Welcome to the City of St. Petersburg City Council Meeting. Your elected officials are Mayor Ken Welch, District 1, Copley Gerdes, District 2, and Council Chair Brandi Gabbard, District 3, Ed 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 afternoon, everyone. We will call to order the September 28th, 2023 City Council Meeting, beginning with a roll call, please. Gerdes. Here. Dabber. Here. Montenari. Here. Hanowitz. Here. Sanders. Here. Driscoll. Here. Muhammad. Here. Floyd. Here. All right, we will begin our meeting this afternoon with an invocation that is going to be given by Council Member Copley Gerdes, and following that, we will do the Pledge of Allegiance. Please all rise. If you'd join me in bowing your head. Blessed is the man that does not walk with the wicked, whose delight is in the law of the Lord. He is like the tree planted by water. Lord, I ask your blessing today. As fall begins, we ask you to continue to nurture and protect us. Please bless our city employees and first responders. They are the lifeblood of our city that enables us all to serve all those that need it. Bless our mayor and administration. Continue to lead them with your bright light. Bless this council and all who join us today. Guide our decisions through your eyes, not ours. Lord, please continue to bless this great city, from our businesses to our neighbors, and from our most fortunate to our most needy. Please lighten the loads of our residents that most need it. We especially lift up our neighborhoods and residents affected by Hurricane Idalia. Bring them peace and sustain them through this difficult time. Please keep our police and firefighters safe in your care, as they are on the front lines of protecting us every day. We are a city that is diverse and beautiful. Continue to let our light shine everywhere and lead us to protect that light for all of our citizens. It is my prayer today that this body continues to put people over politics, that we do not forget the past, but also we do not move too quickly through the present and do not overlook our abundant future. Let us be that tree that is planted by water, strong and healthy, able to serve and provide shade. This is the day the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad. Amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. You may be seated. Thank you, Councilmember Gerdes. It was a beautiful invocation. All right, Councilmembers, we have an agenda before us today. We do have a couple of changes, so we are going to be moving item CB1 to reports, item CB14 to reports, and then adding CRA item 3. So with those changes, I'll entertain a motion for approval. Approval. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Seeing no request to speak, Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Councilmembers, enter your votes. Seeing all Councilmembers have voted, Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, a motion to approve the agenda passes unanimously. Okay, and next we have our consent agenda. Any cards on the consent agenda? Madam Chair, there's no one in Zoom. Okay, Councilmembers, entertain a motion. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second, and seeing no request to speak on the consent agenda, Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Councilmembers, enter your votes. Seeing all Councilmembers have voted, Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, a motion to approve the consent agenda passes unanimously. Okay, and at this time, before we move on, I want to go ahead and turn it over to our city attorney, Jackie Kovalaric, to introduce a newest member of our team. Thank you, Madam Chair. On your consent agenda, you just confirmed the appointment of Sarah Lucker. She's the newest member of our team. She's going to be focused on doing a lot of transactional work, which McCall was very excited to hear. And Sarah recently passed the bar exam, so that was reason enough to celebrate. Because of her initiative, she actually started as a legal intern. I mentioned this earlier. A lot of times law students will graduate, take a break after they pass the bar exam, and then wait for the results. Sarah wanted to get started early. So she's been an intern for a few weeks, and we'll start as an Assistant City Attorney tomorrow. So we're happy to have her aboard, and we appreciate your confirmation. Absolutely. Welcome, Sarah. Thank you for joining the team, and we're looking forward to working with you. Thank you. Would you like to say anything? Oh, it's been a pleasure to be here. It's been wonderful working with everyone so far, and I'm so excited to get to know all of you and get to help you out with anything that comes up. Absolutely. Well, thank you. Thank you, Jackie. Thank you, Chair. All right. Well, now we will go ahead and move into our 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're speaking to an item on the agenda, you may only speak once, during the open forum, or when the item comes up on the agenda. In order to provide an opportunity for all citizens to address council, each individual will be given three minutes to speak, and after which, the microphone will be muted. If you wish to address city council through the Zoom meeting, you must use the Raise Hand Feature button in the Zoom app, or enter star nine on your phone at the time the agenda item is addressed. When it's your turn to speak, you'll be unmuted and asked to state your name and address. At the conclusion of your comments, or when you reach the three-minute limit, you'll be muted. All raised hands will be lowered after each agenda item. Regardless of the method of participation used, normal rules apply, including the three-minute time limit on comments, the requirement that any presentation materials must be submitted in advance of the meeting, and the rules of decorum. If live public comment is disrupted by violations of the rules of decorum, the chair is authorized to accept public comment by alternate means, including by email only. And Madam Chair, we do have a speaker in the chamber, and one in Zoom. I believe this is Mark Faye. Mark Faye, please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes to address city council. Boom, boom, anybody here. Mark Faye, 302nd Avenue Southeast. I'm here to discuss or mention privatization of city projects. We recently went through a situation where the city was pleading poverty and couldn't handle the renovations necessary in the marina, and we're exploring possibilities to privatize it. My views on that are in the local newspapers and on video. My second point is if you turn right around and want to get another millstone around our neck of this sports venue, these things never deliver. Please do the due diligence to look at the studies. They don't deliver the panaceas. People don't come to St. Pete to view our marina. It's not on their bucket list. Seven years from now, we're going to be right back here. You already had to implode the arena down with the dahlias because it was turned into a turkey. We're having a problem with a white elephant with a trap now. You're going to be right back here in seven to ten years. You'll have all moved on to bigger and better things, and the taxpayers are going to be saddled with that white elephant. Please don't get taxpayer money involved in this. Push it back on the private people. If it's such a red-hot business deal, they'll be panting to get involved. Let them raise the funds, build it, maintain it, and operate it. Give them some tax breaks or other incentives, but do not put another millstone around your necks and around our taxpayers' necks. Thank you. Speaker in Zoom. Madam Chair, the next speaker's name is Bruce Nissen. Bruce, once you enter into the meeting space, please unmute yourself. State your name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes to address city council. Yes, my name is Bruce Nissen. I live at 253 Sunlit Cope Drive Northeast in St. Pete. I want to speak to the issue of legal counsel for people facing evictions, which I understand is on your agenda today. I hope very, very strongly that you're going to support this. It's a very, very important issue. If you can do this, you're doing something for the renters in St. Pete, and it's been a rough time for renters, and they deserve something. But beyond that even, it'll be beneficial for the city as a whole because studies have shown again and again that whenever there's lawyers involved on both sides, much less likely that the eviction even occurs in the first place, that something gets worked out and a payment schedule gets worked out. And so evictions and then all the consequent problems of homelessness and costs to the city for taking care of homeless people and everything else are also taken care of. So I strongly urge you all to vote in favor of this legal counsel for people facing evictions, which is coming up. I'm fairly confident you will be passing this, and I want to thank you for doing so. Thank you. Okay, that was the final speaker. One more. Okay. Warren Willingham, once you enter the meeting space, please state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address city council. Hey there. Warren Willingham, 3245 Jackson Street North, 33704. I'm here also to express my support for supplying legal counsel to those that are being evicted in the South St. Pete CRA. It's a great step towards making it less one-sided. Thank you. Final speaker. That was it. Okay. We will go ahead and close open forum. And at this time, we will recess the city council, and we will convene as the CRA and take up item CRA2. We are joined by Economic Development Officer George Smith, and the topic will be Community Law Program to Offer Pro Bono Eviction and Probate Assistance to Residents of the South St. Petersburg CRA. Hello. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Councilmembers, George Smith, Economic and Workforce Development. Thank you for this opportunity to present this request to you today. City administration is requesting that the agency recommend and city council approves the agreement with community law program to provide pro bono legal services to South St. Petersburg CRA residents who are facing eviction. And to provide probate services to clear title to homes that may be in the name of deceased persons and to allocate $300,000 through the South St. Petersburg Community Redevelopment Area Tax Increment Financing Funds. Community Law Program is a 501c3 nonprofit corporation that provides free civil legal services to financially eligible residents. And qualified nonprofit organizations in Pinellas County. The eviction prevention program is designed to provide services to individuals that are facing eviction. It is not limited to after an eviction complaint has been filed or when the notice has been provided indicating that tenants may be displaced. Or when a tenant fears an eviction may be imminent due to the inability to pay. Also, it is not restricted to household income. We'll provide legal advice to the tenants. Another service will be to negotiate voluntary payment schedule and relocation agreements. To draft and file pleadings in court. Represent tenants throughout formal eviction proceedings. Very important is that they help to mitigate any harsh consequences of an eviction record. Additional services will be related to probate assistance. We've been able to determine that property appraiser has shown that there are 348 estate property parcels in the South St. Petersburg CRA. Services will include, again, pro bono legal services to clear title of homes that may be in the name of deceased persons to draft and file pleadings in court. This program will restrict the applicant's household income to less than 120% AMI. This map gives you an indication of the location of the estate properties throughout the CRA. The agreement with community law program stipulates the following that $95,000 will be earmarked and used to hire a full time attorney or equivalent to provide eviction prevention services to tenants that reside within the boundaries of the CRA. An additional $5,000 will be available for court fees and costs for represented individuals. Very important to note that funding will not be used for payment of back rent or payment into the court's registry. For probate assistance, $200,000 will be allocated to hire attorneys and staff assistants or fund existing positions to provide the probate assistance to individuals. To pay court fees and costs to reasonable clerical costs and other necessary costs to clear titles. Administrative supervisor and management reporting services will not exceed 5% of the total grant amount. So again, we are requesting that the agency recommend and the city council approves the agreement with community law program. To provide pro bono legal services to South St. Petersburg CRA residents who are facing eviction. And to provide probate services to clear title to homes that may be in the name of deceased persons. And to allocate $300,000 through South St. Petersburg Community Redevelopment Area tax increment financing funds. Now we should be joined, I believe that Ms. Kimberly Rogers, oh yes she is, she's here. And Executive Director of Community Law Program and City Attorney Brad Tennant is also available to assist with any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Smith. All right, Council Member Floyd. Thank you. I first just want to thank administration for this. Both of the things covered in the resolution, other truly creative solutions to some of the problems that we're facing, particularly in the area and the CRA. And it's great that we can make our residents' lives a little easier. You know, there wasn't everything that I had hoped for in the eviction prevention stuff. But it's a great first step in a program that can push forward tenants' rights when we're limited in a lot of other legal ways. And I will enthusiastically be voting yes on this. I'll move approval as well. Second. All right, let's go ahead and go to public comment. Madam Chair, we have two speakers. Nick Carey and I believe this is James Kidder. Please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes to address City Council. Nick Carey, 10th Street North. Yeah, I just want to speak in support of this. Thank you to City Council and the administration for moving it to this point. This feels like a great first step and the right first step, considering the highest number of evictions happened in South St. Pete. And so often when we talk about solutions to the housing crisis we're going through, a lot of those solutions are five, ten years down the road. And this is something we can do to help renters right now. And so I'm very much in support of this and helping people avoid the harm of evictions, and I hope that you'll pass it. James Kidder, 4512 7th Avenue North. I'd like to thank you all for supporting this, and I'd like to specifically thank you for supporting it without any income or other means test. When someone's facing eviction and they don't have representation, that's the test right there. So, and I hope that this can also demonstrate to landlords across the entire city that we all have to abide by the same laws. Thank you. One more speaker. Okay. Dylan Dames, please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record. We have three minutes to address City Council. My name is Dylan Dames, I live at 12001 Dr. MLK Junior Street, North Unit D. Also here in support of these steps towards tenant protections. I think it's a really important step for us and it's something that we've urged for for the past couple of years. I remember a conversation that I had with a lady that was helping us with one of our events. And she believed in the long term solutions and the five to ten year solutions, but one thing that she kept echoing was that she needed help now. She had been back and forth between hotels because of price gouging and it's something that I hold very closely to the center of the work that we do. And I'm glad that we're taking a step to do some, to put some fires out. So thank you Council. That was our final speaker. More speakers. Okay. Council member Montaneri. Thank you Madam Chair and thank you for the presentation Mr. Smith. So I have some big concerns about this proposal. Back in February of this year we had at our youth and family services meeting a report on evictions. And we found out in that meeting that there were 821 evictions in the city of St. Petersburg. And 90% of them were for non-payment of rent. There also was a breakdown of where the evictions occur and 75% of them happen outside of the South St. Petersburg CRA. So the other data that was shared with us was that of the average past rent that was due was over $3,100. So I have some concerns about the legality of this and I want to talk, I've got some questions for legal. And let me just start right there because this seems to me to be against the 14th amendment, the equal protection law. So how do we have an ordinance that helps people in a certain amount of the city and doesn't help people in other parts of the city? Sure, absolutely. So Florida statute in enabling the creation of CRAs provides that the funding from CRAs is through tax increment financing. So this is money from the people that is spent particular to this area. So insofar as the difference between general funds, which would be from taxpayers across the city, state statute specifically allows us to take money from tax increment financing from a certain geographic area and put it back into that geographic area. Okay. Okay. Well, does, does the CRA allow us to expend funds for purposes like, like this? So. For a program like, like this, this before us? Yes. So it has to be pursuant to a, our CRA plan. And I, we've deferred to administration, but I believe the discussion was prevention of homelessness and encouraging home ownership being two points that are encouraged under our plan. And so far as both of these are focused on that, then it would be consistent with the general state statute. And I'll, of course, defer to George regarding the specifics of our plan and if I got anything wrong. That is accurate, is tied into a reduction of homelessness and the creation of home ownership opportunities. And one thing that we recognize that as a result of the services that we're offering, it will be able to mitigate any negative consequences relative to an eviction. And that's one of the, an eviction going on their credit report, if you will. Because if we're able to counsel with those who are facing evictions and get it to the point that it does not show up on their credit report, then that would put them in a better position to minimize homelessness as well as be a better candidate for home ownership. Okay. Let me, let me go back to, to legal. Um, I have in front of me a attorney general's opinion that addresses, uh, a similar type situation. And it's, uh, attorney general opinion, uh, 2010 40. Um, and it, in the, in the conclusion, it says, however, grants to entities that promote tourism and economic development, as well as nonprofits providing socially benefit programs would appear outside the scope of the community redevelopment act. Council member Montaner, I would say that we were not made of aware of this opinion. I mean, more than five minutes ago, that being said, the opinion itself is related to festivals or street parties. So it, upon a quick review of this, it appears that that statement would be taken out of context in light of what this opinion is related to. It, it does also talk about like development. But it's, it is related to the expenditure of funds for festivals or street parties from what we can say. And we're happy to, um, read this more thoroughly and report back at the end of the questions. But we're not seeing that that appears to be apples to apples comparison. Okay. Well, um, so my, my concerns first are constitutional concerns. And then does this, uh, if you get, get beyond the 14th amendment, uh, concerns that I have this attorney general, uh, opinion. And then just the fact of the city taking sides in a landlord tenant relationship, uh, that, that seems like it's tipping the scales. And it's not fair for landlords. Can you, can you address that Mr. Tenant? Sure. Well, this was discussed at a committee meeting in the context of some of the new preemptions related to landlord tenant. So in this circumstance, our opinion would be that the provision of legal services only seeks to ensure that the law is followed. So if there is not a case, for example, if someone owes rent and they're not able to pay it, then landlord has followed the law. And there is not a defense to eviction that didn't pay the rent. And really why, um, and some of this, I'll leave to administration and explain in more detail. But part of in drafting the agreement was to make it clear that it's not just for fighting evictions in court. The reality is there's some just hard discussions to be had with people to say that we could go to court and, uh, there's no defense. And the reality is from that perspective, if we can help you avoid the eviction, then it's better for, uh, encouraging, uh, preventing homelessness. The idea being is having an eviction on your record is problematic when seeking further, uh, accommodations. With that in mind, the idea is that if you can't, if someone's followed the law, there's no cause of action. And our agreement with community law in no way tries to have them expand beyond that. You follow the law, try to help people, you know, if the law is followed, but not to help people where there's not a cause of action. And, uh, they would be, have the same restrictions we have as far as not bringing frivolous claims and seeking to make arguments that are in bad faith. And so having done this as an agency for awhile, I believe that's why administration selected them to go forward and continue that work in the same capacity along the lines of trying to help people just to make sure the law is followed. If the law is followed, the help to them is not to go to court and necessarily try to delay. It's to tell them what the law is and what options they have. And hopefully that kind of gets at what you were, we were asking. Well, if I'm a landlord and I know that a tenant that is behind on the rent, uh, has an attorney there, I'm going to want to hire an attorney also. So I put, we're putting burdens on a landlord in this case. So potentially, uh, yes. So in so far as a, any rental is owned by a corporation, they would be required to have a landlord or required to have an attorney anyway. So if they cannot represent themselves in court, if it's an organization, so it would be the only people who might be required to get an attorney would be the individual landlord, but they're not required to. As you pointed out, if the other person has an attorney, they might feel obligated to, but only the entity would be obligated to because they can't represent themselves. Okay. Can you, can you share with us? Um, and, and that, that just kind of gets to fundamental fairness in my opinion. And I'm thinking about the mom and mom and pop landlords that are, uh, not getting the, uh, rent and they still have bills to pay. They still have to pay their mortgage, still have to pay property insurance, uh, upkeep on their, on their, uh, on their property utilities as, as this goes on. And, um, can you talk about any sort of delays? If somebody has an attorney and you're going to go to court, would this delay the process? Councilmember Montaneri, I'm going to actually step in here and then maybe assistant city attorney could add in, but I'm going to refresh our memory of the conversation that happened in committee. The majority of these cases never go to court. Um, the attorneys actually are helping both the landlord and the tenant in most cases negotiate a longer tail for them to, um, get out of the home and find other housing. So there's a lot of other outcomes besides going to court. They go to court in, um, very few cases and are providing support on the front end. And this was something that was actually supported, um, by many of the landlords that we worked with as a way to help them, um, have better outcomes in the end where tenants are not staying in the property, drawing out the process and, um, negotiating those outcomes in, um, the process. And again, I'm going to remind you that this is something that the city funded during COVID. Um, so we have a track record of, um, using the same agency in the past and, um, the Bay Area Apartment Association actually was a part of that project and was very thankful for the work that community law program did, um, as well as the tenants keeping them from becoming homeless. So you mentioned that in very few cases that, uh, uh, these cases go to court and we had 821 evictions. Can, can you give us any specifics, like how, how many of the 821 ended up? I'd have to go back and pull up what we presented to you at the committee level. Um, but I, I can think of the cases that we worked on at the Homeless Leadership Alliance and maybe three in hundreds went to court. Um, the, the examples that were provided in your committee materials were presented directly from community law programs. So I'd have to go pull those up and look at them. Okay. All right. Thank you. And, and, uh, just to follow up with my question to, to counsel. So, uh, your question, is there something an attorney can do to delay versus? Right. So there's nothing an attorney could do that the individual tenant could not do. So, uh, while an attorney could file a motion to determine the amount of rent, if there's a dispute in that regard, the tenant can do the same thing. So, obviously the, uh, the lawyer being more experienced in this regard is more likely to know what the options are. A tenant can do the same motion and make the same argument for the court. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Driscoll? Thank you. Regarding the probate services, we've got two parts here. I wish they were being brought forward as two separate, um, agreements. That one, um, I'm very supportive of out of, on the, um, the map with the, um, the estates that are in probate that you showed in the presentation. Um, 60 of those are in my district and this is to me, this one's a no brainer. Helping people to get out of those, um, those situations so that they can mean to have ownership of that family property is important. And I think that that definitely aligns with the mission of the South St. Petersburg CRA and the affordable home ownership program. I want to know, um, a little bit more about community law program. Um, I'm quite familiar with the organization, but, um, um, are they, they're currently doing some work with the city already, right? That is correct. And I think it'd be best if the executive director answer any specific questions, who is here, if you don't mind. Yeah, I would just like everyone to have a brief explanation of what we're already doing, um, with this organization. Very good. Roger. Good afternoon, everyone, council member Driscoll. Um, community law program has been working or receiving funding from the city of St. Petersburg since, um, May of 2021. Um, those funds were, um, federal funds that were passed through the city of St. Petersburg. We utilize those funds, um, to assist tenants at risk of eviction. Um, and as Amy, um, indicated, we worked with the Homeless Leadership Alliance and with other partners to, um, help negotiate settlements and to, uh, work, um, utilizing mediators that, um, held mediations with both the tenant and landlord. Um, we, uh, also represented tenants, um, on the rare occasions that there was a legal basis to, um, file an appearance in court. All right. Thank you. Thank you. And those are, um, that funding and all of that was more related to, um, the pandemic, right? That was, it sort of grew out of that, right? Yes, it grew out of that. So tell us how, so that was a, a different time. We had a lot of people struggling on, on all ends. Um, and I'm very grateful for the, the work that you started doing at that time. Tell me how this is, tell us how this, and this one is different. Well, this is different in the sense that the tenants that we will be able to serve, um, are those that reside in the CRA area and they don't have to have, um, a financial impact from COVID. Um, there, and there's no income requirement and there is no, um, requirement for documentation that was, uh, sometimes, um, posed a burden for some folks, particularly with the expedited nature of eviction cases. All right. Thank you. And then prior to, I mean, prior to the pandemic, uh, and prior to receiving funding from the city, we have all for years, we have assisted, um, tenants facing eviction as well as, um, assisted with probate matters. So. All right. Great. Thank you so much. And, um, I would say if, if this looked a little bit more like that, um, I could be supportive of it. I do have, um, George, I do have some concerns about, um, the fact that we don't have any income restrictions on this. Um, I think that when we are looking at, um, giving someone a hand up, we, and when we are trying to, um, engage with a, with a nonprofit in a situation like this. I think we need to be looking at helping our most vulnerable residents. And to not have any kind of an income cap on this, even if it was 120%, um, I could feel more comfortable with it. But I want, uh, especially our South St. Pete CRA dollars with programs, um, like this to really be targeted to the people who need it the most. Now, having said that, my council member Montaneri, um, just mentioned something about, um, 75% of the evictions in the number that was presented in the committee meeting, um, are actually at residents, uh, for residents that live outside of the South St. Pete CRA. So I was, I had hoped that we would come up with something that was citywide because we have renters who need help everywhere. And rather than having this so narrowly focused in one part of our city, but then with no income restrictions, I wonder what would the dollars look like if we weren't using CRA dollars? If we made it citywide and then had some kind of an income cap to ensure that we are truly helping people who cannot afford to do this on their own. Councilmember Driscoll, I think maybe quite a bit of time has passed and shall discuss this. You previously asked us to pilot this in the CRA, took almost a year to negotiate that contract. So this is the pilot program. You have money in your budget to do this citywide. Once the pilot gets off the ground, the plan is to bring, um, forward something, uh, that would affect the whole city. Um, but this is something y'all approved and asked us to move forward almost a year ago. And it's taken us a year to negotiate that contract and get those details nailed down. So the citywide program is coming, but we wanted to first make good on the promise of what was budgeted in your CRA budget last year, which included this conversation around a CRA program. While 75% of evictions take place outside of the CRA, the CRA is also a small area of the city. There is a significant number. The highest, um, zip codes where there are evictions do take place in the CRA, which is what the intention was behind bringing forward a CRA program. Um, you will spend much more money rehousing people who are evicted, um, through the homeless, uh, programs. Uh, and this was a homeless prevention strategy that was specific to the zip codes where we see the highest eviction rates. Thank you in my conversations with, um, some staff and, and with, uh, some members of the community who are passionate about this. I've been, um, quite clear that I wanted to see income restrictions on this so that it's truly helping those who need it the most. I have some reservations about including, um, non-payment of rent as being acceptable, um, unless there is some kind of, um, uh, criteria that goes with that. With that, it, it seems that that could, um, leave things open to, um, maybe some, some misuse of the funds. So I, I'm not really happy about that, but the biggest thing for me is that income requirement. And I, I worry that, especially with that in place, that we are not going to be able to take this citywide. Um, it's, it's just going to cover too many people. And we saw what happened in Tampa when they tried to do some rental assistance. They ran out of money immediately, immediately. I want us to be the city that does it right. I have too many, to me, this just doesn't help enough people. And I'd rather have us, um, go back and, and try to improve this so that it benefits more people. That's, that's where I'm at with this right now. Thank you. Well, you do understand, I believe, that this is not rental assistance. That, so the funding that we have set aside for this program is basically to provide assistance to those tenants, those residents who find themselves with, and it could be the case, the inability to make rental payments. And we want to assist them to move on to the next step without causing long term harm, if that is possible. And the intent is again to minimize the number of people that now are subject to homelessness. Because in the credit report impact of an eviction is one thing that I would like to really focus on. Because once an eviction is on their credit report, it makes it extremely difficult for them to get housing in any other place. So this is assistance to provide information to those individuals who find themselves in a situation they haven't possibly ever experienced before. It doesn't minimize the responsibility obligation for them to pay their rent. That's not what this is about. It's about providing additional services and information that they may, many, did not even realize existed. And that's the focus of this, of this program. Council Vice Chair Fix Sanders. Thank you. You know, as they say, if you want to keep them in their place, keep them uneducated. And as I listen to the argument against providing information, let us remind each other that poverty happened before COVID. So the fact that we're actually here having a discussion about providing information to help those that otherwise would not have it discourages me in what our intent to help all constituents looks like. I think legal actually clarified that we are in our boundaries and the dollars for this comes from the TIF funds that are actually accumulated by the by those that live in the same CRA in which we're looking to serve. I remember so many times on different topics that were not concerning certain categories that we trust administration. We know administration wouldn't lead us wrong until it gets to certain topics and certain pieces of our population. When we talk about tenants versus landlords, let's look at the balance of scales when we talk about those relationships. I don't think that this process has anything against landlords, but it's to help the tenants understand what their resources and what their opportunities are. When we talk about citywide, we are okay with pilots on everything else. And I guess my issue is how we cherry pick justice, how we pick and choose who deserves to be served. How we look at and provide stipulations on educating and providing what is availed by. When we take those taxpayers' dollars, when we ask for those votes, we don't ask them for their income statement or their W-2s. We don't ask them for their addresses unless they're in our districts. So I just wanted to interject by saying it is in our accountability to educate all of our citizens. And I didn't understand these dollars to be used to pay back rent. I didn't understand these dollars for anyone else to benefit from the fact that community law has been here serving our community for many years. Not a questionnaire credibility because we're trying to serve. If we were serving somewhere else, will we have those same questions? So I'm just going to go ahead and just put it out there. I've never seen such a struggle to say no versus taking what's in front of us. What is availed to us to do what it is that we want to do? And, you know, we have our pauses about certain things. We do. And I understand, you know, the legalities of it. But as Administrator Foster said, we had this conversation and this is what we asked to bring forth. Now, if we had some second thoughts, I wish we would have been able to work those out prior to. But I am fully, wholeheartedly going to support the fact that either we keep them in their homes today, or we're going to be complaining because they're at our bus stops tomorrow. They're going to be in our way. They're going to be occupying innocent eyesore on our streets. I would prefer to have people in their own homes. Home ownership is key. Land is a legacy. So I kind of want us to just remember home ownership is the American dream. Whether it's in somebody's apartment or wherever the case may be, let us continue to remember why we are here. And those dollars, I don't think legal would have instructed us to do anything incorrectly. I don't think administration would have. I do know that some of us have a little bit more experiences with homelessness. And there's a big difference in perspectives on that. So I thank you, Mr. Smith, for your presentation. I thank you for those that came to speak on behalf of making sure that when it rains, it doesn't pour. It doesn't pour. But in us to provide opportunity to those that would normally not have access to that information, I think is kudos for us. And I applaud us for wanting to just educate those that need that information. And again, thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you, Chair. Councilmember Hanowitz. Thank you, Chair. And thank you for the presentation. Well, first of all, my biggest concern last time we had this conversation, obviously, was the issue. I didn't want this to be about litigation. I wanted this to be about preventing evictions. I wanted to make sure this was about negotiation. And that was part of the reason we had that conversation about not paying back rent and court registry and all that stuff. Because then you're into the litigation realm. And then you're off to the races. I'm very happy that that's not part of it. So the fact that it's a pilot is another reason that I'm fine with this. Because some of the issues that were raised in the agreement, there's supposed to be some really detailed reporting, correct? In terms of what the outcomes are, investment, which is reporting that we're going to receive at some point to figure out if this works or not. Who's using it? Is it people that are at the 80% AMI? Is it people above 120%? We will have that information to deal with. So the fact that we talked about the pilot CRA as the right way to do this, that's the way I'm looking at this issue. I do want to give legal the opportunity because no attorney likes, because we've all been in court and we've been given that case right before a hearing, in terms of being given something to look at right before a hearing. So I just want to give legal an opportunity to kind of cover the attorney general decision. I mean, I looked at, I think it's distinguishable in terms of what you said, but I just now that you probably had more of an opportunity to look at it. Can you provide us a little bit more detail? Sure. I'll jump in the first thing I would point out is, you know, even how it's titled the community redevelopment promotional activities. It kind of jumps out. I agree with you council member Montaneri that it talks about something else other than festivals or street parties, but it's all taken in context and kind of one, one sentence. So it's hard to tell the extent to which they're interrelated. The thing that I would point out is there's really no, there's nothing in here to me that indicates this is an evaluation of a program similar to the one before you today. And the only phrase in here is the one that you mentioned providing socially beneficial programs, but it's taken in context with promoting tourism and economic development. So I don't see, we don't see any other opinions that reference this socially beneficial programs or any other reference to this opinion. So there just doesn't seem enough here based on the research that has previously been done by our office. There doesn't appear to be enough here to change our opinion that a program like this is within the scope of that act. Okay, so, and in terms of the CRA program and the community redevelopment plan and how it was set up and what the goals are of that program, I just want to make clear, it's your opinion that this fits within the goals of the CRA program as written legally. Yes. Okay. Okay, well, thank you. That's all my questions. It's been a lively discussion to say the least. I mean, I remember very clearly the committee conversation that we had a year ago now. And I remember there being some concern, but I don't remember this level of concern. So to be honest, I'm a little surprised that we're having this lengthy of a conversation today. I see here that some of the concerns that were addressed in that committee, you did clearly address in the negotiation with our community law program partner. And I remember when this program was created during the funding that we had at the federal level. And that came through a lot of collaboration, a lot of cooperation with stakeholders, overwhelming support at that point in time. And now here we are talking about the CRA, the area of the greatest need in our city, and now we're having all of this concern. So quite frankly, I'm a little disappointed that we're having this much concern. But it is my hopes that it will pass today because I completely support this program. I support it as a pilot. I do look forward to us having continued conversation about what it looks like going forward for a citywide program. Because it does need to be citywide. When we talk about means testing, for me, the means testing has been done by doing it in the CRA with a pilot program. Because when I go and look at census data for the CRA, and these are rough numbers, so don't quote me on them. But there's a great website that I use a lot for census data, censusreporter.org. And it looks to me like about the average income in those zip codes is about $31,000. That right there is a means test as far as I'm concerned. 20% of people in the CRA live below the poverty line. 38% of children live below the poverty line. 14% of seniors live below the poverty line. That is the means testing. So, and let's just be honest, I mean, we're talking about only a third of the funding even going to that particular portion of the program. Now we talk about the other two thirds, the 200,000. That to me is an issue that we have struggled with for a very long time. We have talked about generational home ownership and the challenges around that in specifically the CRA for years. And now we have a way to help people be able to get out from underneath that and maintain home ownership, which is also a critical part of the affordable housing work that we do. So I'm a little baffled by the concerns that are being brought up today that I haven't really heard as much cry for in the past. I'm hopeful that we can move this forward and that we can utilize this pilot program to make a citywide program even better. But I'm very happy with the work that staff has done and very happy for the partnership that we have with the community law program. And really, you know, Miss Rogers, I thank you for your partnership and your continued advocacy for people. And just hope that we can continue to move forward in doing what's right for the residents that we serve. So thank you. I believe Councilmember Montaneri. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Jackie, I did want to circle back to this Attorney General opinion. And do you have that in front of you on the on the first page where in the paragraph where it says in some the second sentence there? I'm sorry, can you say that again, Councilmember? It's the it's on the first page. There's a summation says in some and then the second sentence there. I just don't understand how you can make the conclusion that this carries out the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Act. So maybe I'll jump in. Generally, the CRA provides going back to the foundation of it, people in place based help. In this circumstance, it is people based help. And this goes to some of the original things that were done in the CRA was job assistance training. This fits into that category as far as, you know, what under the CRA plan and under the CRA statute is being done. Now, that being said, the kind of the core crux of our discussion regarding this phrase is job promotion, I think, could be obviously considered equally a socially beneficial program. So in that context, some things we know have been approved for CRA uses to promote people end up being fit into what is ostensibly not a specifically defined phrase in the Attorney General opinions. Accordingly, we're looking at the context of the entire Attorney General opinion, the ones it referenced, and, you know, other approved programs for the CRA and pointing to, well, this is what category it fits in. Generally, it's broad interpretation is what we're allowed to do in CRA in deferring to the legislative act, and there have been significant changes since this opinion was given. There have been new court cases, new CRA programs, and the combination of all that leads us to believe that the phrase socially beneficial program is not meant to be all encompassing. All right, I'll leave it there. Thank you. Okay, we have a motion and a second. 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, motion to approve agenda item CRA2 passes 6-2 with Council members Driscoll and Montanari voting no. Council members Vic Sanders, Floyd, Gabbert, Gerdes, and Mohammed voting yes. Move on now to item CRA3, interlocal agreement between the city and community redevelopment agency. Mr. Smith, this is your item as well, I believe? Maybe? Maybe not? No, it's not. All right. Thank you. Hello, how are you today? Welcome. What we have before you today is an accounting issue, okay, and a financial reporting issue. As you know, we have the city and the CRA. The account, as you know, there are certain items that are funded from the CRA, but executed through the city. Such as using city employee services and such. From an accounting and financial reporting perspective, we have to put them in the right place. Right now, as you probably know, when we present the city's financial statements, we present two different ones. The city's, and then we have a separately issued CRA audit. That is a relatively new requirement, you know, from recent changes in the state statute for the CRA. So, as part of that separate audit, there's certain items that we have to include in that report. If we don't have an interlocal agreement in place that tells us how we allocate that appropriately. For example, pensions. Does the CRA have to report the city's pension plans? So, this agreement spells out those accounting details, okay? So, I'm here and can ask any questions, but what we're trying to do is make sure all of this is paper correctly in accordance with state statute, our regulations, GASBs, etc. So, again, this is a matter that is all financial reporting related. Move approval. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Seeing no request to speak, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Motion to approve, agenda item CRA3 passes unanimously. All right, thank you, thank you so much. We will now adjourn as the CRA and reconvene as city council and item F1, entertain a motion. Move approval. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Seeing no further request to speak, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your vote. Seeing all council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Motion to approve, agenda item F1 passes 6-2 with council members Driscoll and Montaneri voting no. Council members Vic Sanders, Floyd, Gabbert, Gerdes, Hanowitz, and Muhammad voting yes. All right, we will now go to an item that was pulled from consent. It is now item F3, our interlocal agreement between the city and community redevelopment, which we just did. So, there we go. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. 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. Motion to approve, agenda item F3 passes unanimously. All right, and our next report item is also pulled from consent. And it is now F2, which is a license agreement between the city and HMS Ferries. And we are joined by transportation and parking management director, Evan Morey. Hi, good afternoon, council. Thank you for the opportunity to bring this to you today. I will go ahead and use the opportunity to go over the council materials, but also provide an update since it's been a couple of weeks since those have been submitted. The item before you is the resolution to approve a license agreement between HMS Ferries and the city of St. Petersburg to use one of two locations. St. Pete Port or the North Yacht Basin to operate the Cross Bay Ferry service for the next two seasons. As a reminder, we're about to enter the third year of a four year agreement to provide these services. This year's service increases the length of the season from eight months to nine, with service to continue through June of next summer. The final year of the existing agreement requires year-round service from October of 2024 through September of 2025. And since the initial ferry season began in November of 2016, we have seen steadily increasing ridership with the exception of during the height of the COVID pandemic. We've also seen the public subsidy of the ferry decrease from an initial cost of $350,000 for six months of service to this year's city contribution of $2,500 for nine months of service. The reason city council is being asked to approve two license agreements is in order that we have the operational flexibility to either utilize the port or the Yacht Basin. So currently, we do not hold a valid permit from the Army Corps of Engineers that meets the needs of the ferry. Specifically, we were recently notified that there's a strict limit of three trips per day. This legacy language is from the initial permit application made in 2016. We're not allowed to offset those trips to add trips on the weekend and operate fewer weekday trips. And due to this requirement, operating from the North Basin would mean that on an average weekend, there'd be hundreds of passengers wishing to make the trip that would be normally turned away due to being sold out. Additionally, the court advised that due to changes in federal requirements that occurred in the last year, the longest extension, the permit that they could provide is six months, and this season is nine. Since the final decision was rendered by the court earlier this month, staff has been working diligently on a new permit that we will submit, plan to submit next week. And if that permit's approved, this would allow the use of the North Basin for up to three more years, so that we don't have the annual renewals. It's possible that the new permit would be ready before the end of this season, but conservatively, we're probably looking at finishing out this season at the port and then moving to the North Yacht Basin next year. So while the port location has disadvantages of not, the disadvantage of not being as centrally located as the North Basin, it does have certain attributes similar to or even better than the North Basin location. For example, we've identified a surface parking lot immediately adjacent to the docking location that's large enough to fit most or all the vehicles that people will drive downtown and need parking. We'll offer this parking for free and no daily time limit. That will result in reduced parking demand in the downtown core, including the pier lots, which often do reach capacity on the weekends. Overflow parking opportunities exist along 8th Avenue Southeast. The closest looper trolley stop to the port is an approximately 1,000-foot walk, and that stops in front of the hangar restaurant. By contrast, the walk from the North Basin location to the looper stop near the pier entrance is also 1,000 feet. Unfortunately, similar to last year, the ferry vessel's been delayed. There's large seas in the Atlantic. It's been unable to make the trip down to Boston. It should be arriving by now, but it is not. So HMS is monitoring the weather and hopes that the vessel will be able to arrive next week and then commence service shortly thereafter. So as soon as we have a start date confirmed, there's a media alert ready to go out from the city's marketing team and HMS marketing team that will let everybody know when the first day of service is and make sure everybody knows where it operates from. A final note is that in the budget being considered by city council tonight, there's $250,000 included for designing a permanent commercial dock that would accommodate the ferry and other vessels downtown. We still need to identify construction funding, excuse me, but administration is committed to identifying a permanent solution for the ferry dock that would be centrally located and not involved using temporary docks. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions and request approval. All right, Councilmember Driscoll. Thank you. Thank you for that update. We've been through quite a lot in recent times trying to get this figured out. And I really appreciate all the work that you and others have done to get us here to an imperfect fix, but a fix nonetheless. We always knew that the temporary permit for the North Basin was just that. It was temporary and we finally got called on it. It was temporary because the permanent ferry dock was supposed to be part of the new pier. The new pier was constructed without that. And so then began my request and many conversations about getting that built. You mentioned this, that you're working on it now. Where are we and how many years do you think we're going to have to use the port or the North Yacht Basin or some other temporary spot until we've got something permanent so we don't have to worry about this anymore? So the funding that would be approved tonight is likely sufficient to complete design on the permanent location. That process takes about a year and then funding would need to be identified for construction probably in the following year's budget. Either through city funds or other funds and then construction could take one or two years. So we're probably looking at two to three years from now would be an estimate of when we could have the permanent one finished. Okay. And you guys are working on getting a permit renewal, getting it so that we can get it back to the North Basin? We're asking for a three-year permit. In the past, they would only issue a year at a time. They haven't said yes or no to the longer term, but we feel like three years would be sufficient. Yeah. Okay. So in the meantime, we have to use, we're going to use the port. I'm glad we have something. I want everyone to know that you did have conversations with the folks who operate the looper trolley to try to get a stop either moved or added right at that spot just to make it as easy as possible. And that was declined. And I'm not happy about it. We should be better partners than that. And I'm saying that collectively. So at least we have one that's nearby. So the only thing remaining is micromobility. Are you going to have scooters, e-bikes nearby so that folks who want to use that can hop off the ferry and onto an e-bike or a scooter? Absolutely. Yes. And do you have the spot picked out? I mean, since the ferry is late getting here, we've got time to really make this as welcoming as possible because it is less than ideal. I want to dress this up and do everything that we can to have it ready and not still be getting things in place when it gets here. They will be there the day that the vessel operates and we know where the pedestrians will exit the port and we will put it in a place that they can't miss it. Okay. I'm going to get with you offline as a follow up. Hopefully we'll get this passed and then we can make sure that this is good. This is good. Our city has been supportive of this ferry, you know, since day one. And it's not easy to get two cities and two counties to all agree on something. Now we're down to three of those governments pitching in, but we're still at it. And I just appreciate your perseverance and that of the administration to keep this going because we know that this type of waterborne transportation is incredibly important to the future of the whole region really. So, um, I appreciate all that you've done and, um, I look forward to voting for this. Thank you. Council member Montaneri. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the, uh, update Evan. Uh, this, this is important to, to all of us, uh, especially to the residents of St. Petersburg. I mean, we take great pride in our, in our waterfront and we want that to always look good in the, the temporary dock that we've had for the ferry. Uh, it's just that it's been a temporary dock that has just been going on for, for a long time and we need to set a higher standard for something on the, on the waterfront. So I look forward to getting this study done and then building a permanent location, uh, for the ferry and any, any other ships that, uh, we may be bringing to, uh, St. Petersburg. Uh, can you talk about, uh, so that the dock is going to be removed. Can you talk about the fence and the kiosk that's, that's out there? What's going to be the status of that? The payment booth will move to the port. So that won't be there anymore. The, um, fencing is there for a couple of reasons. One is it protects some, uh, utilities and the fencing, uh, either needs to stay or be replaced with something else. Okay. That hasn't been determined yet, but we, we won't be able to. We don't want to remove some of the things that are there that we need, like the water and the electric. Okay. All right. That, that, that makes sense. I just want to, again, that, that was a temporary location. And, uh, yeah, I, I, I want us to, like I said before, set a high bar for, for anything on our, uh, our waterfront. So let me just understand this. We're waiting on the Corps of Engineers to make a decision. The ferry's probably going to be operating out of the port for this, this season, but they may be coming back to the North Yacht Basin for the next two seasons. Correct. Um, except for they would not issue a renewal. So we have to submit a brand new application that we're planning on submitting next week. Okay. Okay. And, uh, so we're partnered with, uh, Hillsborough County. Yes. Hillsborough's the, the lead agency. And we have a partnership, um, in the agreement with Tampa Hillsborough and St. Pete. We have a separate agreement with Pinellas County where they're still providing a funding, but not at the same level as the other partners. Okay. Is there any sort of, uh, do they have any say on where we operate the, the pier out of? Is that in, in the, the agreement? The agreement is, uh, it puts the onus on HMS to work with the cities to, uh, secure a location. So what we're doing is consistent with the agreement and we've had meetings with all the partners in the last couple of months and everybody's knows what's happening. Okay. All right. Very good. Well, thank you for the update. Uh, before we vote, Evan, I just want to thank you. Um, we're, you know, just always continuing to push, be creative, stay on top of our ferry service because it has not been easy by any means. Um, the number of conversations that we've had over the years about how we can, you know, continue to make sure that we have ferry service. Um, I can't, probably couldn't even count them if I had to. So I just want to thank you personally, um, because it is such an important piece. Um, I had the privilege of serving for a very long time on the waterborne transportation committee with forward Pinellas and having, I mean, we're, we're a community surrounded by water. So not to have waterborne transportation as part of our multimodal system really would be a travesty. And so I'm so glad that we've continued to persevere, had a lot of obstacles in the way, still a few more obstacles before we have that permanent year round, but we're almost there. And so, um, just, I'm such a fan of the ferry for so many reasons. Um, there's such a vision for what it can be and what it should be. And so, um, just thank you. Thank you for the residents that enjoy it. And just thank you for me personally. Move approval. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Seeing no further requests to speak. Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all council members have voted. Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda item F2 passes unanimously. All right. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Morey. All right. And we will now go to our new business item, item G1. Council member Floyd. Thank you. I am respectfully requesting a referral to the Health Energy Resilience and Sustainability Committee. A discussion regarding the exploration of municipally owned grocery stores in food deserts within the city. I'll move approval. All right, very good. I wish I could have like seconded that one. Mm-hmm. Very excited when I saw this come forward. It'll be a fun discussion. Yes. I'm looking forward to it. All right. 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. Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda item G1 passes 7 to 1 with Council member Montaneri voting no. Council members Driscoll, Fick Sanders, Floyd, Gabbard, Gerdes, Hanowitz, and Muhammad voting yes. All right. Very good. We will, well, that's all of our business we can do for now. So council will stand in recess until 5-0-1 when we take up our public hearings. Chair. We will call City Hall back to order and begin our 5-0-1 public hearings and take up item J-1, J-2, and J-3, our preliminary assessments. Joined by Coates Compliance Assistant Director Joe Waugh. Move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, any cards on this item? All right. And no request to speak. Please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. All council members voted. I can't see. Oh, sorry. Okay, that's all right. Seeing all council members have voted. Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Motion to approve agenda items J-1, J-2, and J-3 passes unanimously. All right. Very good. We will now move on to item J-4, mending city code adding rabbits to the general ban on resale ban of dogs and cats. And clerk, can you please read the title? An ordinance amending section, excuse me. An ordinance amending city code section 4-9 related to pet sales. Adding rabbits to the general ban on the retail sale of dogs and cats in the city. Providing exemptions. Providing requirements for display of rabbits for retail sale. Providing preservability and establishing effective date of January 1st, 2024. And we do have six cards. All right, very good. We do have Assistant City Attorney Heather Judd here with us today. So before we go to public comment, did you have anything you wanted to say first? Yes, Madam Chair, thank you. The ordinance that's before you was revised, but the revisions do not affect any of the contemplated code amendments. It was just a revision to section 4 dealing with the effective date. And those revisions were made in contemplation of our move to compliance with Senate Bill 170. And so some language in there was changed to track with 170. Though this is occurring before October 1st, we just wanted to make sure that it was clear going forward. That this is going to be enacted this evening and that the enforcement effective date is going to be in January as discussed at PSNI. Okay, wonderful, thank you. We'll go ahead and go to public comment now, so please call two at a time. Chair, first two speakers, Susan Hall and Anne Marie Canario. I believe that's what it is. Please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record. We have three minutes to address city council. Hello, my name is Susan Hall, and I live in historic Kenwood. Thank you for your time and attention to the prevailing problem of dumped bunnies and your consideration of a ban for sale of bunnies from pet stores. Mahatma Gandhi said the best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others. But all of you know that or we wouldn't be sitting here with you on that side of the podium facing me way down here. Asking for your help to slow the flood of bunnies being unceremoniously dumped like the one I told you about in my most recent email in Lake McGorry area two days ago. Those of us who live with bunnies as companions when they have room to zoom around and do binkies and all the adorable things they do in a rabbit safe place understand this. That the country has gone from, you know, dogs and cats were the only companion animals pets that people had to bunnies being the third. And as recently as 2012, a survey found that 2.5 million families in the United States have bunnies. So I remember when I was a kid, all the dogs running around the neighborhood and nobody got their animals spayed and neutered. And when you know better, you do better. The way we care for bunnies has to change and that has to start with you all helping the rescues to be able to continue to take bunnies in. Because we've run out of foster care and we've run out of real estate and it's not fair that we shoulder this entirely when a few people are lining their pockets over the lives of bunnies that don't have a voice in this except me. So I appreciate you having me here and I would really request that you vote yes to add bunnies to the existing ban. Putting the ban in place was the right thing to do for kitties and puppies and it's the right thing to do for bunnies. So thank you. Next speaker please. Good evening council members. My name is Anne Marie Cancio. I reside at 17802 Ridgeway Court in Tampa, Florida, Hillsborough. I have been involved in cat rescue in Hillsborough and Pasco counties for over ten years now. While this doesn't qualify me to speak as an authority on the problem of abandoned rabbits, it certainly provides me with a great deal of sympathy for the Humane Society of Tampa Bay, Suncoast House Rabbit Rescue, the SPCA in Pinellas County and other rabbit rescues here and throughout the state. Who spend their time as well as personal resources to rescue, vet, foster and rehome an ever increasing number of abandoned and surrendered pet rabbits. The unwanted rabbit problem is a problem here in Florida. One of the issues is that most county run animal shelters do not take in rabbits, only cats and dogs. And there are very few private rabbit rescues in Florida and all of them are overwhelmed and financially strapped. Rescues that rely on fosters can easily turn away 20 rabbits in a month because they're already full and it's hard for them to find fosters in homes. Some examples are the SPCA in Pinellas has taken in over 1200 unwanted pet rabbits in the last four years and yet they still continue to euthanize tens of rabbits each year. The Humane Society in Tampa Bay has taken in over 700 unwanted rabbits and in 2022 alone they took in 272 and turned away 95 because they didn't have space. In the wake of overwhelming numbers of rabbits being abandoned, surrendered and turned away or euthanized by non-profit animal rescues, I strongly encourage the council to help alleviate this problem by enacting today a complete ban on retail sale of pet rabbits. And as a point of reference, many localities throughout Florida and other states have already banned the retail sale of rabbits. I mentioned Hillsborough County, Pasco County, Nassau County, Orange County, DeSoto, Martin, Key West, and Port St. Lucie here in Florida, the city of Las Vegas, and the states of California and New York. Thank you. I appreciate you. Next two speakers please. Miriam Parham and Genevieve Pettyjohn, please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. And ladies, you can go to both podiums. So, yes, feel free. Please, go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon, council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Miriam Parham and I live in 9932 Caribou Trail, Dade City. I represent Florida Voices for Animals, an all-volunteer, non-profit organization, and our mission is to educate the public about animal abuse and exploitation. We have over 4,600 supporters throughout Florida, most in the Tampa Bay and many in Pinellas County. I'm a Pasco County resident where the retail sale of rabbits was banned last October. I'm happy to say, and I live in that area and support the pet shops. And when I go, nobody has complained about not having rabbits for sale and the staff that I've gotten to know in those places are content with it. No problems. And as you know, Hillsborough banned it in February of this year. And Ann Marie already mentioned all the counties and states, so I won't go through that. But I think that eventually or pretty soon the whole state will join in this because it's going like a wave in many areas where their bans are taking place because of all the problems that you've heard. But I just thank you so much for your foresight and progressiveness to take a huge hop ahead and move forward in this huge problem. And it's a humane, great step that will save many rabbit lives and prevent a lot of cruelty. And you've heard some of the issues with the rabbit sale industry, with breeding, transportation from out of state, wire flooring in cages, impulse buying by uninformed and unprepared consumers, improper handling by kids, leading to injuries and deaths, chewing problems, sick rabbits, on and on and on. So, we know most rabbit purchases are impulse buys at Easter. And rabbits are not toys, they're living, gentle, and sentient creatures. But many don't keep the rabbits for very long enough to get rid of them after the novelty was off or when they realize they can't deal with all the care that's required. And you've heard how they suffer abandonment and how the shelters and rescues are overwhelmed. So when people decide that they no longer want them, there's not many options, so they are released often into the wild to survive on their own. And as you know, that doesn't work too well. Domestic rabbits don't do well outdoors, they can become malnourished, fall prey to vicious attacks by dogs, wild animals that mutilate and kill them. Not pretty thoughts for these nice, gentle creatures. So, and they can bring viruses, you've heard a lot of this stuff. So, the rescues spend a lot of their money and energy trying to help these animals and the stores can help with adoption programs. We always wanted to work with the stores too and coordinate those types of adoptions and they can do well by selling the needed food and supplies. We don't want to hurt the pet stores. They do a great service to all of us, paid owners, I'm sure all of you who have pets, you know, use them. And we need the supplies, they sell the food, treats, toys, beds, crates and so much more. So, we just want to work together on this issue. It's a win-win for all. So, please listen to the constituents. We appreciate that you've drawn up the draft and join the growing number of counties and cities and states that are banning the sale of rabbits. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you and thank you for the pun. I like a good pun. Please, next speaker. Good evening, Jenny, Petty, John. I live at 7955 128th Street, Seminole. Thank you so much for this consideration. It means a lot to the rabbit community. I kind of want to give you a small picture of what happens in our world. Ma'am, are you with an organization that- I volunteer for Southwest Florida House Rabbit Rescue and Suncoast Rescue. Perfect. And some of the other small ones. So, I kind of just want to give you a really quick picture of what happens to rabbits in pet stores. So, you walk in and you see this cute little teeny tiny fuzzy bunny and I've heard so many people say, I didn't go in intending to go out with a bunny, but they're so cute, you know. So, what happens is they're usually around six weeks old at this point. You get them home and they hit sexual maturity and they are literally peeing and pooping everywhere. It's a hot mess even for people that are used to fostering rabbits. So, people are overwhelmed. They don't know what they're in for when they adopt a rabbit because they're not educated from the pet stores. What rescues and shelters do is they will not adopt them out until they're spayed and neutered, which totally changes the whole entire ball game. They learn how to potty train. They go in a litter box. So, it changes everything. So, I just wanted to give you a little picture. Like you go home with this cute little thing and all of a sudden it turns into a monster like your teenager does sometimes as humans. And you think, what did I get myself into? So, if you'll think about that, please. And if you look into some of the rescues in Florida and the shelters that take in rabbits, you'll see just how overwhelmed everybody is. In fact, tonight when I leave here, I am going to catch a rabbit in Clearwater. So, thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you. Next two speakers. Two speakers, Madam Chair, and final two speakers, Christine Height and David Ober. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. Hi, my name is Christine Height. I live at 17105 Golf Boulevard, number 424 North Reddington Beach. I'm a volunteer with South Coast House Rabbit Rescue. I've been involved with rabbits for probably over ten years now. They all come from rescues. They all have been dumped, horrible situations. So, I'm going to make this short and sweet because I don't really like talking. But please, please take them or please put them on the list that they don't get sold at pet stores. Because it's just like all the others have said, people buy them on a whim. They don't want to take care for them and they just dump them. And then we have to take care of them and find them good homes. Thank you. Thank you. Sir? Hi, I'm David Ober. I'm at 17105 Golf Boulevard, North Reddington Beach. I've been in... I'm with Suncoast. How's Rabbit Rescue? Well, it's been really hard. Risk, at least. I can tell you how many houses I've crawled under. Found rabbits dying in people's neighborhoods. Up on people's front porches. Breeders, they just let them go. I've been doing this 30 years. And the needless breeding and selling needs to stop. I wish I had pictures to show you how many dead bodies that we've retrieved and had to pick up. Please support the being on rabbits. Thank you. Councilmember Hanowitz, this was originally your new business item. So, at this time, you want to say anything? Thank you, Chair. And first of all, thank you, everyone here. It really takes so much time out of their lives for this issue. And I really mean it. Because without volunteers and people in the community who care, we can't effectuate change. And it happens not just with the rabbits. I get calls sometimes about birds that are hurt. And people call birds in helping hands. And those are volunteer groups, too, that help the birds. And then you have volunteers that get the cats out, right? And trap them and spay and neuter them to make sure that our cat population is in check. Because they care. Because they don't want to see these animals hurt. So, your advocacy really mattered. Because I will tell you, that's how it was brought to my attention. And I didn't realize the issue until advocates like you brought it to our attention. And I have to say, it was irresistible to respond. The most immediate solution to me was, when I looked at this ordinance, was to add rabbits. We already have the same ordinance for cats and dogs. And it was just that simple solution of adding rabbits to it and makes that much of a difference. And if we can help this situation by doing that, I don't see what a burden that is. So by banning the sale of pet rabbits, we hope that we can decrease the influx of the abandoned rabbits. Suncoast House Rabbit Rescue does a lot of work. And I can't believe it's the only rescue organization serving five counties, Tampa Bay area. I mean, it's just unreal. And then you take that responsibility yourselves. In open forum, Susan Hall said, when you know better, you do better. And that's what we're trying to do. I'm very happy to have brought this issue forward. And I'm hoping for a hoppy ending. So with that, I move for approval. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. And seeing no further requests to speak, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Motion to approve. Agenda item J-4 passes unanimously. I don't typically applaud here, but tonight I think it's well worth it. So thank you all for coming out this evening and for your advocacy. And thank you, council member Hanowitz for making this happen. Thank you. Thank you all. All right, we will now move on to item J-5, an ordinance providing the sale of alcoholic beverages in a portion of Seminole Park. And clerk, can you please read the title? Ordinance number 557H, an ordinance providing for the sales, service, dispensing, possession, and or consumption of alcoholic beverages in a portion of Seminole Park for an event to be held on October 14, 2023 and providing an effective date. And we have no cards. All right, we are joined by Assistant City Attorney Sharon. And Sharon, I always say your name wrong, I'm so sorry. Say it for me, Jackie. McNovich. Thank you. And Recreation Program Manager, Lynn Gordon. So Lynn, did you have a presentation or anything on this item? No, Madam Chair, I do not, but I'm here to answer any questions if anyone has. Move approval. Becken. Well, we got a motion and a second. So did you have anything you wanted to add? I got nothing to add. All right, thank you. All right, so a motion and a second. Do we have any cards on this item? No cards. All right, so seeing no cards and no request to speak, clerk please open the machine for voting. All right, seeing all council members have voted, clerk please tally and announce the vote. I want you to approve agenda item J5 passes unanimously. Very good, thank you. Thank you ladies, appreciate it. All right, finally we have J6, amending Chapter 3 of the Future Land Use Element for Certain Affordable Housing Projects. And clerk, can you please read the title? Minutes number 549H. In ordinance of the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, amending its comprehensive plan. Amending Chapter 3, Future Land Use Element. Objective LU3 to preclude application of the comprehensive plan to certain affordable housing projects. Moved pursuant to sections 166.041516 and 166.041517A, Florida Statutes. Updating map 25, height limitations for airport imagery services. Replacing map 30 with map 30A, Albert Whitted Airport. It says imaginary. What? Is that a Scribner's error? I'm thinking that's a Scribner's error, so we'll just go with Chan's title as read. Okay. Replacing map 30 with map 30A, Albert Whitted Airport, existing facilities, and map 30B, Albert Whitted Airport, planned facilities, providing for servability and providing effective date. And we do have one card on this item. Okay. So we're joined by Urban Planning and Historic Preservation Planner 2, Britton Wilson. Did you have any, do you want to give your presentation? Or I guess that's kind of up to Council, we had it last time, so. I'll move approval as read. Second. Okay, so we have a motion and a second, but we have a card, so let's go to public comment. Steven Sherwood, please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address City Council. Good afternoon, Council. Hello. I'm Steven Sherwood. I'm at 155 Alameda Way, Northeast. And I came to St. Petersburg because of the airport. I got my ticket in 79 in San Diego, and it was airports like this that I could fly out of and get some training. If it wasn't for coming here in 2000, and all of a sudden I saw they wanted to get rid of the airport or do something else with the airport. So I supported the airport, obviously. Fast forward, I was going to use it for business. 2008 hit. I'm kind of, you know, got caught in the down draft on that. And since then I've kind of, you know, grown to look at some of the things about the airport. And I just briefly, you know, airport contributes $128 million to the economy. And that's a reoccurring amount. That also that St. Petersburg has the history of being the first commercial flight. And also they got this new stuff coming on. That's the air taxi. I don't know if the EB tall. Joby has just got their FAA approved version of the EB tall on September. I think it was September 19th this year. Pretty incredible they got it done so rapidly. And then on September 23rd, I believe, the Air Force is now working in partnership with Joby to bring this to reality. And with that push, I think that this would be a great setting to have that come into St. Petersburg. A lot of you all probably like to fly, right? So I do too. And I never got my commercial ticket. But the thing about it is you still go to the airport and this air taxi is going to be absolutely wonderful out of St. Petersburg. They're saying the cost is going to be about equal to what an Uber X would cost you to get from here to the airport. So whatever considerations. And I also voted again to keep the airport. And I'm hoping that you will reconsider anything else. I think there was something I read that there's going to be some additional study that's going to be done at the airport. And I'm not sure what that's all about, but it didn't sound good. And I think we're tied up with the FAA as a regional to do this and to keep that in the airport there until 2041. So that's all I have to say. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you, sir. No more cards. No more cards. And we have a motion and a second. Seeing no request to speak. Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Did we get a motion? Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all council members have voted. Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda item J6 passes unanimously. All right, City Council. Well, once again, we have concluded all the business we can for now. So at 601, we will start our public hearing for the city budget. Council will stand in recess until that time. Thank you. We will bring city council back to order and we will begin our public hearing for the fiscal year 2024 final budget and final millage rate. All right, so this is the start of the public hearing. This public hearing is on the final budget and the final millage rate and the budget appropriations ordinance for fiscal year 2024, which has been amended for the second reading to include the intent of the request made by city council at the first public hearing and administration's proposed changes since the first reading. This is also a public hearing on the proposed multi-year CIP program for the city of St. Petersburg. Prior to public comment, the first substantive issue discussed shall be the percentage increase in millage over the rollback rate necessary to fund the budget, if any. And the specific purposes for which ad valorem tax revenues are being increased. That issue will be discussed by the mayor and his staff after the title to the budget appropriations ordinance is read. Clerk, can you please read the title? Madam Chair, proposed ordinance 554H, an ordinance making appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30th, 2024, for making appropriations for the payment of the operating expenses of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, including its utilities and for the payment of principal and interest of revenue bonds and other obligations of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida. Making appropriations for the capital improvement program of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida. Making appropriations for the dependent special districts of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida. Adopting the appropriations ordinance as the budget for the city of St. Petersburg, Florida for the fiscal year ending September 30th, 2024. And providing for related matters and providing an effective date. And we do have ten cards, Madam Chair. Okay, very good. Thank you, Clerk. At this time, I'd like to invite Assistant City Administrator Tom Green to provide some remarks on behalf of the administration. Thank you, Chair Gabbard, and good evening, Council Members. I'm just going to say it. I love late September. I'm very excited about tonight. I know I'm kind of a geek that way. But this, in fact, is probably one of my top five favorite days of all the year because soon City Council will be asked to adopt the funding plan or FYI for fiscal year 2024. And I wanted to just start out and share with you, this is a significant milestone. And on behalf of Mayor Welch and City Administrator Rob Gerdes and the entire administration, we want to thank City Council for your leadership and your collaboration throughout the last eight or nine months or so. I also want to thank all of our administrators, including Amy Foster, James Corbett, Mike Jeffries, Claude Tankersley, as well as Chief Holloway, Chief Large, and Chief of Staff Doyle Walsh for their leadership. We are blessed to have unbelievable leadership in our departments. They're not only subject matter experts, but they are very fiscally responsible with the resources that you appropriate to them on an annual basis. And I want to thank each of our department directors and their team for the hours of work that they put in on this budget. Like I said, we are truly blessed. I want to thank Liz Makofsky, our budget director, and Jim Chisholm, the budget manager, and the entire budget team for their continued excellence. And I want to thank our residents who have come out tonight for this public hearing, as we are a much better city for their involvement. You know, each year we start this process with the same goal, to develop a budget that funds our collective agreed upon highest priorities, understanding that the resources to address those are limited. Over the last eight or nine months, we've worked with City Council and our community to strike that balance. And we believe that the fiscal FY24 budget meets that target. So thank you, Madam Chair and City Council, for allowing me to say some brief comments at the very beginning of this hearing. We look forward to Liz's more in-depth presentation that will come, and then ultimately hearing from the public. And then look forward to our debate and discussion of the next year's budget. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. And at this time, I'd like to invite Budget Director Liz Makofsky to provide her presentation on the proposed FY 2024 budget and rollback rate. Good evening, Chair and members of City Council. Before I start the presentation, if anyone has specific questions or concerns regarding the assessed value of their property, exemptions or classification related to your property, or information on the trim notices. Tonight we have here with us Kevin McKeon, the Deputy of Assessment Administration from the Pinellas County Property Appraisers Office. If anyone would like to speak with him, please follow him at this time and he will answer your questions. For those attending virtually, please contact the Pinellas County Property Appraisers Office at 727-464-3207, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Or you can email mike at pcpao.org. Thank you. This evening is the second of two public hearings on the fiscal year 2024 budget for the City of St. Petersburg. Florida Statutes 200.065, also known as the Truth and Millage Act, or the Trim Act, requires a specific process for our discussions tonight. The order of this process is laid out in Attachment A of the backup materials. The City Clerk has provided the second reading of the FY24 budget ordinance. And in just a moment, I will review with Council and the public the proposed changes to the tentative FY24 budget that City Council approved two weeks ago. Upon conclusion of the budget presentation, we will then hear from the public. And after public comment period and discussion and deliberation by City Council, you'll be asked to take action on three items. And each of these actions will need to be done as a standalone motion. The first is to adopt by resolution the final millage rate of 6.4675 for FY24. The second is to adopt the 24 budget appropriation ordinance as the final budget. And finally, the number three is to adopt by resolution the FY24 through 28 capital improvement program. So under the trim statutes or the trim process, the first item of substance to be discussed is the percentage increase, if any, in millage over the rolled back rate. For purposes of the FY24 budget, the rollback rate is 5.9152 and is the millage rate that would generate roughly the same amount of ad valorem revenues in FY24 as the City received in FY23. Under the trim statutes, we're allowed to recognize ad valorem revenue associated with new taxable value added to the tax base. So the rollback rate generates slightly higher revenues in FY24 than the City is scheduled to receive in 23. The proposed FY24 millage rate is 6.4675, a reduction of .0575 mills from last year's millage rate, and represents a 9.34% increase over the rollback rate. The year over year increase in ad valorem revenue from FY23 to FY24 is 19.943 million. The second step in the state required trim process is to discuss the reasons ad valorem tax revenues are being increased. A major reason for the increase in ad valorem revenues is to provide the resources needed for wage increases for all city employees, including police and fire rescue. The budget includes funding for affordable workforce housing. There's also funding for five additional temporary fire cadet positions in the fire rescue department and two positions in legal. We're also increasing funding for the call program and continuing funding for the body worn cameras and fleet camera programs. Other major reasons include increasing the investment into key strategic initiatives such as a citywide eviction prevention program, youth employment programs, and literacy and STEAM programs. The budget includes resources to increase or maintain funding for at risk youth, social action funding, the grow smarter initiative, and arts grants. There's also funding in the budget for the historic gas plant redevelopment project, and the increase in ad valorem tax is based on a 12.36% increase in 2023 property values over 2022. This chart shows a ten year history of property tax revenues in relation to public safety costs. You can see that in FY24, ad valorem revenues will cover all of public safety costs for the city. This next slide illustrates the calculation of the millage rate for FY24. The first step in the calculation is to determine the value of one mill. To do this, we take the gross property value and then multiply it by 96%, resulting in $30.582 billion in value for budgeting purposes. We then divide the 96% of gross taxable value amount, $30.582 billion, by $1,000, and that gives us a value of one mill as $30.582 million. The second step is to look at our FY24 general fund requirement of $364.467 million and net out the other sources of revenue for the general fund other than ad valorem taxes, which total $166.676 million. To arrive at the amount of required ad valorem taxes of $197.791 million. The third and final step is to divide the required ad valorem taxes of $197.791 million, which is B on the slide, by the value of one mill, which is notated as A on the slide. This arrives at 6.4675 mills required. Again, this millage rate is a decrease from FY23 of .0575 mills. This slide illustrates a typical property tax bill for a resident of the city of St. Petersburg. Your property tax bill contains more than just your city taxes. You also pay property taxes to the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, the School Board, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the Juvenile Welfare Board, the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, and others. Generally, your city taxes will make up approximately 33% of your total property tax bill, or 33 cents for every ad valorem tax dollar paid by property owners. The school system with its two components of their tax bill make up approximately 30%, and Pinellas County makes up about 24% of the total taxes. The balance of the 13% is made up of the various other taxing authorities. I will now move into a discussion of the changes to the FY24 budget since City Council approved the tentative budget two weeks ago at the first public hearing. All of this information is included in more detail on Attachment B recap of changes. There were no changes into the general fund revenue since the first public hearing. But we do have one change on the requirement side. There is an increase of $100,000 in budget to continue funding for the Mayor's Tree Mini Grant Program in FY24. And the change in contingency shown here is the net amount needed to balance the general fund with that change. The information on revenue changes in other funds can be found in Attachment B. There's one change in the revenues for other city funds, and it is in the Water Resources Operating Fund. There is an increase of just over $300,000 in water sales rate revenue to match the FY24 utility rate study conducted in FY23. And there are two changes in requirements on the expenditure side for other city funds. In the Parking Revenue Fund, there is a decrease of $200,000 in budget to remove the funding that was budgeted for PSTA to keep the Sunrunner free. And in the Arts and Public Places Fund, there's an increase of just under $9,000 in budget due to an increase in the commercial insurance renewal amount for FY24. In this next section, we will give a quick overview using tables, charts, and graphs to illustrate the city's FY24 budget. These tables are also included in the FY24 budget and brief, which has been posted on the city's website and is available tonight. The total operating revenue budget is $835.251 million. Charges for services make up the largest category at $355.5 million or 42.6%, followed by taxes at $264.9 million or 31.7%. And on the expense side, the operating budget for FY24 for all city funds is $823.104 million and is 8.3% higher than the FY23 operating budget. The water resources operating fund increased by 8.8% year-over-year from $185.9 million to $202.4 million. And the general fund and reserves budget increased by 7.82% from $338.156 million to $364.587 million. Looking specifically at the general fund, the revenue budget is $364.467 million. The general fund revenue comes from various sources as illustrated in this chart. The largest single source of revenue are taxes, which include our ad valorem property taxes. And it totals 72.69% of the budget or $264.927 million. Intergovernmental revenue, including our half-cent sales tax, is the second largest source of revenue for the general fund at $42.2 million or 11.6%. The total general fund expenditure budget for FY24 is $364.467 million. The city's general fund is categorized in this chart into its six administrations. The single largest general fund investment made by the city in the general fund is public safety at 52.58%. And public safety includes the police and fire rescue departments. The general government administration makes up the next largest category at 19.74%. And some of the departments included in this administration include budget, finance, legal, and human resources. The third largest general fund investment is in the community enrichment administration at 17%, which includes the parks and recreation department and libraries. Looking at the general fund budget by expenditure type, the single largest expenditure category of the general fund is wages and benefits at 241.4 million or 66.23% of the total budget. And the second highest category is services and commodities, which make up 20.8% or 75.9 million. The FY24 CIP program includes a total of 162.604 million in capital projects. Water resources projects account for 81.575 million or 50.2% of the CIP program budget, while Penny for Pinellas projects account for 26.9% or 43.7 million. And the total for the five-year CIP plan is 901.201 million. This slide shows the fund balance commitment categories that council will need to reaffirm these categories or other categories when the budget is adopted. However, the amounts to be set aside in each category do not need to be determined until the FY23 fiscal year is closed and we have our year-end actual results. At that time, we'll have a better idea of how much fund balance is available to allocate to each category. And the commitment categories can then be funded as part of the year-end cleanup process in November. And in closing, I would like to mention that information on the city's FY24 budget is available on the city's website. And I'd also like to take a moment to thank the budget team for their hard work on this budget and all department personnel who provided assistance throughout the budget process. Thank you, Chair and city council members. All right, thank you, Liz, for the presentation. So this will begin the public comment portion of the hearing. The general public will be allowed to speak at this time and ask questions prior to the adoption of the final millage rate and the final budget by city council. Clerk, can you please call the speakers two at a time? Ma'am. Madam Chair, the first two speakers, Manuel Sykes and Dylan Dames. Please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record. And you will have three minutes to address city council. Hey, council. My name is Dylan Dames. I live at 12001 Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior Street North. I'm with Faith in Florida. I'm here on behalf of the people that I've spoken to in the city that cannot exercise their democracy in the ways that I can. Thank you for opening. Thank you for the opening that public hearings create. And I'm here today to urge council to take the voices of residents seriously when we say we want bold, significant steps towards prioritizing residents. I and many people here today are not, we're concerned about the money coming directly from the city of St. Petersburg that will go towards the construction of a new race stadium. People are not optimistic about this. I know people that are optimistic about baseball. So comments should be kept to items that are specifically in the budget and money for the raised stadium is not specifically in this budget. There is a contingency for the historic gas plant district redevelopment. Gotcha. It is not specific to the stadium. Can I speak to city spending? You can speak to anything that is in the budget. Okay. I want to encourage city council to prioritize affordable housing and to spend money that prioritizes residents. Thank you. I do want to let everyone know there will be a committee of the whole taking place on October 26th, I believe, where we will begin the conversations regarding the stadium. And then from that point on, those conversations can happen within open forum and other items of which we will vote on. However, tonight is specific to our budget and the items that are contained within that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. I did have a question related to the gas plant redevelopment plans, what it entails. And I believe it was a million plus. What is that specifically? Specific to the contingency items? Yes. Liz or Tom? I'm sorry, Chair, was the question the contingency of what it may be used for? Specific to the contingency, yes. So, first of all, let me just follow up on what Administrator Green said and thank him and his staff and city council. It has been a long process on this budget and I think it's been very collaborative, so thank you so much. The contingency in our estimation is going to be related to potential personnel costs. As you know, we currently have outside council. We may need to renew that contract at some point. We may need to bring on some additional staff members related to the redevelopment of the gas plant. And we also may need to bring on an owner's representative for the redevelopment. And you know that we also have a consultant from Inner Circle on board that we may have to renegotiate his contract. So it's staffing level items is what we anticipate. Okay. Did that answer your question, Mr. Sykes? It does in part. One thing I did not hear was the allowing, if you will, of citizen involvement. It seems to me that it's going to be a million plus dollars for lawyers and consultants and specialists, that kind of thing. But I don't hear any specific guidance that will be coming from regular individuals. So my question is, how do you balance that? You know, you've already put aside money for the specialists, so to speak. But what happens and how are, you know, let's say the public, maybe they have representation as well, that can speak the same contractual language and so forth. Where is that part in that specific expenditure and can it be expanded so that when people come to the table, if they have representation, they won't have to do it pro bono. So if at this time you'd like to finish your three minutes with any other items pertaining to the budget. That's it. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Sykes. No answer to the question. So the answer to the question regarding the money that is in the budget currently has already been given. Future conversations regarding the actual redevelopment and future funding will take place in separate conversations. But you do realize I'm talking about this specific funding, right? This is not something else. And I believe that question has been answered. No, it has not. It has not. Legal? You know. Madam Chair, the public comment certainly is permitted, but it is in the form of statements. Since you asked the question to the city administrator related to the funding specified in the budget, that was permissible. But public comment is not a Q&A. Right. So. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sykes. Next two speakers, please. Madam Chair, next two speakers. Nathan Tuquissant, I think I said that right. And Steven Duverge, please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. Please. Good afternoon. My name is Nathan Tuquissant. I'm a student at USF St. Pete. My address is 502nd Street South. And I'm here to follow up on something I had proposed following the last session. And kind of just talk about just a larger investment into youth infrastructure. Especially within the Child's Park region. But I know last time we were here, we talked a lot on the what we kind of want to see happen. Especially in regards to the area. And we provide statistics as to what it would yield. And we talked a little bit about when. But I don't think we really gave you a why. And today I'm really here to speak about my why. As for why I'm very adamant about this. When it comes to youth opportunities, I realize I am very privileged. And not privileged in the sense that I was awarded a lot growing up. But privileged in the sense that I was able to make something myself. Especially from an area where many people don't. And privileged in the sense that I'm using it. Is really the amount of mistakes you're able to make in your life. And where I come from, the margin for that is little to none. And when it comes to this youth investment. It really sets us up for a greater future. Especially, I remember when I was younger. My mom didn't have someone to look after me. She tried her best to go and put me in a program. And with that, it always pushed me into academia. And it wanted me to really understand and make something of myself. Especially in regards to the world and what I wanted to see personally. Unfortunately, my cousins weren't afforded the same luxury. You see, my mom, she did raise me. But she also picked up the slack, sorry about that, for our aunt. And when it came to my cousins, they was really raising themselves. They was out with little to no structure time. And unfortunately, they got a lot of bad influences. Because that's a very young, impressionable age. And when it came to that, they got wrapped up in some stuff that they couldn't shape. Until even the time of their passing. And with that, I've always pursued academia. Because that's what I was taught. And those were the luxuries I was affording. And I kind of want to come up here and make sure to pay for the same luxuries I was able to have. So, when it comes to why I want to invest. Especially in this high risk area. Is to make sure the kids of this area are able to do a lot of stuff. A lot of great things. Whatever they choose to pursue. Whatever they want to do with life. Whatever change they want to see. I want to encourage them. That they can go out and do it. Thank you very much. Good evening, esteemed members of the council. My name is Steven DeVerge. I'm also a student at the University of South Florida, St. Petersburg. And I live on 500 Second Street South. I was also here during the last public hearing regarding more funding for youth infrastructure. And my story is not too dissimilar to Nathan's. While I did not grow up in Child's Park, I am familiar with growing up in an area where success is not a guarantee. On the contrary, success makes you the exception. I was afforded many opportunities due to my mother. She was incredibly hard working. But due to her hard work, she was not always very present in the household. And the people that I grew up with were in a very similar situation. My mother was able to put me in various after school programs which kept me focused and directed on my academics and helped grow me into the person I am today. But I'm no smarter, no more capable than all the individuals that I grew up with. I have the opportunity to speak here today to all of you members of the council because of my involvement in said programs. And I am 100% sure, if the other individuals that I grew up with were afforded the same opportunities, they would be able to speak to you today as well. So, I am here not only on behalf of myself, but on behalf of them, on behalf of those who are not as fortunate as I am, and on behalf of the youth as they are our future. Thank you. Thank you. Next two speakers. Next two speakers, Madam Chair, Guevara Robinson and Walter Driggers. Please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address City Council. Good afternoon. My name is Gabrielle Robinson. My address is 2662 2nd Avenue South, St. Petersburg. And I had something here that I was going to say, and I'm going to say part of it, but I want to speak from my heart for a minute. Just as Nathan and Steven, I didn't grow up in Child's Park, but I did grow up in Baltimore, Maryland, in a section of town called Liberty Heights. If any of you have ever seen the show The Wire, it's rough. And so for me, and I'm trying to hold back tears mainly because I'm so proud of them, but I want to talk about Child's Park and how, let me start here. It's an area that's tainted by high crime, environmental concerns that will potentially have long-term devastating impacts on our children and lack of access to food. If I didn't know that I was talking about Child's Park, I would think I was talking about Liberty Heights. There are about 6,000 households, and nearly 50% of those households are renters. Oh, I forgot to say, I'm the lead organizer with Florida Rising. I don't think I said that. One direct allocation for the Child's Park community can be investments in money towards housing aid, which can be in the form of additional rent mortgage dollars. Because there is a direct connection between stable housing and lower crime rates, we recommend that this initiative be prioritized by dollars that are often committed to public safety. We know public safety is important, but I'm just saying. What we know is that if there is an investment in youth programs and youth employment for the community, especially during the summer when children have time off, there is also a reduction in crime. And we want to remind, I want to remind council members that there has been an increase in Sadowski state funds that will be available because of the live local act. 25% of those funds specifically ship dollars can be used towards rental assistance and eviction prevention. Additionally, as members of the council know, America Rescue Plan Act and CDBG funds are also flexible and can be dedicated to communities and the projects we mentioned earlier. So, in conclusion, in my 31 seconds, I just want to again state that as a voter, as a taxpayer, as someone who has only been in St. Petersburg since 2019, but I've grown to love this city. I think it's mad cool. I'm just, our ask is for more resources, housing, youth development for the Child's Park area, not just for me, but for them. Good evening, council. My name is Walt Driggers, One Beach Drive Southeast, St. Petersburg, Florida. I'm here this evening representing the Airport Advisory Committee. And we're thrilled to see the expectation applying for and receiving the grants in the 2024 budget for the electric vault and also for the capital improvements for the airport. Jack Tunstall, unfortunately, is unable to be here to the meeting tonight, but he wanted me to relay a message to you. And it's the Airport Advisory Committee does not endorse using city funds for any alternative studies for the use of the airport. The committee believes there are other immediate, more important needs for the citizens and the taxpayers. I've edited out some of his other words like irresponsible and squander and stuff like that, but I think you have the message. Thank you for all you do for the city of St. Petersburg. Thank you. Next two speakers. Madam Chair, next two speakers, William Kilgore and Chase Harrell, or Chase Harrell, sorry. Please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. Hi. Thanks, everybody. Thanks, Chair. William Kilgore. I'm a resident in the Ponce de Leon neighborhood. I'm an organizer with the St. Pete Tenants Union. Um, I just wanted to, uh, yeah, talk about the budget. It's great to hear people out here. It's so important to, um, you know, be hearing all these funding priorities, you know, and I'm, I'm thinking about, uh, somebody mentioned earlier, you know, it's like, uh, you know, we're doing a lot with limited resources and, and things like that. You know, I looked at, uh, today there was, you know, 300,000 for the Southside CRA that was going to the right to council. We love to see right to council. We love to see that kind of thing funded, but now I wanted to point out, you know, somebody, if we're looking at some of these smaller budget items, uh, you know, we've got about $1.7 million budgeted for, uh, corporate handouts, uh, through the, uh, economic and workforce development department. It's very interesting. I did a records request, uh, actually earlier this summer, uh, for a couple of those funding, uh, items, uh, corporate relocation grants, uh, funding, uh, about $300,000. Uh, and I had looked at fiscal year 2022, uh, none of that money was spent. Nobody was awarded that money, that $300,000. So, uh, you know, and even still, it's like, you know, what corporations are we giving $300,000 when we're kinda, you know, nickel and diming all these other programs? Oh, we don't have enough for, you know, uh, yeah, youth programs, uh, uh, uh, education, reading programs, all kinds of, uh, different things. I, I mean, it's just, it's crazy. Uh, you know, you have that amount, you've got something like $270,000, uh, for the, uh, Grow Smarter Job Creation and Talent Attraction Program, uh, which in fiscal year 22, uh, only $35,000 of that was awarded. Um, it was, uh, close to that amount, uh, for, for that fiscal year as well. Uh, but it's interesting because that money went to, uh, uh, create a new position, uh, with, uh, one of these companies, SKUX, which is, uh, some technology and consumer engagement platform. Uh, and they got money, uh, for creating a senior vice president position, uh, for somebody who works out in Boise, Idaho, works remotely, doesn't even live in the community. Uh, there's another company, Case Glide. Uh, got money for the creation of, uh, uh, another executive position. Uh, you know, so, uh, yeah, my point pretty much being, it's just that these are, like, little things, but it's, you know, when you say the money's not there, well, you give, give as much money to, this is more money than you got going to rapid rehousing at $400,000. More than the right to council. Uh, you know, and it's just crazy because this whole, uh, way of the budget and the, the tax structure, it's rigged against working people. Uh, you know, we've got the buses, uh, are taking cuts. I know that's not under the purview of the council, but we were just at the PSTA meeting last night and it's, it's just, it's totally out of whack, uh, and totally, uh, wrong. But I just wanted to bring that to your attention and, uh, thank you. Yep. Good afternoon, council. My name is Chase Harrell. I live at 633 7th Avenue North. Um, I'm a bartender. I'm a painter and now construction worker part time. I, um, live downtown. Um, like I said, I have about three jobs. This city is very expensive. Um, one thing I noticed about the budget is that we're, uh, allocating $750,000 to affordable housing in a city that is rapidly becoming less affordable. So the budget for CIP is, I believe, 162 million. Don't rack your brain. It's about less than half of 1%. So I understand that housing is going to become even more of a prior issue priority issue. So a lot of people like me who live and work in the city who are the honestly the breadth of this city. Um, there's also climate change, whether you believe it or not, the effects will be getting greater as the city, you know, as the country moves forward. Um, I didn't see, maybe I missed it in the budget, but I didn't see anything in there to address, um, that, uh, like hurricanes are going to hit us more and more frequently as time goes forward. Um, we haven't been hit directly, but as they become more frequent, they will very likely hit us and, uh, we will deal with flooding. We deal with property damage and I didn't see anything in the budget to address that. Um, there's also the idea, like I said, of affordable housing. Um, everybody, all my coworkers, everybody that I talked to is like the city is so expensive. I can't afford to live here. I won't be able to afford to live here. The city is very quickly becoming a city for elite people. And our budget does not accurately reflect any, um, any of that. There's no like $750,000 is just so minimal to, uh, help people stay housed. Um, we have a housing crisis. There's a lot of homeless people. I just would like to, I would just like city council to think about what the people of this city who live and breathe and work here and make up the city. Like what do they need because I don't feel and a lot of people that I talk to do not feel that their needs are being addressed. And if those needs aren't addressed, it's going to push them to the point that they're going to vote you out essentially. And they're just going to be so fed up that things are just going to break. And I would like city council to acknowledge that, um, in the next coming months and years. Thank you. Next speaker. Next two speakers, madam chair. I believe it's either Lonnie or Yanni O'Connor and Carla Carrera. Please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. Hi, my name is Lonnie O'Connor and I appreciate being here tonight. And I appreciate the opportunity to address the council. Do you know that there's an equity officer starting tomorrow in this administration? Your address. Your address. I'm sorry, I live downtown in St. Pete. 235 3rd Avenue North. Thank you. Okay. Right downtown. Okay. So, do you know that there's an equity officer starting tomorrow? Does anybody know that? So, what is equity about? What is equity about? And it reminds me of an old cartoon where two people who are different sizes, different heights, are trying to look over a fence. And they're both given the same level of step stool to look over the fence. Well, this means that their height is the same. It's just raised up so much. So, one, the person who can look over the fence looks over the fence. The other person cannot. That is equal. Okay? Equity, I think, is give the shorter person a higher platform and give the taller person a lower platform so they can both see over the fence. It was a cartoon that was published about three or four years ago. So, I just wonder what the equity officer is going to say. I'm hoping that she does equity things. I don't know what they are. But I certainly think the prior speaker mentioned something about $750,000 in affordable housing. I came here under different pretenses, but I will be back in October. And I just think $750,000 is ridiculous. I mean, is this budget based upon what the people or the people moving in want? Okay? And no wonder that we, well, no wonder that we are able to put our mills down or whatever down. Because the people moving in are moving into $750,000-a-million-dollar housing. And these, you can't do this in affordable housing. You can't do this. You can't do this. $750,000 is going to mean nothing. So, I would like to see $750,000 as well as the end of food deserts so that people can get their food and get it easily and without having to go to some of the higher priced grocery stores. We all know who they are. Without having to go there and get food. And I would like to see them have a place to live and have food to eat. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Carla Correa, 345 Fifth Avenue North. I'm here with the Party for Socialism and Liberation and the St. Petersburg Tenants Union. This budget is an insult to the working class people of this city who are clearly in need of relief and in need of real solutions to the pressing problems we're facing. With the rapidly increasing cost of living here in St. Pete, which is exemplified by the dramatic increases in child poverty that we're seeing. Instead, this budget maintains the status quo of the prioritization of profits over people, including 40% of our budget being allocated once again towards the police. We need to put the people first. We need adequate funding for public housing, homeless services, a massive expansion of our library system, an expansion of public jobs that pay a living wage, state of the art public transportation. Just to name a few, our needs need to be a priority, not an afterthought. And speaking of transportation, I attended the final PSTA budget hearing yesterday, where the board voted to move forward with cutting multiple routes, eliminating trash collection at some stops, increasing access fares, and eliminating service hours. And this follows a cruel and unconscionable decision by the PSTA board last month to begin charging for fares for the sun runner to keep homeless people away. In the face of such dramatic cuts, the city, maybe in collaboration with Pinellas County, needs to step in, not only to maintain the bus system as it is, but to make the necessary improvements to make public transportation truly a common good, which includes free fares. And by the way, the revenue from fares only makes up about 3.9% of the total revenue of the PSTA budget, which is about $7.3 million. Meanwhile, we're expected to foot the bill for a $14 million increase to the police budget. We don't need to be giving more money to an agency that constantly harasses homeless people downtown, and over-polices black neighborhoods to send more and more people into the ruthless criminal justice system. And we're also expected to foot the bill for the millions of dollars in business incentives and corporate handouts through the Economic Development Fund. We need money given directly for people's needs, not corporations that are paying people poverty wages. The St. Pete police and corporations are robbing the hardworking taxpayers of St. Pete with the help of the city government. To all those on city council, I ask that you take a stand with the people of St. Pete and vote against this budget. But whatever happens, people can only be pushed around so much. That's why we're seeing workers all over the country stand up, like the brave UAW workers, who are setting the example for the rest of us, which is to stand up to the billionaires. Thank you. Two speakers. I believe it's Aiden Boyce and Peyton Moses. Molly, I can't read the writing. I think we have one. So the first name on the first card was Aiden. Aiden. Aiden. Aiden, I believe that's what it is. And the second card was Peyton. I believe so. Okay. So, go ahead. You can go ahead. By the podium, state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. Hello. My name is Peyton Hoey, and I live in 5234 Tennis Court Circle. I am a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. And I'm here tonight to demand that St. Pete funds programs that benefit the public and not the police. The St. Pete Police Department continuously uses brutal force and violence, despite claiming to help prevent crime. On October 20th, 2021, 17-year-old Christopher Tonsil was shot in the stomach by Officer Layton Williams of the St. Pete Police Department. Officer Layton Williams used cruel and unnecessary force and did not give Christopher adequate time to comply with instructions. Christopher is a black teen who did not deserve to be shot, and the body cam footage that shows his innocence was only released after months of public pressure. Christopher suffered lung, pancreas, and liver damage, and claimed close to dying in an adult jail. And his case is not unique. It shows us what happens when a police receives a bloated budget and is not held accountable for their actions. This year's budget increase is $14 million. $14 million! I know about a million other things that the money could go toward that would actually benefit the people of St. Pete. I urge you to fund public transportation instead of cutting bus routes and upping the price for riding the fare. This is what working people in St. Petersburg rely on to get to where they need to go. We are in a housing crisis, and we need public housing now. We need to fund programs that truly center the health and well-being of citizens, and I urge you tonight to stand with your constituents and to vote no on this absolutely ridiculous budget. Thank you. Thank you. There was a speaker by the first name of Aiden. Maybe Aiden Hoey. Aiden? No? Okay. Please move on to the next two. Ali Abdul-Kwadar and Kelsey Powell. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. You can go to either podium. Go ahead, ma'am. Hi. My name is Kelsey Powell, 3122 62nd Street North, lifelong resident of St. Petersburg. I am a mutual aid organizer and a street outreach worker. I've worked with an organization that was contacted by a private healthcare company because they are seeing so many additional costs caused by a lack of social services in the area, such as people with basic wounds that become severely infected because they don't have access to running water because they're homeless or mental health crises because they don't have access to resources. They do exist, but they're just underfunded, understaffed. For example, Safe Harbor, one of the homeless shelters that's getting the most amount of money from the city budget is run by Pinellas County Sheriff. Their website says that they are a jail. They're supposed to stop people from going to jail by assisting them. But because the cops are frequently there being hostile, it's actually more like a pipeline to jail. So a lot of people that I've talked to would rather be homeless than go there because they're worried that will actually deter them. I had one woman who is disabled and elderly, and there's a cutoff time for you to get into the shelter, right? And there's a fence, just like a jail, and if you don't make it in the fence, you can't stay there for the night. And if your belongings are inside, too bad. So she's elderly, her purse fell, and all the belongings fell out. She had a broken wrist, and she could not pick it all up in time. And the police officer that was working the gate closed the door on her face, and all of her belongings were inside and got stolen. So, you know, it's just little things like that that are accelerated by lack of social services. I have folks who, you know, can't get their IDs, can't get food stamps, don't have an address. It's just so much little stuff like this. So basically what I'm trying to say is I don't think the police need $141 or $147 million. They haven't helped anyone. Like, I don't think that they're really—if we could just invest in social services, I think that would be a lot more impactful. And I really appreciated what the two young women in the suits had to say. I thought they really—I commend you guys for sharing your stories and everything they said I would just like to emphasize. I appreciate you guys for your time. That's all I'm going to say today. Thank you. Thank you. Sir? Hello. My name is Ali Abdelkader. I live in 11802 Fox Run Lane. I'm here to echo the demands of the previous speakers. I'm also a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. I'm here because I'm concerned that the working class here in St. Petersburg, their lives are getting harder every year. They're finding themselves having to make more and more difficult decisions on what to prioritize. Are they going to pay for food this month? Are they going to pay for housing this month? Are they going to pay their utility bill this month? All of these are going up and going up. And the city is allocating $14 million towards the police in this time of crisis for the working class. That money could be going towards social services. That money could be going towards not just affordable housing but real right to housing. I don't just want access. I don't just want housing to be affordable. I think that housing is a right. I think that every human being is entitled to a house in our society, a place to live, a place to sleep. I absolutely believe that. And if the goal of funding the police is to reduce crime, is to help reduce the prison population, then giving it to the police is a mistake. Because we need to actually be tackling the root causes of poverty, which is a lack of access to good education, a lack of access to housing. When you don't have a stable income, when you don't have a house, of course you're going to be more likely to carry out acts of crime to sustain yourself. And if you really want to tackle these issues, you have to fund social services, not the police. Funding the police will not help the working class of St. Petersburg, which, as I've said, is suffering more and more every year. We need money for a right to housing. We need more money for education. We need more money for public transportation. And we need to pay our public city workers more. Our public city workers are having a hard time being able to live in the city of St. Petersburg. And they deserve a raise. This city would not be able to run without them. And people are only going to be able to take these conditions and take it getting worse every year for so long before something snaps. Before something snaps. So I really urge you today to vote no on this budget and to craft a budget that really prioritizes the needs of the people of St. Petersburg, not developers, not corporations, not the police, and not big money. Thank you. Thank you. Next two speakers? Actually, one that already spoken. Oh, okay. Final speaker, Bobby Ewing. Okay. C.J.R. Hi, my name is Bobby Ewing. I live at 10508 Hashley Oaks Drive. I'm an organizer with the Party for Socialism and Liberation. And I'm here to demand a budget that serves the people of St. Pete. Because working people in St. Pete right now are facing skyrocketing costs of food, of medicine, of rent, other essential items as a result of inflation. And the city at this time should be doing everything in its power to help working people instead of giving $14 million to the police. That money could be going towards increasing the number of bus routes instead of decreasing them. It could be going towards funding public housing. It could be going towards keeping the fares off, keeping the Sunrunner free indefinitely, which is something that, if I'm not mistaken, was previously stated as something that was being considered before the Pinellas County Sheriff decided that he was going to put pressure on elected officials to add fares to the Sunrunner, specifically to make homeless people's lives more difficult. We shouldn't be making people's lives more difficult when inflation and the housing crisis and all of these overlapping crises are already making working people's lives more difficult. We should be doing everything in our power to make people's lives less difficult. And the way to do that is not by giving $14 million to the police. It's by funding public housing and things that actually serve the needs of the people. Thank you. Thank you. That was the final speaker? Yes, ma'am. Okay. So this will close the public comment portion of our hearing. And now I will open up the floor for council discussion. Council Vice Chair Fick Sanders. Thank you and good evening everyone. I guess I'm going to go ahead and get started because I do appreciate all the time that administration has put into developing this budget. I appreciate council's time that we've spent in working on the budget. I especially appreciate the time that you all took to come out and to discuss the budget. And I think if you were here last week, I'm going to say the same thing I said last week. When we talk about this budget and I had absolutely no clue what was involved in developing this budget. When we hear of $750,000 going into housing, that's only one number going into housing. I still don't know our complete budget and all the different sources. But housing does not come, an initiative of housing does not come from one pot. And we're focusing on that. Some of the issues that I've heard about the PSTA, it was so much incorrectness in that. I have to correct it. It was so much incorrectness in those statements because I sit on the PSTA board. And those of you all that know me know I don't have a problem saying it once and I'll say it twice. But some of that, a lot of that was very incorrect. We did not get rid of routes. The Sunrunner was not intended to be free indefinitely. If we're going to circulate information, I wish it would be accurate. The doors of all of my colleagues are always open. I know mine is. I've asked you if we do not, if there's anything, questions that you have, answers that you need, hold us accountable for that. Call us. Come and sit down and talk to us. This budgeting process is a year-long process. What you don't see in the budget now, each council member has their own budgeting priorities. Some of the things that you're asking for, we can ask for. You will get further with having a council member championing some of your needs than you do come in speaking once or twice a year about a budget that's pretty much already said and done by the time you get to it. There is a process and a policy to everything that we do. Sometimes it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to me all the time while I'm sitting here. But I don't want anyone to think that we don't hear you. I hear you. Trust me, I do. And if you've come to some of the council meetings, I am a people over politics. I am people over profit. So I'm asking, when we have issues, if you have concerns, come and see us. Come and talk to us. You know, I love how you come and you speak at Open Forum. Open Forum. I love it. Because a lot of times, we don't always know what we don't know. A lot of times, a lot of us have not experienced what you've experienced. So it's hard to speak on issues that you don't have lived experiences over. It's hard to speak on that. And I have issues with people making those type of decisions when they've never experienced or seen that perspective. So I thank you for coming. I've gone to learn and grown to learn, there are those that will listen. There are those that will speak up for you. There are those out there that understand everything that you are saying. But a lot of things that I've heard work was incorrect. And I'll be glad to have those conversations with a lot of people that need those answers. And if I don't have it, I'll find it for you. I will find it for you. So thank you for your time. And I definitely wanted to address everyone that came out because I hear you and I appreciate you. I'm so proud of Nate. Is it Nathan? Is it Nathan and Steven? I'm so proud of you guys. I don't know what to do. I am so proud of you. Thank you for continuing to speak up. I'm a man mom of three. So I understand. I'm child's part product too. So I understand and I appreciate you. Thank you chair. Council member Floyd. Thank you. I'm going to be brief because I said my piece last week, but I'll just reiterate. There are plenty of good things in the budget this year. There are things that I don't agree with as well. That's any year. But I believe if our goal is lowering the cost of living for our residents, I think we can do that more efficiently without lowering taxes on out of town corporate property owners. So my goal again is to make sure we're doing things most effectively for our residents. And I think lowering utility rate increases instead of the millage rate would have been more effective. So I look forward to continuing that discussion going forward. But I just wanted to basically say it again this week. Thank you chair. Thank you. Council member Muhammad. Thank you chair. I also want to thank those of you who came out tonight, who shared your thoughts. I also want to thank those who attended our town hall meetings earlier in the year, some last year. Those who shared their thoughts online, those who attended the budget open house and those who met with us individually and came here to speak today. The priorities as council member Vic Sanders mentioned that I submitted was informed by all of that participation. 20 out of the 27 of the priorities have been shown up in the budget. But we still have some work to do to get the other things that we want to get done. But I want to thank you all for collaborating with us in that way during that town hall series. And I also want to commit to hosting a town hall in November so that we can begin the process earlier. And we can really work to continue what we've started last year with co-creating. And so you can look for a notice about that. I didn't vote for a long time when I was eligible to vote because I felt like the people who were elected to represent us were going to do what they wanted to do anyway. And that our voices would not matter and things would be foregone conclusions and it was just exercises in futility. And so one of the things that I'm inspired by is the fact that I'm able to sit here now as somebody who didn't vote for that reason. To be able to share with you how some of this inside baseball is played and continue to look forward to how we could change that narrative. So that you can see that your priorities and the things that you represent and things that matter to you are being voiced and are being submitted on your behalf through our public process. I also want to thank Nathan and Steven for speaking about Charles Park. I didn't pay them. But really representing Charles Park and Jabbar for his leadership development and just really continuing to be able to pass the torch to the next generation. And so thank you for what you're doing. Again, one of the responsibilities that comes with the right to vote is being able to be fully aware of your self interest. And then being able to advocate for what's best for you and your community that you serve, so I appreciate that. When we began that process with People's Budget Review back in 2012, 2013, it was in direct response to us seeing things that we're still continuing to see today. And so again, we've had some wins and we've had some successes over the years, being able to come up with some innovative and creative solutions. And I think that we continue and we still have that opportunity in front of us today. So even though we didn't get everything that we asked for, I am encouraged by the responsiveness, because there are some changes that were made to the budget based upon recommendations that we made that were not originally included. And so the administration has been responsive to our request. And again, we look forward to hosting you all for another debrief to talk about what we submitted, what we proposed, where it landed in the budget, and then how we can co-create and collaborate going forward. So thank you again, Madam Chair. Thank you. Councilmember Montaneri. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank everyone that came out and spoke today. And I also want to thank the administration for working with the City Council. This process, it takes a long time. You know, you go back to our first meeting with our budget priorities, and then just all through the year we have meetings on the budget, one-on-one meetings, multiple public hearings. And for City Council, this is our number one job is to adopt the budget. But I know it's a team effort, and I appreciate everybody going forward. A budget's a value statement for our city, and nobody gets everything that they want. But you look at the priorities that we have, public safety is the number one job of a government. And so we always have to put that first. I wish we would have been able to reduce the millage rate further, but I'm happy that we were able to do it. There are other municipalities in our area that couldn't reduce their millage rate. The county couldn't reduce their millage rate. But we have to keep working and be good stewards of the city's taxpayers' money. I also just wanted to emphasize about the ad valorem and how 33% of the property taxes that are collected go to the city. The rest go to other sources throughout the county. So I'll just kind of stand on the statement that I made at the first public hearing, and I'll go ahead and move approval of the resolution and attachment C. Yeah, we have to continue the process first. Yeah. Okay, so any other council members care to speak? Okay. So at this time, the final millage rate for the city of St. Petersburg is 6.4675 mills, which is a 9.34% increase over the rollback rate of 5.9152 mills. So at this time, I will entertain a motion to approve the resolution setting the final millage rate. Move for approval. Second. All right. So we have a motion and a second to approve the final millage rate. Seeing no further requests 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. I'll ask the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda item J7A passes 7 to 1 with Council Member Floyd voting no. Council members Driscoll, Vic Sanders, Gabbert, Gurdas, Hanowitz, Montaneri, and Muhammad voting yes. Okay, and now at this time, I will entertain a motion to adopt the budget appropriations ordinance. So moved. Second. Okay, so we have a motion and a second. 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, motion to approve agenda item J7B passes 7 to 1 with Council Member Floyd voting no. Council members Driscoll, Vic Sanders, Gabbert, Gurdas, Hanowitz, Montaneri, and Muhammad voting yes. And finally, I will entertain a motion to approve the resolution adopting the multi-year CIP program for the city of the St. Petersburg. Move approval. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. 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, motion to approve agenda item J7C passes unanimously. And at this time, the public hearing on the budget millage rate and budget appropriations ordinance and the multi-year CIP program is now closed. Thank you all for coming this evening. Okay, at this time, we will actually go to our second open forum of the evening. So, clerk, do we have anyone signed up for open forum? Madam, we do. I'm going to call them, call them two at a time. I think you have, Carla wanted to sign up for open forum. Thank you. One minute. Lee Bryant and John Stewart, please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. We'll let chambers clear before open forum speakers begin, just so you all have a moment. All right, sir, if you'd like to go ahead and start. Each before beauty. We'll talk about that later. Good evening. My name is John Stewart. I live at 2130 Burlington Avenue North. And I want to talk tonight about going forward with next year's budget. This is the payroll for the first 20 team members of the Rays. The Rays payroll budget per year is over $93 million. The top 12 make $46 million. They're asking for $400 million from us. This budget, 823 million, and Stuart Sternberg, the principal owner, is worth $800 million. In other words, one man is worth almost the same budget, the same amount of money it takes to run this city for a year. He's one of the richest owners in the MLB. And I'm here to ask you going forward to say no to the request for $400 million. We've heard a lot of people tonight. I've been at other meetings. We know the need. I volunteer at a homeless breakfast every Saturday morning. $2.56 million for homeless issues, according to my figuring here. Imagine if we had $400 million more. If we can find the $400 million for Stuart Sternberg, we can find $400 million for people here in the city and for what you've heard tonight. We could get more wraparound services and for homeless people to help them recuperate, become healthy, pull them out of their misery, and make them citizens. We could do a lot with the infrastructure and the sewage. So going forward, I ask you, this is a $93 million payroll. The top 12 raise make $46 million, and Stuart Sternberg is worth almost the same as it takes to run the entire city of St. Petersburg for a year. So when he comes to us asking for money, please don't give him our money. We need it here. And let them, you know, I heard a woman, a spokeswoman for the race saying, oh, we love St. Pete. We're here for the long haul. We want to make sure and invest in the city. I'm afraid Lazarus will get crumbs. So please, if they are serious about this, say no. You're rich enough. Find your own money. Thank you. Speaker. Good evening, Chair Gabbard, esteemed counsel. My name is Lee Bryant. I live at 331 26th Street North in historic Kenwood, which I could not afford to buy into now. I've been there for 30 plus years. I am a president of the Pinellas Classroom Teachers Association and been a teacher in this area for 28 years until I took over the PCTA this year. No way could I afford to live in Kenwood now, and that's part of the problem. We have Pinellas County Schools is the largest employer in our county, and we have 90 public schools in St. Petersburg. Those schools are staffed with teachers that are doing better than the PESPA members. PESPA is the employee support personnel for our county. They are making $15, $16, $17 an hour trying to live in the city of St. Petersburg. Teachers struggle enough to try to live here. The support employees are really, really, really struggling to try to live in the city that they love. I love this city. This is this is we have an amazing city. We are a jewel in this state, and I know our budget is tough. I know budgets are difficult. I have had a hand in creating quite a few budgets over the years. I know they're aspirational. They are not perfect. They do show value and where your values lie. And we can do better when it comes to taking care of the people that are struggling in this city. It is quite to the point of being unaffordable. The people who live in our city that go to clean the schools, that go to support the teachers in the classrooms are really, really underpaid. That's not your problem as a budget for the city. It is our problem as a city, and it is our problem as a state because the state budget does not reflect the values that I think our city does. Our state budget is not keeping up with what it should be. The education governor started at 47th in school pay. We're now down to 48th in school pay, so it is not working the way it should be. We can do better when it comes to taking care of our people in the city of St. Petersburg. I look forward to helping and looking and making things better. Our budget is good. It is not great. And good sometimes is good enough, but great would be better. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next two speakers. Madam Chair, the next two speakers, Manuel Sykes and Lillie, Lonnie O'Connor. I'm sorry. I think Reverend Sykes left. Lonnie O'Connor. Lonnie? She left. She left as well. She left as well. Okay, next two speakers. Nick Carey and Dylan Dames. Please state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. Dale, Nick Carey, 10th Street North, lead organizer, Faith in Florida. I'm coming here to echo some of the other worries about the use of hundreds of millions of our tax dollars being given as a corporate handout to an MLB team worth a billion dollars. I've come to these chambers many times with other residents who deeply care about our city over the past few years. Speaking about a number of issues, most prevalent among them, the housing crisis we find ourselves in. And I find the most common response is often how we have to be practical. These things take time and how are we going to pay for it? And so it feels like a gut punch when the city can suddenly find $800 million over 30 years. That's the mortgage adjusted rate for the municipal bonds. Our disagreement over the future of the entirety of the 86 acres in which the stadium is proposed to be built is not simply rhetorical. Substantively, we've asked that those in most need of housing be prioritized. Specifically, those making less than 50% AMI or about $20 an hour who make up about a third of our households in the city, but account for 83% of the rent burden population. There are zero planned units out of 4,800 for this income level. We propose social housing as a long term solution and I've had positive conversations with a number of you on that. But this concept relies on city owned land and it relies on municipal bonds of which again $800 million will be tied up over the next 30 years. All of this adds on to decades of studies concluding that public debt to finance pro sports stadiums is a terrible deal for the city. One economist compared the economic benefit of pro sports stadiums to a Macy's department store. So if we wouldn't give Macy's $800 million, why are we giving the Rays $800 million? And so the Rays have been here since 1998, the stadium since 93. What are the numbers on what economic benefit they've been to the city over that time, especially compared to the cost to build the stadium? The city's own numbers for this deal say that this money will not be recouped, not even close. So to conclude, I will state clearly that my desire is for the Rays to stay here in St. Pete. But that's up to them to stay and contribute to our city that the way all of us do by paying their fair share. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Dames. Mr. Dames. I live at 1-2001 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Street North. I will speak from the heart for this part of open forum. My voice isn't shaking because I'm upset at any of you. It's just really cold in here. I just want to say that I am at a point of frustration and disappointment, not only with city spending. We know why I am here. I definitely think we're walking into an irresponsible deal with how we redevelop the Tropicana Field. But I also want to speak to the democracy and the process of something like this, right? When we come to these meetings to exercise our democracy, one group has the wrong information. One group has the wrong agenda item. The general public is organizing incorrectly. And if we did, we'd get farther doing B, then we would get farther doing A. I think that says a lot more about process than it says about people if the general public doesn't know how to advocate for what they want. And I'm not saying this because I feel like I should have been given an opportunity to speak. I'm glad I went first because then the people that I brought here wouldn't have to come up here and be interrupted while they were sharing their thoughts on how the city is spending its money. There's so much confusion when it comes to this budget, right? And information in the budget about money that we're going to use for economic development to encourage corporate partnerships, right? To sustain the current Tropicana Field redevelopment, to redevelop parts of downtown press clippings saying that the city is giving this money out for this redevelopment. There shouldn't be this much confusion amongst the general public about how to ask for what we want. And I'll never stop raising up the voices of people that we bring here. I'll never stop raising up my voice. I appreciate your commitment to democracy. I think we can expand that a little bit more and make it a little bit more transparent and equitable than luck on the website. Thank you guys. Next two speakers. Chase Harrell and Carla Correa. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. My name is Chase Harrell. I live at 633 7th Avenue North. First of all, I'm going to start off by saying that it's kind of a slap in the face to everyone who just talked about, they didn't approve of the budget and you guys voted it through anyway. That didn't really feel like you heard us. That really felt like a slap in the face and it just kind of felt like lip service, honestly. So I'll start there to kind of further that point. What everyone else has kind of talked about already is the race stadium that people want to, you know, spend our money on. I like baseball. I don't really care about it that much. I don't. You know, my money could be better spent on things that actually benefit the people of this city. Housing, education, public transit, like $600 million. I don't even know. Again, the confusion, like how much of that is coming out of our pocketbook. Like there's just so much confusion. There's a lack of transparency. It's also something that should be a referendum. I don't think that, I don't know how many of you are, but there should be, this choice should be left in the city. It should be, we should all be able to vote on it. We should all have a say. It shouldn't just be left to a couple of people in a room. To echo what everyone else is saying, it's a bad deal. It's terrible. If they want to stay here, they can. If they want to leave, who cares? The city is not better off if they, you know, they pay a dollar in rent a month. I pay 1,000 times that. 1,000 times at this stadium that brings in a lot of money. They pay 1,000 times less than I do, which is ridiculous. And my rent is cheap for St. Pete. And I know it's only going to go up. So for us to just give them our money feels very illegal. And it feels like something that we should all be mad about. I'm going to tell everyone. I'm going to tell everyone I serve a cocktail to. Everyone I serve a latte to. Everyone I paint their house or I paint a mural for them. I'm going to tell everybody because it's just so aggravating. And they would be aggravated if they found out about it too. But also it's aggravating that we don't even really know the details. Again, lack of transparency. I'm sure you're going to hear about this a lot. And if you choose not to act on it again, probably be voted out. If you don't act in the best interest of this city, then why are you here? Thank you. Thank you. Yes, there will be a lot of talk about the TROP. There will be a lot of organized resistance against it and the race stadium. But I do, I just wanted to say for the record, there were cuts to PSTA and I'll go over them. So Route 813 of Dunedin was cut. Route 814 of Safety Harbor was cut. Route 90, which covers St. Pete and St. Pete Beach was cut. Route 32 was going to be cut, but because of pushback, it wasn't cut. So it's being retained. So public pressure does work. Route 5, again, same thing, was supposed to be cut. It's not getting cut. Route 58, same thing, serves Bryan, Derry, and Seminole. Route 52 LX, selected trips were cut. The Central Avenue trolley was cut on the west side. Route 59 was cut, some of it to reduce the frequency of the times that the bus comes. And again, just to say more of what was cut, the elimination of trash collection at some of the bus stops. And then they're also increasing the amount that you have to pay for the access program. There was more stuff that was cut. I don't have it here in my notes, but I didn't need to say that for the record because, you know, people who are on the board should, you know, know what's going on too. Like, yeah. So, yeah, just needed to say that. Thank you. Final speaker. Final speaker, William Kilgore. Please state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. Hi, everybody. Thank you, Chair William Kilgore. I'm a resident in the Ponce de Leon neighborhood and organizer with the St. Pete Tenants Union. Don't take up a ton of your time. I don't like to come up and speak unless I have something important to say. And I want to, you know, stand in solidarity with, you know, some of the folks who've come out to talk about the TROP because it is something that's important. I know there's a committee of the whole coming up and it's going to be discussed. But that that TROP deal, that announcement was made, and really the details have been murky. There have been a lot of, a lot of just misconstrued information about it too. You know, saying that the, you know, city's going to have this, you know, $287 million and then $130 million in infrastructure. It's, I think Nick or somebody pointed out, you know, that's going to, there's going to be debt. There's going to be debt and debt service. That's not like the amount, you know, and folks need to be aware of that, that, you know, St. Pete taxpayers, we are going to be footing a bill for close to a billion dollars, you know, for a stadium. And it is a handout to, you know, the raise when that team was bought back in 2004, they were valued at, I think it was bought for $176 million. And then that has inflated up to $1.2 billion. Taxpayers did that, the public did that. We, we continue to run in the red maintaining the current drop now because we have these obligations with insurance and all this other stuff. You know, and you talk about benefit. I mean, really, you know, what, what, what benefit do we have, you know, giving more money, you know, especially to, you know, a large, very profitable, you know, corporation. And, you know, one thing that I, I also took note of, you know, with the affordable housing component, they had originally had in their plan, it was, it was supposed to be like 14, 59, 1,459 units. And, of course, that's affordable in workforce, which a lot of that is market rate anyway, you know, and isn't going to benefit working people. And it'll be on a time limit and there'll be a, you know, some kind of covenant possibly. We don't know all the details. But then they say, they came out and said, oh, we've increased the number of units up to 1,200 units. And it's like, wait a second, like, that's just like, what are they trying to gaslight us or pull the wool over our eyes with that kind of thing? That's, that's crazy. So we're already catching the rays, you know, pretty much lying about stuff. And, and I think we're heading in a really bad direction with that. And it's important and we need to be talking about that. We need to be talking about it now in these details. I know there's the Committee of the Whole, but this stuff needs to be released ASAP. We need what the details of the plan are right now released, published to the city's website so people can review that. But I appreciate your time. Thank you all very much. Okay, we will close open forum and go to announcements. Council members. Council member Gerdes. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's, I know we're getting late. So I'll, I'll save. We had some birthdays, but I'll save them for next week. But I didn't want to miss the opportunity. As I think my colleagues know, Brian Eichler is leaving the city. I've had the pleasure of knowing Brian since I was 14 years old. Um, I know he's done an amazing job and, and liked and loved here at the city. And we're, and we're very sad to lose him. Um, I appreciated Brian because he was always willing to help. And I know, uh, his replacement will be the same, but I will certainly miss him. And just wanted to say a big thank you, uh, in public for his service. And, uh, Miami date is getting a rock star. So, um, so thank you. Thank you, Brian. If, uh, if you're watching, I hope you're not because tomorrow's your last day. But, um, I just wanted to say a big thank you from me. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Council member Montaneri. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so on a similar note, uh, assistant, uh, police chief Joe Dente is, uh, getting ready to leave the city, uh, soon. And today was his last day of work. And, uh, chief Dente has been a, uh, with the St. Pete police department for 29 years. And, uh, he's worked his way through the system and has been just a, uh, uh, just a, a great, uh, asset, not just to our police department, but to our entire city. And his resume is unmatched and he will be, he'll be missed. So I wanted to thank, uh, Joe for his 29 years of service to St. Pete police department and the city of St. Petersburg. Thank you. Thank you for, uh, mentioning both of you. Thank you for mentioning, uh, very exemplary servants to our city for very many years and they will both be missed. So thank you for pointing that out. All right, council. Well, uh, that concludes our business for today meeting adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Great, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hy wheel. Thank you. Yes, sir. I can add some more, I've been waiting as to say before, let's see what their transmission track misses.