak, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your vote. Seeing all council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, agenda item F1 passes unanimously. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. All right. Next, we will go to item F2, which was our addition of the emergency procurement on a fire rescue vehicle. We are joined by City Administrator Tom Green and Assistant Fire Operations Chief Robert Bassett. Mr. Green. Good morning, Madam Chair and City Council. A very brief report. I think I had an opportunity to chat with each of you prior to this. Last week, we did exercise very quickly the purchase of a SUV for the fire department. That acquisition was certainly – we found ourselves in a very fortunate situation, maybe unfortunate for another fire agency who was not able to take delivery of that vehicle. But we certainly were able to take advantage of that and act quickly to replace a couple of vehicles that – or to replace one of the vehicles that had been damaged in an accident. Part of this process when we exercise what is called Section 2-213 of our procurement code under the emergency section, where we waive our normal processes, is to report to council that that has happened. The total acquisition is just slightly north of $70,000. You'll see that on the purchasing report coming up. And then, again, maybe a cleanup when we're reconciling 23 and 24 expenditures. And Chief Bassett is here if you have any additional questions. But we just had to alert you as to that acquisition and that purchase. And, again, we're here for any questions if you have any. Thank you. All right. Well, I don't see any questions. So – You don't need to – Oh, I don't need to do this. It's just a report. Yes. All right. Very good. Thank you both. Appreciate it. Okay. We're going to move into our new ordinance now and take up item G1. Clerk, can you read the title, please? G1, proposed ordinance 1157-V, an ordinance approving a vacation of a portion of right-of-way approximately 332 square feet in area on the west side of 8th Street North, generally located at 1100 8th Street North, setting forth conditions for the vacation become effective. I'm providing for an effective date. The public hearing for this ordinance is scheduled for October 19th, 2023, and we have no speakers. Move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Seeing no request to speak. Thank you, Mr. Bolliard, for being here. Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present council members have voted. Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, agenda item G1, yes, G1 passes unanimously with council members Vic Sanders and Hannewitz absent. All right, we'll move on to item G2. Clerk? Item G2, proposed ordinance 559-H, an ordinance approving the first amendment to a development agreement for property generally located at the northwest corner of the Gandy Boulevard, Interstate 275 Interchange. Recognizing that the subject agreement is by and between Gateway, Jable Property Owner, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Gateway, Jable Phase 2 Property Owner, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and GEPXI Gandy, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, collectively as the owner of the property, which have succeeded both Jable, Inc. as owner of the property and Gray Star Development East, LLC, as developer of the property in the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, a Florida municipal corporation. Authorizing the mayor or his designee to execute the agreement and providing an effective date. The public hearing for this ordinance is scheduled for October 19th, 2023, and we have no cards. Move approval. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Seeing no request to speak and no cards on this item, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present, council members have voted. Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, agenda item G2 passes unanimously, with council member Fitzsanders and Hanowitz absent. All right, thank you, Ms. Wilson. All right, we'll move on to item G3. Clerk? G3, proposed ordinance 556-H, an ordinance amending the St. Petersburg City Code by replacing Chapter 2, Article 11, with a reorganized and revised Article 11, relating to the Community Benefit Program. Enhancing readability and providing clarifying amendments to procedures governing the Community Benefit Program and providing an effective date. The public hearing for this item is scheduled for October 19th, 2023, and we do have one card. Go ahead and call our public speaker. Okay. Ruth Whitney, please go to an open podium. State your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address city council. My name is Ruth Whitney. I live at 714th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida. And I just read about and hadn't heard before of the Minority and Women Business Enterprise Project, and I just was totally supportive of that. Even though I just learned about it, I need to know more. But it seems like a wonderful project. I'm glad you supported it and hope you continue to support it. I'm here to talk about the changes to the Community Benefits Advisory Council. And first, I need to thank you for creating it in 2021. I think it's an excellent program. I think it's extremely important that the developers in our community meeting with the community, the developers have to meet with the community, and the community gets to speak right to the developers. That's very important. And that the developers should be thinking throughout their project of the community that they're building their building in. And it's a really important program. So there's been many versions of this program. I am an individual speaking. I'm speaking for myself. But I am a member of the Community Benefits Advisory Board. I am not speaking for them. I want that very clear. I'm speaking just for myself. And I know it did come before the Community Benefits Advisory Board on June 5th. So I know you've been considering these changes for a long time. The major change is in the streamline project, to streamline the project, to make it avoid the Community Benefits Advisory Council. So that's the whole purpose of the streamline, is they get to avoid the council that, you know, was going to look over and see that their community was, you know, going to benefit from this program. So it should be considered whether, you know, there should be a streamline project. And I'll let you think about that. But if we look at the four points under the streamline project, three of them have the requirements that would be if they avoided it. So that's great. If they avoided it, they still won't talk to the advisory board, but they can avoid the requirements. They won't avoid the requirements. But number one of those requirements for the streamline project, in order to be part of it, they have to have 30% affordable, not affordable in workforce, but affordable housing, which is wonderful. We all know that's what we need in this. Thank you, Ms. President. I talked too long. Move approved. Second. Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Council Member Hanowitz. Thank you. Michael, is Michael Dima here? I have a question for him. Yeah, so we have Assistant City Attorney Michael Dima, but we also have Economic Development Director Brian Cooper, so both can answer questions. Yes, that would be great. Of course, here I am, like typical attorney, I read something fine the first time, then I read something a second time. I'm like, you always miss something, and I just want to make sure that it's clear enough. So I'm sorry, because I'm now bringing it up, and it's like, you've had this, and it's like, yeah, I know, but now I just noticed that. So page 8, section 2-525, revenues generated by covered projects subject to a community benefits agreement. It says, all revenues generated by covered projects subject to a community benefit agreement under this article must be received by the city and shall be deposited into the community benefit agreement fund established by ordinance. All revenues generated by covered projects, should it be qualified, like payable to the city, or I just want to make sure it's clear enough, and maybe I'm overthinking it. Because there are revenues that are generated by covered projects that are subject to a community benefit agreement must be received by this, but which revenues? I don't know if it needs to be clearer, and I'm sorry, I'm bringing this up now. Right, so the revenues generated would be revenues negotiated, or basically a sum of money negotiated as part of a community benefits agreement. So those monies, to the extent that, you know, we have all of these other enumerated items, both in the ordinance and, of course, in the guidance document, which the working draft is attached to your packet, if there's revenues received as part of a negotiated community benefits agreement, those monies must go into the established community benefits agreement fund, which was established upon inception of this program in 2021. Okay. Now, I understand the concept. I just wasn't sure if it could be clearer. I wonder, I'll jump in. And Councilmember Hanowitz, are you thinking that maybe if it read something like all revenues generated by covered projects pursuant to and subject to? Are you thinking more of the- Yes. As a language? Yeah, I think it just has, for some reason, like when I read it, I thought it could be clearer. I understand the goal, but I was- Right. We understand your point. I mean, that's an easy- You understand what I'm saying? I think that's an easy tweak for us to make to, our rule for something like this is even if it's the second round, and we do that all the time too, always looking to make it more clear. If you think it's not, then we'll take a stab at maybe tweaking a word to eliminate any doubt. I'll just, when I look at something like this, and you know, I'm thinking the lay person out there reading this without reading, let's say, the whole thing. Right. And understanding this within the context of the ordinance, and then stand alone, they may read it broader than what it is. There's a potential for very broad interpretation here. That's exactly what I'm thinking. We can narrow that down. Okay. An easy fix. Okay. Chair, if I could just be clear on that, because I think in some ways I was the lay person reading this, I had some of these same questions, and so really do just want to make sure that city council and the administration are on the same page. This is specific to the community benefit revenue from the community benefit agreement. Other ancillary revenues, such as additional ad valorem revenues or things like that, would not go into this fund. So I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. Right, and thank you, Rob, for that. That's why I just want to make sure, given the context, that is clear. So that was the one thing, of course, I noticed this time around reading. Okay. Duly noted. Thanks. Councilmember Floyd? Thank you. Okay, so I want to start with some questions. First is in the Cal, we gave feedback on this, the Cal that we had on this. And I had some changes I'd like to see, like maybe needing permission to do the streamline, maybe from council, and still getting some input from the CBAC, amongst a bunch of other things. That was one that I brought up that was core to my discussion. What are the changes since the Cal, is there any changes to the plan since we had a committee meeting on it? There has been several changes since our committee of the whole meeting. As it relates to the streamline process, we did work on kind of a meet-in-the-middle solution, which would be that we would not stand up the full CBAC, so we would not do the ad hoc members. Those four additional members and the city council member just serve on that board. But we would take the project to the standing committee. So the four members that advise the city related to matters on the ordinance and the program itself, we would go to them as an information item to present what the project is and what the agreed-to benefits have been, prior to bringing that community benefit agreement in front of city council for approval. Okay. Thank you for that. Anything else, though? I mean, that was just what I touched on, but if you could, it would have been nice to have a presentation. We do have a presentation, I'm happy to, I didn't know if we wanted to wait until the 19th, or we can also get into that today. Were we given the presentation ahead of time? It was not part of the packet materials, no. Okay, I assume there wasn't one when it wasn't given, so we typically ask for those ahead of time. Council, I think it's appropriate at this point that we then move to the presentation. Council Member Floyd, I mean, you're in your line of questioning right now. And then I can come back to you after the presentation? Okay, yeah. Does that work? Yeah. Okay, then please, presentation. And if you could email this to all of council after? Certainly. Regardless what happens? Yes. Okay, thank you. Absolutely, thank you all. So to highlight the proposed changes, this is just a summary slide. We will go into this in further detail throughout the presentation. Major changes being brought to this program is a new timeline for projects going through the CBA process. So the first part of this is to hold a community meeting simultaneously while we are working on that community impact report to be presented at the community meeting. We will appoint the full CBAC project committee members, so when we do have that first community meeting, all nine members are seated, all nine members are present, all nine members are hearing the same input from the community prior to deliberations on the community benefit agreement. We are proposing to eliminate the exemption process, so currently there is a path where a developer can request exemptions from the CBA program. We are proposing to completely eliminate that and instead replace that with a streamline process. The streamline process sets very specific required community benefits for the project. And if the developer agrees with those specific required community benefits, then that actually becomes the community benefit document itself. That is what we would take to the standing committee as an information item, that we do have an agreement through the streamline process, and then that ultimately comes to City Council for approval. We are adding in consideration of alternative benefits that would allow for the inclusion of benefits that are not otherwise explicitly contemplated in the ordinance itself. For an example, our previous project that we went through, Moffitt TPA, Moffitt having that in our downtown is an alternative community benefit. So we want to provide for that where a developer can propose things that maybe are not contemplated in the ordinance itself. Inapplicable projects, providing additional clarification on those projects that are not subject to the ordinance, and then revising the tiers, and we'll talk a little bit more about that momentarily. We also had a significant amount of outreach and meetings related to these proposed changes. I won't go through all of this, but just to highlight on a few of them, our committee of the whole on June 15th, we had several meetings with city administration related to different aspects of this. We also met with the Chamber of Commerce, we met with the downtown partnership, and we've had numerous meetings with our Community Benefit Advisory Council, including a series of one-on-one meetings to receive their feedback. There are not many proposed changes to this, but just as a reminder of the different committees, there's the standing members. There are four of those, two appointed by mayor, two appointed by city council, they come from different city council districts to make sure we've got some geographic diversity represented on that standing committee. They advise on matters related to eligibility, community impact, and engagement, and they serve on all projects that come under their term. Then there's ad hoc members. This is four additional members, two selected by the mayor, two selected by city council, and they are brought in for a specific project. So this is once we have a project that is going through the CBA process, we go out and bring in these four ad hoc members, and they need to reside or have business interests. So they need to be a stakeholder within one mile of the project. Once that project that they've been appointed for is completed, we have that benefit agreement that goes to city council, we disband them. And then the project committee is really the combination of both the standing and the ad hoc committees, as well as one city council member. So the Community Benefit Agreement tiers, this is a change from the current ordinance tier one, which has the lowest requirements for what must be completed. As part of a community benefit is 15% of the total construction costs of a project come in some form of city participation, and they must have a minimum participation value of at least $500,000. Tier two is 20%, tier three is 25% of city participation in that total construction cost. And anything that's $30 million or more, so for instance, the historic gas plant district, we know it's going to have more than $30 million of public participation, but it's not going to be 25% of the overall project cost. That still comes through as a tier three project. And the specific requirements for those tiers are found in the Community Benefit Agreement Guidance document. So the streamlined process, the developer may ask to utilize the streamlined process, this is new. If the developer agrees to 30% of the residential units would be constructed for 80% AMI, and they have a guaranteed minimum affordability period of 30 years, that satisfies the Community Benefit Agreement Program. That then becomes the Community Benefit Agreement document that we bring to city council for approval. If they don't agree with that, and they still elect to go through the streamlined process, they must contribute $100,000 per residential unit to get to that 30% delta. They must utilize a minimum 10% participation from SBEs, WBEs, or MBEs, with a goal of 30% in the project. They must design and construct to lead standards or propose an equivalent green building standard. They must utilize apprenticeships who are participating in a state of Florida Department of Education program. If that type of program is not available, then they have to use someone with an industry certification program, company-sponsored training, or on-the-job training. Utilize disadvantaged workers to perform construction on the project, and we would work to negotiate specific percentages, and provide on-site public parking equal to 20% of the parking spaces required by code if that project happens to be in our downtown area. We realize there's a greater need for public parking in downtown than, say, necessarily somewhere on 4th Street or our Tyrone area. If it's a mixed-use project, and that was with residential, for mixed-use projects, it's generally the same. They have to do the 30% or the $100,000 and everything else. So if it's strictly an affordable housing project, or strictly a residential project, 30%, they meet the goal, and they don't have to do everything else, or $100,000 and everything else. If it's mixed-use, they have to do either 30% of that residential or the $100,000 and then everything else. This is the same list as before. And if it's a non-residential project, so office space, they have to agree that the on-site office space will be limited to affordable, affordable office space. And they must do everything else that we talked about as well. So, again, that 10% SBE, MBE, WBE participation, LEED standards, apprentices, disadvantaged workers, and on-site public parking. If the developer says, yes, we will do all of that, then we move forward with the streamlined process. If they don't, and they want to negotiate it, then we use the standard process. In the standard process, first, the developer submits a community benefit impact report. Then we appoint those ad hoc members to create the full advisory council. We hold a public meeting in the surrounding neighborhood to receive input from the community related to those benefits. We generate a term sheet that talks about the community benefits. We negotiate that term sheet with the CBAC, so we continue to receive feedback from the advisory council related to those benefits. At the end of those conversations with the CBAC, we draft a community benefit agreement document. And then, finally, we bring that community benefit agreement document to city council for approval. Also mentioned alternative community benefits. So certain covered projects may propose benefits that aren't contemplated by the program. This allows us to view those in light of the three tiers and kind of input those in as alternative community benefits. The developer needs to be able to demonstrate that an alternative benefit has the same value or similar value as what could be expected through that standard process. Community benefits are, these alternative benefits are subject to review by administration and approval by city council. And these alternative community benefits, you still go through the standard process. So you don't get to just say, I want to do this instead and skip the standard CBA process. You still negotiate that with the community, but it does allow for some flexibility in what benefits could be sought. Finally, inapplicable projects. So lease agreements that do not contain an option to purchase, meaning that it will not, someday it will become a public entity yet again or a public structure. That would not be subject to our CBA program because it has to go through all the other city ordinances related to construction. Construction of city-owned related facilities, public construction projects that are owned by the local, state, or federal government entities. Projects that are 100% affordable. Those projects that are 100% affordable housing would automatically be exempt from the CBA program. Annexation of property into the city's jurisdictional boundaries, historic preservation projects, or projects located in the South St. Petersburg CRA or a qualified census tract that can demonstrate a financial hardship. Thereby saying, we want to do this project, but because of these additional community benefits, we're going to walk away from it. We don't want this program to be a hindrance to development, and so if a developer can demonstrate that they would walk away from doing that because their margins would not allow because of the community benefit agreement program, we have that as an option. With that, I thank you very much, and we're happy to answer any questions you may have. Okay, Council Member Floyd, we'll go back to you. Thank you. Let me get back to where I was. Okay, so let me just jump to a new line of questioning. You did community outreach on this. I saw the list of people. I just wonder if you could talk about what the conversation with the development community was like when you were showing them, specifically the streamlined process, sort of what the feedback you got was. The development community and our chamber partners are very supportive of the streamlined process. I think one of the largest concerns that we have heard from the public related to our community benefit program in general is that uncertainty. Developers really want that certainty. They want that understanding that if they agree to certain community benefits, that it will at least make its way to City Council to be heard. And so they appreciated having that certainty. But really what the streamlined process is looking to do is negotiate what staff considers to be quite heavy community benefits. There's a lot of things that a developer would have to agree to, to utilize the streamlined process. But in return for them agreeing to do those things, they do get it. It is slightly fast-tracked. So there is no public meeting. It is able to advance to City Council more rapidly. And they have an understanding that that serves as their community benefit agreement document. So they've agreed to do all those things. They now have certainty that the project will move forward to City Council for approval. So they have been supportive of the streamlined process. Okay. You made mention, like, about the certainty that it will move forward to City Council. But the community, the CBAC, is advisory, no? So, like, it depends on what administration. If the CBAC doesn't approve, doesn't it still come to us? It still comes to City Council. Well, related to the certainty of it, I think it's more on a timeline and a time process. Because those negotiations with the CBAC are not set in this ordinance. It may be very smooth, and we can do it in one meeting. It may be protracted and take several meetings. And that's where I think developers have some concerns related to timing of this. And they like the fact that if they agree to the streamlined process, they know it's going to immediately move forward to City Council. Okay. But those concerns could be clarified in the way that we do the CBAC, like a set number of meetings instead of the streamlined process that exempts the thing completely. So, there's a couple of ways to attack that problem of uncertainty around the timeline, I would imagine. And I think we are sort of attacking it from a couple of different ways because we are clearing up exactly how it goes through the CBAC process. That is correct. And we realize that every deal is going to be different. Every deal is going to have different community benefits. Every deal is going to be asking for different public participation in it. And every CBAC is also going to be different with those ad hoc members. So, we do realize that there is some uncertainty in that process. And that is what we were looking to address with the streamlined process. Okay. I've got a bunch of things here, but I'm going to keep it brief because it's the first reading. The inapplicable projects. There's a point up there about public projects. And I think it needs to be set out in the open, like this is explicitly exempting or making inapplicable the new stadium development. Is that true? The stadium would not be subject to the CBA. That is correct. And the way the ordinance is currently written today, it does say that public projects are not subject to the CBA. So, it is our interpretation that by today's standards, it is not applicable to the CBA. And with the way that it has been clarified in the new ordinance, it would not be applicable to the CBA. However, as a public construction project, it does have to go through all of those different city ordinances related to disadvantaged workers, apprenticeships, living wages, et cetera. Okay. I'd like to hear legal's opinion on that as if it already wasn't applicable, but we're explicitly making it inapplicable, why even mention it? And is that your interpretation? Is it crystal clear nowadays? Well, I do believe it's crystal clear with this amendment, but we do interpret it as a clarifying amendment. Okay. So, that's not how the current ordinance is written. You don't feel as strongly about it or about the clarity in this respect? Right. We saw an opportunity to tighten it up. I think, you know, from an iterative perspective, just as Council Member Hanowitz brought up, there's always opportunity, it appears, for certain ordinances to become clearer. Okay. All right. Thank you for that. I'm just going to end on, I don't really support the changes today. I support some of them, maybe most of them, actually. But, you know, we've gone out to the development community and asked, basically, like, how do you feel about getting around community involvement? I'm not comfortable with that. The explicit exempting of one of the biggest developments we're going to do in the future, I'm uncomfortable with that. I think it doesn't look good. I think that, you know, when we're doing a public development that's being purpose built for a private entity, I think we need to have a conversation about if it's appropriate for us to say that you don't have to undergo the community involvement. I think it's inappropriate. And I think that a lot of the streamlining, the streamline process specifically, sort of gets around what the purpose of this ordinance was in the first place, which was to involve community voices when there's significant city investment in a project. I understand the need for making it clearer, but the program previously worked when we went through the Moffitt thing. It had some bumps, but it got through the CBA process, and it was the administration that ended it and so ended that project. And so, I'm really hesitant to limit community voice and input in important projects, and so I will not be supporting all of these changes. Although I do commend you for many of them, specifically like the process of the CBA. I think that's very helpful stuff, but taken as a package, I can't support it. Councilmember Muhammad. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Brian, for the presentation. A lot of my questions that I had were answered in that presentation as well. I do like where we landed with some of these changes in the recommendations, particularly going back to the CBAC for the streamlined process. You said for information only, and so when that happens, is that, I just need to be clear. So when, if they agree to the streamlined process, and you might have said this, and I apologize if you did. You go to the streamlined process, you have an agreement. Does that agreement, does that come to Council, or does that go to the CBAC? So the agreement goes to the CBAC for information. We would not ask them to vote on that agreement, because the agreement is the streamlined process. So by a developer saying they agree to everything contained in that streamlined process, that in of itself becomes the agreement. We take that to the standing CBAC for information, we talk about the project, we talk about the benefits that they've agreed to. The agreement document itself comes to City Council for a vote, and that's where you would be asked to approve that agreement. Okay, and then when it goes to the CBAC for information and not voting, but what type of input or engagement will they have if they look at it as representatives of the community, and they say, well, we have some suggestions on benefits or their feedback. What happens with the feedback that you get from the CBAC at that info session? That would be reflected to City Council at the time in which we bring the agreement forward for a vote. So we would document what was said by the CBAC members, and certainly the developer may, we would hope, would make some changes based on the feedback that they've heard before bringing something directly to Council. But we would convey the conversations from the CBAC members to City Council before they would be asked to vote on anything. All right, thank you, and then the other part, I'll actually share Council Member Floyd's concern about the exemption given to the largest development in, I think, the history of the city with the Tropicana Field. Because of the significance of that and the community piece, it's just hard to support that knowing that with everything that's at stake in the history of what we've dealt with, lessons that we've learned, promises that have been made, the talking points that we have, I don't see this process as it's written moving us in a direction where we can have some type of guarantee that we'll be involved and be included to the degree that it actually can, can influence the outcome. Because a lot of these public info sessions, we get information, we get things. But this process, I think, really helps us get our hands on determining outcomes and having that explicitly exempt is a problem for me. Council Member, if I may just make up. Just to be clear with all City Council, it's only the stadium component that would be exempt from the process, not the surrounding development. The reason the stadium would be exempt is because it would be under county ownership. The current ordinance talks about public ownership now. We're just clarifying that it could also be county ownership. So, like Brian said previously, in our opinion, the stadium construction is already exempt. It's just a clarifying comment in the ordinance. The surrounding development will go through the CBA process. It is not exempt. Thank you. Thank you for that, Rob. And lastly, I just want to thank Ruth for coming out and staying all day. Spending three hours. And also, thank you for your engagement. We met along the way of the New Deal for St. Pete when we were crafting this and working in, I almost said smoke fill rooms, but that's not. But I remember conversations in Urban League and over at PTC and just you being at all of the meetings engaged from the very beginning. And to see you start with us as a person who was helping to write the policy to now serving on the CBAC is commendable. And I just wanted to publicly acknowledge how much I appreciate your help, your support, and your consistency in this project. And so thank you for all that you've done and will do in the future. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Driscoll. Thank you. In the streamlined section for in the area that talks about entirely non-residential projects only, and it says developer agrees to provide all of the following. And then it reads, any improvements constructed on site will be limited to affordable office use. So that sounds pretty narrow. I'm not sure where we would be getting the definition for affordable office. And Councilmember, if I may interject, the definition was put into this ordinance. So it's the first definition. Okay, so. But we did operationally define it for this ordinance. Okay, so if there are any other non-residential uses, and it's completely non-residential. So if someone was building a grocery store, it would be subject, it would not qualify for the streamlined process. You are correct, yes. It would go through the full CBA process, the standard CBA process, unless that grocery store was leasing space at an affordable rate. Maybe the definition should be commercial space and not necessarily office space. That would help. But if it's affordable commercial space, that would be the requirement in order to utilize the streamlined process. If a developer is building something and they elect to lease it at market rate, that would not qualify for the streamlined process. They would have to go through the standard process. Okay. Do we already have a motion and a second on this item? Clerk? We do. Okay. I'd like to offer a friendly amendment to make that change. Who is the motion maker again? First by Mr. Gerdes. Gerdes? Mm-hm. And he is gone. How does that work? Legal? No possibility for a friendly amendment. Okay, so it's first. Also no possibility of withdrawing the motion. Motion either. Well, what I, what I will. What. What. I mean, depending, since we're at first. Yeah. Since we're at first reading. Mm-hm. We can receive this feedback, incorporate. If, if any of these comments are in the nature of a clarifying comment, it doesn't, clarifying change, it doesn't necessarily require a motion. We can. I have a feeling there's going to be more comments. So I think. So it's up to you. I'm. Okay. If there is consensus on a particular item where you would like to see a change, we can receive that and just make those changes and bring back the red line for the public hearing. Or if you feel like there may be some disagreement or it warrants a motion, you can, you can do that. I'm. I'm. Comment first. Yeah, I'm fine with, with just waiting until second reading, but I will be asking for that change. And I welcome the opportunity to hear feedback from my colleagues as they make their comments on whether or not they would support such a change in second reading. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Montaneri. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'd like, I've got a question for legal on, on page five under the streamline process. The, similar to the ordinance we brought up earlier in the day, under two double I, we have a 30% goal, not an aspirational goal. Are we able to do this? I think the difference between this and what we spoke about earlier is this isn't a regulatory matter per se. This is a negotiation. The developer is free not to utilize a specific benefit from the city, is my understanding. No, I think that's, that's right on. You know, this is parameterizing the negotiation and entering into of contracts, which is voluntary action by a developer. So in this case, in addition, because there are plenty of options, we don't view this as regulatory and it looks like I'm fully comfortable with that language right there. All right. All right. I go back to my point on the, on the WBE MBE. We're putting it in an ordinance. So it's not, it's, it's an ordinance. So I don't understand. Well, you know, also council member, this, this, this is a procedural element here. We're incentivizing something again, not mandatory. So the streamline process is an incentive to developers to provide and achieve what is an aspirational goal, not just shared by the city. But, you know, this language is prevalent in state and federal contracting as well, trying to achieve these goals. So in this case, the ordinance language is part of a procedural incentive in the free negotiation and entry into contracts. Okay. All right. I'll, I'll leave, leave that one and move on to something that I brought up at first reading of the WBE MBE ordinance flora statute 166041. Does this ordinance force us to comply with the provisions of, of that statute? These are the 041 is just the normal procedures for adoption of an ordinance, correct? I mean, is there something particularly? That was Senate bill 170 that, that turned into. Okay. So SB 170. I can take. Well, a business impact estimate has been prepared for this in fulfillment of the requirements of SB 170. Say that again. The business impact estimate statement has been prepared for this ordinance. And I believe it was posted, uh, in a timely manner upon, uh, I believe yesterday with the publication of the title of the ordinance and, uh, in the times. Okay. All right. I wasn't, uh, aware of that. Did, did we get a copy of? I don't believe you got a copy of that, but it could certainly be included, um, with second reading. Okay. All right. And then my, my last, uh, question is on, uh, item four under, uh, section two on page five. Uh, we're currently, uh, in a, in a suit on the, uh, apprenticeship and disadvantage workers, uh, ordinance that we have. How, how would this, when, when do we expect to, for the second DCA to rule on that and how would that affect this provision? We don't know exactly when the court will rule on it. It's been, uh, a few months since Mr. McCullum presented oral argument and at this point the only thing left in that case is for the court to give an opinion. We don't have any idea of when that will come down. Could be tomorrow. Could be months from now. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Council Member Hanowitz. Thank you, Chair. And I just want to make some just general comments based on what other council members have said. First of all, I think we all inherently owe fiduciary duty to the public, no matter what we do, to make decisions based in the public's best interests. This doesn't prevent us from doing it when the stadium deal comes, when the whole redevelopment comes, we're going to look at it and we're going to make decisions based on what's before us. And frankly, an advisory committee can tell us something and we may disagree with it because we are the ones that have to answer to the public. So I want everyone to understand that this does not, there are certain minimums here that are included, but you also have to be cognizant. The more rigidity you have and less flexibility, you're giving up things. And at the end of the day, I think we have to understand that this is just the beginning. It's not going to solve every issue. It's not going to include everything because it can't. It's a negotiation. And I'm approaching it in that way. Does that mean I'm going to agree with everything that's going to come forward on this? I don't know what projects are going to come. Am I happy Moffitt's not, we don't have a Moffitt? No, I'm not happy about it. So, you know, there are things that we're kind of tackling here that I wish we had clear answers to. But I'll tell you this, you know, the issue with the stadium, I understand why it's not part of this. That doesn't mean we're not going to have that discussion because we're going to, trust me, we're going to have that discussion. So I just wanted to put that out there. Okay? Thank you. Thank you. Council Vice Chair Fix Sanders. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Brian. I think, you know, I want to go back with just a little history. And first of all, Dr. Whitney, thank you. I appreciate you being here as they said and you're staying here all day. But more importantly, being one of those voices that have been there since 2016 when we initially started having this conversation. And with that being said, I know Mr. Capers will tell you I'm one of those sticklers. And I don't know if I gave you the hardest problem with these changes. But thank you for listening to a lot of the ones that I asked for because they are included in this. I would have loved to have had that presentation earlier that you gave. Because one of the, some of the things that for me, and this by no means is where we started and what we voted on in 2020. Because there are a lot of things that weren't in there that we asked for. But this kind of gave us a happy median. And with every revision, I think we're getting closer to what we asked for. And this is just some steps closer to what we asked for. I do want to highlight the CBAC, and I was reminded of this with another committee that I was on, that that A stands for advisory. My changes or recommendations would to give the CBAC not additional authority but to make sure, because one thing that I witnessed firsthand is to make sure that their feedback, and the only way I found what their feedback was, Council Member Floyd, was to watch it. You have to watch it because all of it doesn't get back. You have to watch it. So with that being said, the feedback piece, that is critical. The streamlined piece, you know, I had issues with some of those. But, you know, I'm at a resolve that we're going to continue to move forward with some of that. The larger developers, there are some other things that we kind of discussed. Because the biggest issue that I had about the affordable housing and the reason that was accessibility. It wasn't affordability, it was accessibility. We always throw out their affordability, but by the time we found out, it's all gone. By those that we're advocating for are not on that waiting list. We don't get it. So mine was not affordability, mine was more so accessibility. And that piece where, you know, that cost of them walking away. Well, okay, sometimes we might need to let them walk away because we're going to have to put our constituents first. And that's where I'm sitting, is that we have to put our constituents first. So I just wanted to say that, you know, when Councilmember Wheeler Bowman first bought this in 26, I think it was 2016. Somewhere around there. No. Somewhere around there. Councilmember Muhammad will probably remember. But then I took up the banner on this and there was a whole lot of information. There was a whole lot going on during that time. There was a whole lot of battling going on behind those closed doors. We came to a resolve, but we knew then it was not the final leg of this. And it's still not going to be the final leg. So I'm going to support what we have here. But continue to know that those changes are going to have those advocates that want to see a better, just a little bit closer to the finish line than when we first. Because things change. You know, things always change. And you've always accommodated my little phone calls and my little comments, so I do appreciate you on that. So I am going to support this, but we do know that there are still some things that need to be looked at and indefinitely corrected or kind of tweaked a little bit more for that moving forward. So thank you for the presentation and please give us that presentation because the City Council participation on the projects. One of the things that I changed is now you're giving them term limits, but that City Council participation on those projects are critical. They are critical because we can relay back to our colleagues, Open Sunshine, what we took away from that, which to me gains additional authority that the CBAC doesn't have. You see where we are with that. So I just put that out there. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. I'm going to go ahead and go before we go to second round. Hello, Brian. Hello. Hi. Can you pull that presentation back up? Or, Clerk, can you pull it back up? Poor Brian. Because I want to really get into the particulars about the streamline process. And I do wish we would have had this presentation before because something – okay, there we go. All right, so I have my original presentation. I also have my notes from the first time you and I discussed these original changes. And I support much of what you have done here. But I don't think that what I'm going to say is going to be a surprise to you because these are conversations we had one-on-one, and they are conversations that I felt like we had in the cow that are now reflecting differently in this presentation. So I really need to understand the word or on this slide. Specifically because when I read it in the backup, I saw one and two, right? Like, number one is the residential units. Number two was then, you know, the information about the $100,000 per residential unit. And then I got confused. And I know your staff has been really busy. You've been very busy. We've had a lot going on that's kind of landed on your team. But I wish we could have had some one-on-ones prior to between the cow and now. Because I was waiting to hear you explain how this or got in there. Because when I look at the original presentation from the cow, there's no or. It is one. And then it doesn't even talk about the money. It goes straight into SBE. It goes into lead service. It goes into all those other points. So I have to ask, how did we get to or? And if it's going to be either or, then why is 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 not automatically required with either? So can you explain that? Because it kind of turned my support for the streamline completely upside down when I saw it's being presented incredibly differently than what was originally discussed. So I'm hoping I just don't understand. No, you are absolutely right, Madam Chair. The or was added after the cow in all of our various conversations with the chamber, with the business associations, with the developers, with administration. We added in that 80% AMI. Originally, we did not have an AMI provision in there. And we did not have an affordability period in there. We had said 30% of your overall project. We heard very loud and clear from the CBAC and from the community that they wanted that AMI added into it. They also wanted an affordability period added into that. Once we added that in and we went to the developers, the cost of doing a unit that's going to average at 80% with an affordability period of 30 years far exceeds the $100,000 contribution. And so we realized in doing that, we're actually incentivizing a developer to just pay and not go through the construction of the 30% in their project. Because of that, we made the decision to bifurcate that and either require the 30% with the AMI and the affordability period or make the payment in lieu. But if they're going to make the payment in lieu, there should be additional benefits that are required because the payment, even per what we had heard from the developers, is an easier path. And so that was why we added the SBE participation, we added the lead, we added public parking, all of the other elements that are a part of two, if they decide to make that payment of $100,000 and not build it into their project. So that was really the decision point to bifurcate that because we did add the 80% AMI and we did add the 30-year affordability period. We did not want to, by adding more provisions to this, have the adverse impact of really incentivizing a developer just to pay us and not do some of these other elements. What we're really trying to get in this particular streamlined process is that developer that is going to agree to do 30% of their units at 80% AMI for 30 years. And if the developer does that, number one, the way that this ordinance is written is they would not have to utilize the 10% of small business, women-owned business. They would not have to do lead certified, those things would not be required. That is correct, through the streamlined process, yes. Brian, I don't know. The streamlined process for me was very difficult to agree to in the first place, and like I said, that's not a surprise to you. It was probably the piece that we talked about one-on-one the most. And I was willing to have a conversation about it, seeing that all of these other items were built in to this opportunity. And I understand the community wanting to get the 80%, wanting to get that under the minimum affordability period. I understand that. So what I think I'm hearing you say, if I can translate a bit, is that the development community is now telling you that if they have to do those two things to get the streamlined, they can't afford to do the other things? Previously, it was either put the 30% in or pay for the units. And by putting now, without an AMI requirement or without an affordability period, by adding in the AMI requirement and the affordability period, we heard from the development community, we're just going to pay you the $100,000. How does that negate the other items? Well, that's where the other items come in to try to be a balance. We realize there are expenses added to building to a LEED standard. We realize there are expenses utilizing- It's also benefits to them for doing so. Absolutely, yes. And that is what pulling out the 30% was trying to create that balance with the understanding $100,000 per unit, it's going to cost them a lot more than $100,000 to actually build those units into their project. And so by having the $100,000 payment and the other community benefits, we felt that was an equivalent expense or burden, if you will, as to building those units with the AMI requirements and the affordability period. I mean, I just see this as, you know, we really did groundbreaking work in putting this CBA together. And now I kind of feel like adding this streamlined process in and now the way it's being presented to us is that we're degrading the policy. And I have a lot of concern about that. I have concern over what I think could be unintended consequence of doing this and the way it's being presented. The other thing I want to ask, and this to me is hopefully this is something we can work out in some verbiage, because I was very clear with you the first time that we met about this, that if the developer was given a streamlined process and then as so many times we see happen, they come back and they ask for amendments and they ask for things to be changed, that the streamlined process is off the table and it goes back to the beginning. And when I read this, it goes through and it addresses that and you did address that and I appreciate that. But then the very end of that on page six, it says, you know, I won't read it for everyone. You can all read. But the very last line says included but not limited to whether the streamlined process is still applicable. I don't want the streamlined process to still be applicable. They need to go back through the CBA process from scratch and the streamlined process goes off the table if they basically pull back on our agreement. Because that's what it is when they come back and they ask again, is that now it's not going to work and so now we need you to tweak it. Now we need you to change it. And I just don't think that's fair and that's a further degradation of what we've done with this policy. And so that and legal, I don't know if there's verbiage that can be made that can be changed between now and second reading. But if it still says this verbiage, I will be voting no. So we need to have a conversation about that verbiage. Madam Chair, we will we will gladly make that change. That was always our intent that if they enter into the streamlined process and they need to come back and renegotiate at any point in time, then they need to redo the entire community benefit program and they need to do the community meetings, they need to meet with the CBAC and they will have a different package that goes in front of city council. That has always been our intent and we will gladly work with legal on what that language needs to look like for second reading. Absolutely. And Chair, the intent of that language is to make very clear that if you're going to make changes, you shouldn't think that you're still entitled to the streamlined process. The goal of that language is to signal very clearly if you're going to start trying to make changes after you've been approved, you're going to have we're going to look at the whole thing, including whether you get the streamlined process at all. So the intent there was to signal that until you get to the end. And it's like, but is there still a chance, right? Maybe there's still a chance we could still go back through and do it again. And I just cannot support there being any chance. It needs to be very clear. That's off the table at that point. There is zero chance you're going to get a streamlined at that point. And that's fair. So eliminating that will make that even clearer. Okay. And Council Member Driscoll, thank you so much for the catch on the commercial and what the implications, because once again, this is what I'm saying with the streamlined process is the unintended consequences. And I don't think any of us were thinking the potential ramifications to our grocery stores and the initiatives that we need to put forward to grow food security. So thank you for picking that out. I support any change that can be made there to make sure that we eliminate that unintended consequence now. I don't know. I mean, when is the public hearing set if this passes? Remind me. October 19th. Two weeks. Okay. I've got a lot of work to do. Hopefully we can have some one-on-one meetings if this passes first reading today, because I mean, as it sits right now, if this were second reading, I would be a no. So I'll leave it there. And Council Member Floyd. Thank you. And thank you to all my colleagues for your comments. They've all been helpful. And I'm very supportive of them. I wanted to ask. Oh, if you could pull the slide back up. I was going to continue a little bit there. That was the residential one. Then there was like a mixed use one that had, I'm sorry, there was, okay, yeah. There was one that had affordable or workforce and didn't specifically call out 80% at one point as a possibility for the streamline. Am I mistaken or? Yep. Ms. Whitney. This would have, because it is mixed use and because the now payment is considered to be equivalent of the 30% units, this one does not have the AMI. I'm sorry? The 80% AMI restriction with it. Okay, so the payment is equivalent? The payment is not equivalent and that's why we separated them for residential only projects. We realized the construction of a affordable housing unit at 80% AMI with a 30 year affordability requirement is going to cost more than $100,000. That is why we bifurcated it. For the purpose of mixed use projects, we did not bifurcate it, but we also did not put in that 80% AMI provision. So these may be higher or they may make that $100,000 contribution in lieu of putting any affordable and workforce housing in the residential component of their mixed use project. Okay, so I guess this is back to like the old thinking that we had previously, which is like it's still got the period of 30 years, but these could be like 120% AMI units. But no matter what the percentage of the units, you have to include those other things as well? That is correct. Okay. You know, I think it's much more likely that most of the projects that we're going to be doing through this are going to be mixed use. I'd be interested to know like how often we expect it to just be a purely residential project. I think mixed use is probably more likely. So it feels here that like there's still an opportunity for developers to just be doing 120 AMI units when the community feedback was we really wanted 80. I think this is what's going to end up being most of our projects under this process. And so I would have liked to see this say 80 here as well. I do know that from talking to the administration that there was some request for flexibility. I think a more appropriate way to be flexible would have been with the AMI levels would have been to maybe call out downtown zoning districts like we did in other areas, because I know the issue is that it's expensive to develop downtown. But, you know, giving people the opportunity to build 120 units outside of downtown is giving people the ability to build market rate units outside of downtown. And so I don't really see that as us getting a benefit if we're doing 120 outside of downtown. And honestly, I think it's an open question as to if subsidizing units that are at 120% of AMI downtown is really the best thing for us to be doing with our money. I think that's a conversation we could have as a body and as a city. So I wanted to give that feedback. I would have preferred to see it laid out differently here. Thank you. Michael. And if I may chair and council member Floyd, that conversation is codified the ability to have that conversation for city council to review these, you know, so this is this kind of these items here say, well, you're eligible for streamline process. You're not guaranteed an outcome, though. So the sufficiency of the community benefits put forth in a streamline, you know, proposal, if it doesn't pass muster with this body, it doesn't pass. So it's important to the stream. The incentive is the process, but not within. Of course, we can never guarantee an outcome of this body or others. So that's just one thing I kind of want to add there is that you've never lose that ability as the council to evaluate the sufficiency of even streamline benefits. Of course. Yes. And I agree. And it was sort of the same as council member Hanowitz point, which I totally agreed with. I just want to make sure that this is more about like the community input aspect of it. And this is a way to sort of avoid the community input, at least the first time around, you know, depending on our decision. So I just am trying to, you know, hold us to a higher standard about how you can avoid that community input. And so that's what my concern is. But I totally understand all of that. I do know that we're still going to get a say in it. I just, it goes back to the original purpose of the ordinance, which I think was to involve the community's voice. And so that's what I'm looking out for, but I appreciate you clarifying that. Thank you. Council Vice Chair Fick Sanders. Thank you. And just to sum up, I think I was, the streamline process to me was just alarming when I thought that it was going to take away the community's information and voice in this. And again, I started my statement the last time by saying advisory, and I'm still there in regards. But I'm more appreciative of the fact that council members are now going to be a part of this process from beginning to end, as well as in the presentation for the project. I think, Brian, when we first had this conversation and I asked about the streamlining process, I said, well, who's going to determine whether or not they're eligible? Who's going to be the one to make that final decision? And even with that being stated, is it coming back before council? And you assured me that it was coming back before council, period. And we were going to get the particulars as to why it was determined that it will go through the streamline process. I was also concerned that we wouldn't have the feedback from CBAC on those projects that were designated streamlined. And that we would have access to that information in regards to those streamlined processes. So I was, I'm clear with that. I'm okay with that. Because I still have issues with section 2.57523 number four, letter four, number four, I'm sorry, about the apprenticeship program. You know that's going to be an ongoing conversation with us on that because I want it closer to where we were in day one in these negotiations. So I'm still in approval of it. There are still some things that I think we need to continue to iron out, definitely before a second reading to accommodate the request of my colleagues. But again, as I stated the first time, the second time, and the 25 times before that, we haven't gotten where the original proposal was as to what we needed. And I love hearing that word, unintended consequences, because how many times have you heard me say unintended consequences? So again, the streamlined piece, I think, threw all of us, because it definitely threw me when you called me with it. It truly threw me. But as long as I am assured, and again, I'm going to ask again for the CBAC to have more of an input, especially if we're bypassing community meetings. And then I'm going to have to hold CBAC accountable. Y'all got to show up. You know, you have to inform us of what's going on because we don't know what we don't know. So we have to make sure that that open dialogue is there. But I am looking forward to the fact that we're going to get this information because, you know, I'm not about bypassing anything, anybody. Because I understand the timing issue, I get it. But my number one concern is the benefit to the community and getting where we need to be. So the streamlining process for the community benefits agreement projects are going to be on a project-by-project basis. We're getting the detailed information of that project. It's not like we're going to stand up in front and there's going to be a project to prove on consent somewhere. We're going to have those one-on-ones. We're going to know why they were streamlined. And if we have to have a presentation before Cal to deal, you know, to dive into that, that will happen. Correct? That is correct. That's where I left that conversation. Okay. As long as I was making sure I wasn't dreaming all of this that we talked about, I'm good. So I just wanted to clarify that myself with you as to where we are with this. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Muhammad. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to thank you all again, my colleagues, for a lot of the clarifications and suggestions that have been made. I unite with those. I will support moving forward with that in mind. But definitely, to quote Council Chair, you got a lot of work to do. And so, I'd like to schedule some time to truly talk through some of the changes and see them before the second reading as well. And also just want to let Councilmember Driscoll know that I would be supportive of what she proposed as well as relates to commercial. Thank you. All right, so you've had a lot of feedback from us. Do you feel like we need to make any substitute motion at this point or? I'm not feeling. Okay. I think that the direction's pretty clear and I don't see a lot of kind of dispute over what that direction is. Okay. I've got some good notes. I'm sure Brian does as well. All right. Thank you all. Appreciate the conversation. So we have a motion and a second. Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your vote. Seeing all present council members that voted, Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, agenda item G3 passes 621. With council member Floyd voting no. Council member Gerd is absent. Council members Driscoll, Vic Sanders, Gabbard, Hanowitz, Montaneri, and Mohammed voting yes. Thank you. Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Michael. Well, you're still here. Don't go away. Item G4. Not sure. Item G4. Clerk, please read the title. Proposed ordinance 560-H, in ordinance of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, amending section 3-7, parentheses G, parentheses 5, of the city code relating to procedures for the approval of special events in the Edge District Specialty Center and providing an effective date. The public hearing for this item is scheduled for October 19th, 2023, and we have four speakers. All right. Council, we have four cards on this item. I apologize. Go to public comment then. Okay. I'm going to call your names two at a time. Please go to an empty podium. State your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address Council. Kimberly Stidham and Roger Curlin. So, I guess I'll go first. My name is Kimberly Stidham. I'm a student at St. Petersburg College in the Public Policy and Administration Program. I am here as part of my semester project. We were told to pick a first reading item, speak to someone, so I'd like to thank your office for getting back to me yesterday and answering my questions. I have been in hospitality for 20 years, eight of the last years here in Pinellas County. I do currently live 1760 Broad Winged Hawk, which is in Hillsboro, because I had to leave the county last year. I couldn't afford to stay. I do still work here, though, and go to school. I'm speaking to approve. My recommendation is I think we should do this, mostly for the events bring money to the district, to the hospitality workers. We have taken a big hit this summer. It's been the slowest that I've experienced in hospitality. So, anything that's going to bring foot traffic, visitors, people to the area, it's good on me. As far as the 60-day, I feel like they missed a day or two, but they have the rest of the requirements. I don't see why a little bit of grace can't be given. Also, let's see. Yeah. So, since there didn't seem to be any major objections to the measure as well, I figure let's go for it. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. I'm Roger Curlin, 4535 6th Avenue North here in St. Petersburg. And I am the Executive Director of the Edge Business District Association. We have over 100 businesses in the Edge Business District Association. We also have thousands of residents, thousands of employees, and certainly millions of visitors. So, I'm here to speak on behalf of the association in support of the waiver and support of the Orange Belt Criterium. The overview, really, the cycling event has been many years in the planning. And, you know, some of the key points to getting the waiver is getting that date was very challenging. And when we got it, we were right on top of that submission to council in that 60-day period. The things that the Orange Belt will accomplish for the district and the city is bringing awareness to other forms of transportation, in this case, cycling. We also love the fact that it recognizes St. Petersburg as a great host location for national-level events. The local businesses, as the previous speaker spoke about, it has been a very, very difficult summer for small business. This will help small businesses and attract a lot of people to their businesses, not only in the Edge, but nearby. And, last but not least, it helps me raise money for the Edge Business District Association, and covers our three goals of advocacy, promotion, and education on behalf of our small businesses. A few other keys, all the adjacent businesses have signed off on this particular event, and they're very eager for this event. The city administration and police department have been working on this. And, in fact, the police department had the safety plan more than 60 days in advance, and we wanted to make sure they were fine with it first before we brought it to council. We did speak to council right on that limit, and they've been very good at trying to help us put this together. Let's see here. Last but not least, I think this is definitely the exception, not the rule. Most of our events are planned months and months and months in advance. This particular one really just because of picking that date ended there, although there could be some advantage to aligning it with the other 30-day notice that most other items have. So, again, we're supportive, and thank you, council. Next two speakers. The final two speakers are Debbie Reiser and Nathan Stonesifer. Please go to an open podium. You'll have three minutes to address city council. Please state your name and address for the record. Thank you, and council members, thanks for having me. My name is Nathan Stonesifer. I reside at 2470 6th Avenue North in St. Petersburg, Florida. And Debbie, unfortunately, had to leave, so she won't be here today. I just want to give a little bit of background to this issue and to the race that we're bringing to the area. I am a co-founder in Green Bench Brewing Company in the Edge District and actually just rolled off the board at St. Petersburg College. I didn't even know you were going to be here speaking, so that's great, where I served gladly for eight years. But I've been working on this as a passion project, a volunteer effort, if you will, for two and a half years, because I felt that St. Petersburg was missing a cycling event. The city's actually been great to work with. We've been working on this together for two years now. And in fact, myself and some other city employees have been to Athens, Georgia, to take notes on a Criterium Cycling event they do there as we decided what we wanted to do here and fit this into our community. But we are fortunate that the group that wants to work with us and that is coming here is Legion of Los Angeles. This is one of the most popular and largest professional cycling teams in the U.S. was also the first one of the first cycling teams that was founded by African-American riders and cyclists. Their mission is solely focused around making cycling more accessible to all and also making the sport more diverse. They're playing the part of disruptors, and we wanted that here. We wanted that part of our city, and that's really what we've been pushing for this whole time. They were the dream group that we wanted to work with, and that's who we got. Unfortunately, we found that out right before that 60-day window and a specific date that would work for them. But they're bringing over 100 professional cyclists here to compete. If you don't know what a Criterium is, it runs on city streets in an oval or a rectangle, and it's going to be really, really special to see these riders going over 35 miles per hour down Central Avenue and back up First Avenue North. So as everyone else already said, the neighborhood's excited. It's going to be great for the small business owners, and it's really important to be able to purchase your drink at a bar or restaurant and be able to walk out trackside and see the riders go by. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, Debbie Reeser indicated she was for the proposed ordinance. Thank you. Councilmember Driscoll. Thank you, and thank you to all who took the time to be here to speak on this. I hope that this gave everyone a little bit better idea of what the Criterium is. I've been excited about the possibility of hosting this in St. Petersburg for quite some time. And when you do look into what it's all about, it's so St. Pete. It's almost like a little small Grand Prix on bicycles. And it's such a great fit for the Edge District. So I was really glad that we got that date, but as you heard from our speakers, you know, usually with sip and stroll events in the Edge, they've got that planned out for a year. But this is something that the date was finalized last minute, and you can't submit something until you have that date, and it was just inside that window. Now, everywhere else in St. Petersburg, it's a 30-day window. Everywhere else in our city. But in 2017, when the specialty center area was created for the Edge District, think about how the Edge District was just a few years ago. I mean, it's really the growth that they've seen has just been since that time. So I can understand how, you know, six years ago, seven years ago, it was a little bit more of a risk that we were taking. But today, I don't see any reason why the Edge District should have such harsher restrictions, double what everyone else has. Now, long term, I plan to bring forward a request for us to consider changing that and making the necessary changes so that they do have that 30-day window like everyone else. I think they've checked all the boxes to be eligible to be treated like everyone else. But that's something that we can't do right this minute. And because we don't even have the option to make an exception, that's why we have to make this ordinance change today. Then grant that exception when we have, hopefully, when it passes in second reading so that they can have that sip and stroll event to go along with the criterium and give this event the best opportunity to be successful. So I hope that we can all show support for this event and for this request. And with that, I'll move approval. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Council Member Hanowitz. Thank you. So I was actually very surprised to hear that you have an area of the city that's treated differently. And Michael, could you explain, like, why? Right. So there's a statutory provision in Florida statute 561.20, which is related to the establishment of what's known as a specialty center. These specialty centers are areas, neighborhoods, developments with a blend of retail and entertainment, restaurant, bar type atmospheres that are also located adjacent to navigable water bodies. When this came about, Booker Creek is a navigable water body under the Clean Water Act. Wow. I've heard navigable bodies of water twice this year, not a term that I normally hear. We heard it at Lear. There may be grants that could apply, by the way, if it involves navigable waters, to be clear, federal grants. But, yeah, I'm digressing. So, yes? So this was established pursuant to statute to create this area of town that is treated differently. And it was then followed up with the creation of a second specialty center for the Peer District adjacent to the more obviously navigable Tampa Bay. Okay. So it's a simple change that's going to take care of this. This change that's before you now. So the establishment of that, kind of pursuant to what I was saying, occurred back in 2017. What this change brings is the possibility for council to choose to exercise their authority to approve these types of events in less than 60 days, which is otherwise required by the ordinance. So this waiver provision allows for something shorter than 60 days and which comports with, say, the issuance of a street closure permit under 3-7 for consumption in the rights of way. Okay. Well, thank you very much. You're welcome. The question is second. Seeing no further request to speak, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present council members have voted, clerk, please tell me announce the vote. Madam Chair, agenda item G-4 passes unanimously with council member Gerdes absent. Thank you, Mr. Dima. All right, we will now go to our new business and take up item I-1, council vice chair Fig Sanders. Respectfully requesting referral to the budget finance and taxation committee to discuss proposed changes in the procurement code. This referral is a staff request and I am formally submitting this new business item as a method of informing the city council. And with that, I move approval. Second. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second and no request to speak on this item. Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present council members have voted, clerk, please tell me announce the vote. Chair, agenda item I-1 passes unanimously with council member Gerdes absent. All right, very good, and we will now go to our second open forum of the day. No speakers. All right, we will close open forum and go to announcements. Mr. Gerdes. Thank you so much, Chair. Just wanted to take a moment to praise Stephanie Swinson and her procurement team to city council today. We had our supplier diversity day yesterday at the Coliseum, it was just fantastic. Over 400 in attendance and Stephanie and her team did a great job. I hope some council members had an opportunity to stop by the Coliseum yesterday and check it out. So thank you to Stephanie. Oh, absolutely. Thank you for that update. Council member Montaneri. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chair, I want to congratulate our hometown baseball team for a wonderful season. Wasn't the outcome that we wanted in the playoffs, but I'm just so thankful that we have Major League Baseball here in our city. They are such great community leaders. Always need to lift them up and thank them for everything they do for us. Thank you. Absolutely, absolutely. It was a fun game regardless of outcomes, so. Vice Chair Fig Sanders. Yay. I have the pleasure of taking over for Council Member Gerdes for our birthdays. Yay. Yay. So we have our administrator, Amy Foster, who's celebrating a birthday. We have Evan Morey, who's celebrating a birthday. We have Derek Kilborn, who's celebrating a birthday, as well as Ms. Cheryl Stacks, who's celebrating a birthday. And so since neither one of them are here with a cake and candle to blow out, we won't sing happy birthday, but from the St. Petersburg City Council, we wish you all, and hopefully you had a great birthday. And if it's still yet to come, that you will have a phenomenal birthday. Happy birthday, everybody. Thank you, Vice Chair. Happy birthday to everyone. Council Member Mohammed. Yep. But I just wanted to, when you mentioned Amy Foster and, you know, the others, it reminded me of the team that they have assembled and the way that they've supported us with the 49th Street Business District Association that we're working on. And we had another successful meeting in that series. And so I just wanted to publicly thank the economic development team, Mr. Smith, Mr. and Mrs. So George, Tracy, Cheryl, and Susie Ahok facilitated a wonderful meeting. And it was very seamless. They jumped in hands on and really led us through a wonderful process. And so I just wanted to publicly acknowledge them and thank them for the way they've been showing up for us as we work to develop the 49th Street Business District. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that. All right, everyone. Great meeting. Meeting is adjourned. Stage is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. See you soon. In the next chapter. Great meeting. 为惯 you