Well good morning and welcome to the Monday, May 18th neighborhoods meeting.

We'll go ahead and start with introductions to my left.

Starting with Mr.

Delaney.

Good morning, Bill Delaney with the mayor's office.

Brandon Russell, Council Research.

Harry Stepopoulos, Office of General Counsel.

Billy Peterson, Council Iris Office.

Michael Boylan, District 6.

Kenamara, City Council, District 1.

Randy White, District 12.

Mike Gay, District 2.

Good morning, Chris Miller, at large group five.

Ron Salem, group two at large.

Good morning, Tyrone Clark Murray, District 9.

Will Lane and District 3 visiting.

Terrence Freeman at large group one just visited.

All right.

Thank the visiting council members for being here.

We'll go ahead and go to uh public comment.

You'll be given three minutes to speak to an item uh on the agenda.

So, when I call your name, please come on up.

And if you filled out a card, come on forward and grab a seat up front here so we can get through these uh this morning pretty quickly, but give your name and address or say it's on file for the record, and we'll start with Mr.

Wells Todd.

I don't see Mr.

Todd.

Oh, I'm I'm sorry.

There he is.

Come on down, sir.

My name is Wells Todd with uh Take Em Down Jackson Interrupting Redlining, and uh my address is on file.

Um of the things that uh some of your ancestors did back in the day was to turn the African American community into a third world country, uh that process uh was called redlining.

It denied African Americans the right to buy homes, decent jobs, and basically the right to survive without harassment and terror.

Today you are faced with the remnants, or I should say the continuation of that process.

The question here is how cheap is land, and we found out from the medical examiner's office and the morgue just how cheap the land is in the African American community caused by redlining.

Now the question before you is a jail.

What does that actually mean?

Not only for the African American community, not only for the community that was redlined, but the city in general.

A new jail, campus style jail, and the idea of having to find cheap property for it.

There has been the legislation that you guys voted on unanimously that redlining was an issue.

The question now is what are you going to do about it?

The biggest question before the community as a whole, as this city as a whole, is will you be able to justify building it in a black neighborhood?

In a neighborhood that has suffered for decades upon decades economically.

So we're here today to speak out against that building of a jail in an already depressed neighborhood area, and um you have to figure out how to move forward on this.

But once again, you have to figure it out in the parameters of not destroying the community any more than it is.

All right, thank you.

Our next speaker is uh Bobby O'Connor.

Good morning.

My name is Bobby O'Connor.

My address is on file.

I'm here to speak to 2026 0356, which is that the jail or the detention center will not be built in a redlined neighborhood.

Redlining is something I'm sure most of y'all know about redlining.

It in the 1930s, it made was made really difficult, if not impossible, for African-American people to get loans, and this has affected accumulation of wealth in a big way.

My family was able to mortgage our home so I could go to college.

But for one of my friends who lived in what was called Baptist Bottom, she was African American.

They didn't have a home because they weren't allowed to more, you know, because of mortgages.

And we can still see these scars today in our community.

They're here.

And I hope that you will not allow the jail to be built in a red line community, because it will just make the scars even worse.

You know, in terms of scarring how scar tissue builds up.

And I really appreciate what y'all are doing in the east side, and also what you're doing in Durkeyville.

In many ways, your hearts are in the right places.

You cannot let a jail be built in a redlined community.

I really am very glad that you said redlining was important last when it last year, I don't remember the bill, and that you were interested in it.

I have lots of information.

If there are any of you who don't understand redlining, I would be very glad to send you the information.

It's very important in our city that we treat all our citizens the same in terms of equity, not equality, but equity.

There is a difference.

Equity is when if there's a fence, okay, imagine a fence, and everybody is the same height, and there's in the everyone's standing.

Maybe one's not the same height.

So the tall person can see over the fence and look and see the resources.

The shorter person cannot.

So equity is to have a box underneath the shorter person so they can see over the fence and have access.

And I know that DEI is a four-letter word.

This is not about DEI.

This is about equity.

Please do not allow the jail to be built in a redlined community.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Our next speaker is Nancy Murray Settle.

Hello, good morning, Nancy Murray Settle.

Um, addresses on file.

I'm with Interrupt Redlining this morning.

And I also am speaking on um ordinance 0356, which addresses the placement of a new jail in the city of Jacksonville at cost of over a billion dollars.

Um please read the summary that was sent with that ordinance.

There's a lot of good information about historically what the city has done around redlining and our attempts as a city to avoid those that as well.

What we're talking about is justice and neighborhoods and the quality of life in Jacksonville, Florida.

Um we all live here and we all want good for our city, and systemic discrimination in our city is not good for anyone.

If you are placing a jail in a neighborhood that where you're saying, hey, it doesn't bother me, it's not in my neighborhood.

Let's put it where poor people live.

Let's put it in the northwest side.

Let's put it where historically we've redlined and I don't have to worry about it.

That actually does affect the quality of your life, and it costs taxpayers money when we have this systemic discrimination.

I have a question about the jail.

We've all just gone along and like, hey, let's build this big giant jail and put it somewhere.

Has that really worked?

Is it working for us?

I think it costs the taxpayers a lot of money.

There's recidivism.

There's research that shows smaller kind of places that focus on rehabilitation, cut back on recidivism and recidivism costs the city money.

We can look at our nation as our city.

We know that discrimination, that racism, it takes a huge toll on our resources.

So maybe we can step back and say, why do we need a big giant jail concentrated in one place when we know that doesn't work?

I think we do it because we've always done it, and that's all we know.

Maybe it's time to shift.

Look at something different, so that the taxpayers are not continually being sucked dry for a process that doesn't work.

Smaller places throughout the city.

Let's share this equal distribution of resources and rights.

And sometimes we have to have an equal distribution of things that we don't want.

Like, I mean, so we do have to have some kind of jail, I guess.

Maybe let's look at it and do something different.

Let's not do the same thing and expect different results.

You guys all know that saying.

So no jails in historically black neighborhoods is the top.

I support zero three five six.

All right, thank you.

Uh next speaker will be Marshall Atkinson.

Good morning.

Um, I'm here for the uh the towing one, which is uh 2026 uh 358.

Just let y'all know what we've done.

We name and address for the record uh on file and uh Donald Marshall Atkinson.

Thank you.

Um, so what we did is we took the part 12, which is law enforcement towing, and then we put um part 13, which is PPI, which is private property towing, non-consensual tows.

And when we looked at it, it the classes we call them class A, B, and C.

They didn't they didn't match what the federal side or the state or DOT looked at as far as classes, so we renamed them categories, so we we did it based on the weights and everything like that, not to confuse everyone, clean that up.

We cleaned up the definition.

A lot of times you go to a tow yard.

If you're not the actual owner, you were told you can't pick it up.

Well, what have you rented a vehicle and you have the rental document?

You know, we we we cleaned it up so that it was fair to everybody, and that uh tow yards can't hold vehicles trying to get extra storage and stuff like that.

We looked at uh in July of 2025, the state legislation.

They they changed some laws in the towing with reference to liens and stuff like that, so we had to add those in and clean those up in the city side.

Part 12 did not really have any penalties in it, it was an oversight.

Part 13 did, so when we realign 12 and 13, they if you lay them down side by side now, they'll read the same way in the same order, so it's not confusing to the court system, and a lot of this has been rewritten because of the loopholes that people find uh when they go to court or when JSO makes arrest, they get to use these loopholes.

I'll be standing by for any questions or anything like that when it comes up.

All right, thank you, sir.

We had one other speaker, Carnell Oliver, but I do not see him in the auditorium, and he did not list what he was going to speak on.

So just stating that for the record.

All right, so moving on to our agenda.

I uh first I'd like to recognize council member Peluso has joined us, and we do have uh past President Sam Newby in the audience.

Good to see you, sir, and our supervisor of elections, Jerry Holland.

So we've got a lot of a lot of superstars in here today.

All right, we'll go and we're gonna go ahead and take a couple of items out of order.

Uh first we'll do item 28 and then we'll go to item 26.

So go to item 28 first.

Let me get there.

Let me get there.

All right, item 28, 2026, 0362.

I've got a motion and a segment on the bill.

And council member Freeman.

Uh thank you, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And I'll be brief.

Uh if uh the auditors, if through the chair to Mr.

Peterson, if you want to explain just a little bit of the change, we added 200,000 to it or OGC, whoever, that might be the only thing that really I think is changed over the course of time.

Through the chair of the committee, so uh you as a council approved five million dollars as part of the uh 25-26 budget to be set aside into a contingency to be um discussed by the youth empowerment committee.

Uh councilmember Freeman later added 200,000 from an initiative that just wasn't moving forward to this.

So that 5.2 million is sitting in that contingency.

This bill brings it above the line uh and moves it to KHA where they're going to issue an RFP for services to be provided.

Uh thank you, um Mr.

Peterson, and and without getting into the weeds, just want you all to know the process.

This is Council President Carico's um initiative as president, and and so we were very thoughtful in the time that it that we put into it.

I want to thank Councilmember Amaro, Councilmember White, Councilmember Arias, and many of you others that joined, but they were actually on the committee.

Uh we completed our last meeting.

Uh first one I believe started around October, completed the last one in March.

Uh, and then since March, Mr.

Everett and the team have been compiling a lot of the thoughts that were brought up and given from the committee members, as well as listening to the community, and have been working diligently to put forth uh an RFP that should now once or if this body approves this piece of legislation uh on the 26th, then it goes to KHA's board on the 27th for their approval.

If approved both on the 26th and the 27th, then the RFP goes out on the street.

Um, I can just tell you in that last meeting.

I want to thank my colleague, Councilmember Gaffney as well again.

Um we had well over uh a hundred plus in the different in entities in the attending.

Um so I would imagine that there's gonna be a huge uh influx of people applying for this.

Uh so the goal is hopefully by June uh to have that announced of which groups will be uh awarded, and then those dollars will be put out as the schedule will permit.

Uh with that being said, I'll open up for any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Let's go to past president Dr.

Salem.

Thank you, Chair, and this is either to Mr.

Peterson or Councilmember Freeman.

These are one-time expenses and correct.

So all those that are applying understand this is a a one-time umfusion for these programs.

Is that correct?

Mr.

Peterson.

Through the chair to Councilmember Salem.

So the draft RFP that is in existence right now indicates that this funding is for a single year.

I believe KHA would like it to be a multi-year uh program funding, but as of right now, these dollars are only for a single year of services.

I guess that will be discussed throughout the budget process.

Number two, I I wasn't a part of any of this.

We set up broad categories that that people will now apply for these funds, and these funds are are distributed into those categories.

Is that correct?

Either Mr.

Peterson or through the chair.

Um the committee discussed a kind of a wide range of services that to be are to be provided.

And and just in case anyone's not aware, these dollars are being allocated to the age group age group of 16 to 24-year-old individuals.

So it's not tacking on to services that KHA already provides within their 50 60 million dollar budget.

These are additional services above and beyond.

Um, I don't believe that there is nailed down the specific categories that um these dollars are going towards if Mr.

Everett is in the audience he may be able to add more context as he's been working hand in hand with council member freeman uh on this uh but I'm myself am not aware of the in if there are individual categories okay I I and I'm very supportive of this and we'll vote for this I I y'all may recall during the budget process we um move the journey dollars into KHA for more accountability um and that was I recall a couple of million dollars so as we get into the budget process I'm just um concerned about reoccurring one time I'm all for this was an initiative of the president's but beyond that uh I think it's gonna be a tough a tough debate thank you Mr.

Chair may I respond as well all right thank you then through the chair to Councilman Salem thank you so much for that and completely agree um I do not see Mr.

Everett in the audience and I could tell you all having worked with him many years it's not like it's uncommon for him not to be here.

So I would encourage you all to ask for him to be at the next meeting I believe it's today at rules or finance he is a wealth of information he has a true heart and a passion and he understands your concern as well in the beginning in the impetus of this one thing that one of the two of the guardrails we put up no overlap with journey forward no overlap with any current KHA services because we knew both of those boards had volunteers working hard to make sure that they stayed on mission and there was no mission creep and that is how we got into the ages of 16 to 24 he he has all of the data there's a 300 300 million dollar economic impact of getting those individuals recaptured introduced back into the market skilled trained and put into the job for us we put some particular um guidelines or or responsibilities of you had to partner with someone so if you're a smaller group and you want to apply for these and we know that the smallest grants 2500 that someone can but I think we raise that bar even higher it would be like you your group would have to partner with Big Brothers and Big Sisters we gave another example of you utilizing city facilities where you have I'm a star in the same building as the 100 black men and how now they can actually cross I'm gonna say pollinate but you have some of the same members of both of those nonprofits benefiting from those skills that are offered so your your point is made clear we heard it and I was strongly encouraged because if I don't see Mr.

Everett here's either got a flat tower or he's sick all right he does not miss meetings and so I would encourage you all to bring him up and ask those questions.

Thank you.

All right thank you let me go to uh past president chief white yeah sir thank you through the chair and me as a coach mass please all right thank you now we can let's go to Colonel Miller.

Thank you Mr.

Chair uh through the chair I just wanted to add on to uh something that um past president Salem had mentioned along the same lines I I just we're gonna have to make some tough calls in this next budget year.

I think everyone knows that and so I I think that's a good point making sure um all know this is a one time um one time use of funds for these purposes um to not build them into your budget for next year um maybe to request if the if there's some part of it that's that important but we're gonna need to make sure there's a prioritization within this program but also overall and that we set clear quite criteria that are associated with that prioritization and what I like in this bill, and which I'm personally um most in favor of if they stay mostly along these lines, it says, which may include but is not limited to workforce development and apprenticeship programs and services.

That is a huge need for our city, our state, and our country right now.

If we can make sure these young men and women not just get a high school diploma graduate or or a high school diploma and graduate, but that they those who aren't going to college have a pipeline to get into to make a good career for themselves and their families.

Um I like that.

And so because of that and because it is a president's initiative and absolutely going to support uh this because of those two reasons, but I wanted to make those comments for going forward to help set expectations as we go into this next budget year.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right, thank you.

Let's go to Councilmember Omaro.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Very quickly, uh, if you would please add me as a uh co-sponsor as well.

Sitting on the committee with council member Freeman.

Uh it was clear if you look at the demographics as pointed out by uh the council auditor 16 to 24 uh that there was a very identified need for uh workforce development as youth as well as youth development, and those are two of the stated objectives uh that the committee was uh working diligently toward too.

Uh some of the testimonies that were present clearly identified that there is a need in the community, and so uh these dollars will be well spent at the same time that we're very well informed that it was just this annual uh doesn't mean they're not gonna ask again, uh, but I think they know from the outset that this was a one-time funding uh event, and and clearly the need is there, and so I would urge the committee's support of this and and and let's move it forward and get things done.

All right, uh Ms.

Clark Murray.

Thank you, Chair.

Through the chair to Councilmember Freeman, I'm going to be in support of your bill.

I like it when those who want to apply and those who do apply, and the case that I see here for one of the bullets is that they a match is required, and I think it's always important for any entity to have what we call some skin in the game.

So for that reason, and many of the others that have been mentioned in what I've read here, I will be in support of your bill.

Thank you, Chair.

And at me as a co-sponsor of legislative services.

All right, thank you.

Let me go back to Councilmember Freeman.

Uh thank thank you, Mr.

Chair, and to Ms.

Clark Murray, Councilmember, thank you so much because that was one of the goals again, connectivity and sustainability.

Uh, we wanted to ensure that government wasn't just influxing infusing dollars in year one and the next year they could not open their doors, giving hope and then removing it.

So that was a deal of you had to be able to find matching dollars, you have to be able to collaborate and partner with others to ensure that we have that sustainability.

Alright, thank you.

No other speakers in the queue.

Uh uh I just want to add I appreciate all the work that passed President Councilmember uh Freeman has put into this and uh with the items like workforce development, the uh that that always draws me in to uh supporting the bill, and that that's why I'll be fully supportive of this and would like to be added as a co-sponsor as well.

With that, I've got a motion and a second.

Let's open the ballot and record your vote.

Seven years, you're on ease by your action you approved 2026 0362.

Next item we'll go to is item number 26.

2026 0356.

Get a motion on the bill.

I've got a motion and a second on the bill.

Councilmember Lannon, you're recognized.

Uh, Chair, I believe it's usually we go with the bill sponsor first.

So if you want to okay, I'll see him on the agenda.

Out of courtesy, I will let him go first.

On the I'll see him on the list now.

Councilmember Peluso, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, uh, Council Member Landon for allowing me to speak first.

Um we're all here uh uh for for a couple of reasons, but one of the one of the third one of the first things we did in our first year was we passed a anti-redlining bill.

That was a resolution that declared that the city of Jacksonville recognized its part that it played um as well as the state of Florida and the federal government in terms of redlining, right?

The loans that were given to certain individuals and certain institutions, and how basically based on the FHA, the federal guidelines, loans were rarely, if ever, given to black and brown communities.

The redlining were the neighborhoods that the federal government encouraged people not to invest in.

Today, thanks to other work we did in this in this council, we we said that we recognize what we did and that we are going to try to fix it.

Fast forward to the modern era and in Brentwood, we did build a medical examiner's office, a large uh government building in a neighborhood that was historically redlined, and we've seen a number of people come up over the past several years with legitimate complaints as to why it should not have been built there.

We've had conversation upon conversation about what it means to reinvest in these communities and what we as a body need to do to help make sure we don't make the same mistake again.

As we look at building a new jail, which could have multiple different pieces towards it, right?

It could be that there is an annex that's maybe a little bit smaller, that's kind of closer to the downtown area, and then a larger structure somewhere else further away, because we know that our you know some of these attorneys and judges are saying we should probably build something closer to uh the courthouse.

There could be a number of different things that occur.

But this is meant to ensure that we do two things.

One, save ourselves some hassle because we don't want a bunch of people coming up saying don't make the same mistake again.

So we're we're trying to give ourselves one less headache.

Uh but aside from that, we're trying to reassure the communities who live in these formerly red-lined areas that there will not be a giant government structure, the jail built in their communities.

And if you look at uh Lisc, they've got a great map.

It's the same one that we passed a couple years ago.

And it shows, I mean, you've got everything from Moncrieve to Long Branch to Brentwood, uh to Grand Park to Panama Park, you've got East Side, you've got La Villa, Newtown, Sugar Hill, Durkeyville, Robinson's Edition, Mixon Town.

You even got parts of District 5, including uh Phillips Highway area.

And the point is is I just ask that this body recognize this is a resolution.

This is us as the city council asking the administration and the and those that are working on the jail, hey, let's make sure that we avoid these areas.

That's really about it.

It's our intention, it is not an ordinance.

And that's uh that's the bill as it is.

All right, thank you.

Now let's go to uh Councilmember Lannon.

Uh thank you, Chair.

I'm here as the uh liaison to the new jail or the Jacksville Justice Center uh to ask the introducer to withdraw this.

And let me be perfectly clear.

I would be here for any resolution that was proposing to rule out any certain area.

If this was uh chair, if you had a resolution saying let's not build it in Black Hammock Island, I would be here speaking against that just because of where we are in the process.

And again, just to remind everyone where we are in the process.

In 2024, I was appointed by past president White as the liaison to the new jail or Jacksonville Justice Center.

Since then there's been a lot of work done, a lot of meetings between the administration, JSO, myself, and this included an open and transparent RFP process that led to us led to us choosing CGL to serve as a third-party consultant.

A few months ago, myself, Mike Weinstein, Director Goff of JSON gave an update at a full council meeting.

Our theme has been to be transparent and methodical.

We outlined the work that CGL was embarking on and is already working on.

Site selection is one part of this engagement.

There are five main deliverables with 13 other services and deliverables as part of this contract.

The process as it stands now has been apolitical with the three parties, JSO, the administration, and the council through me as liaison in lock step and on the same page.

So I will oppose and I encourage my colleagues to oppose any resolution that seeks to declare any parts of Duval County off limits.

My concern is that there are 14 district council members, and we all have areas to where we probably don't want to see the jail being eventually built, but let's let the process play out.

It's probably going to be early next year when we get our preliminary report out.

And once we get those potential site selections, that's when we should debate the merits, the pros and cons of those different locations.

We will have the opportunity as a full council to weigh in once we have recommendations before us.

And again, this is not a jab at District 7.

As I mentioned, if there was any council member that was bringing forth a resolution, once we already approved the funding source, once we already got briefed on where we stand with the process of the new jail, I would be opposing that because we have the process going on right now, and any anything we do to rule out potential areas is really just causing noise for what's going on, and like I mentioned, a very methodical process that has already been undertaken.

And I'll stand by for any questions as to where we are in that process.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Now let's go to President Dr.

Salem.

Thank you, Chair.

I would just add a couple of points to to Councilmember Lane.

That that committee is going to bring back three sites, which was not mentioned by Councilmember Lane.

And I think at that point that's where the debate needs to occur once we once they've identified the three sites.

Number two, um Councilmember Borland led this effort when I was president, and this site's gonna be several hundred acres.

Um I've heard anywhere from 400 to 600 acres, and I I just don't see four to six hundred acres being available in any of the areas that are here.

Understand the concern, but um this is gonna have to be built in in somewhat of a rural area of Duval County, clearly.

Um I tend to agree with Councilmember Lane, and I I just think um this if this resolution passes, we could see several more from other districts, and I think we're down the wrong path.

We've got a process, uh I think we should let it play out.

Once we get those three sites, that's when the debate should occur.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Let's go to council member bowling.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I grow increasingly frustrated uh when people talk about the jail, thinking we're gonna be taking what we have now and putting it someplace else.

And thanks to uh council president Salem at the time, he gave me the opportunity to share a committee, Councilmember White, Mr.

Miller, as well as Mr.

Peluso, all served on that.

And for the folks who have not taken the time, I strongly encourage you to go back and take a look at the final report that spoke about recentificism and other ways of getting people through the system and not warehousing them in a in a tower someplace.

Uh and I guess we did.

We took a look at best practices around the country to see what's being built other places and how people are getting through the system and not being buried in it.

Uh I I I share the concern Mr.

Lennon offered Council Member Lane and Salem.

I don't think I'm gonna support this today for the practical reasons, but for the principle of everyone saying, Well, not in my backyard.

That just isn't uh viable.

And I certainly understand and appreciate the red line issue.

I know it well.

Uh experience it firsthand uh in in hearing stories from many people over the course of my time involved with the study circles back in the uh 90s and 2000s, actually 2000 and 2010s.

So I I understand the the frustration and the relevance of it.

But uh to say uh a resolution like this, which really doesn't have a lot of bearing uh in terms of uh uh impact on the decision.

I like uh the way council member Salem clarified the point that it's just gonna be, you know, let's take a look at what's the best opportunity for all concerned and making sure it's in the right place.

So I will not be supporting the resolution today.

All right, thank you.

Let me go to council member Morrow.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Through the chair to uh council member Peluso.

Do you feel this is really necessary?

Would you consider a uh deferment, if not a withdrawal?

Through the chair to Councilmember Amaro.

Uh I would have no problem with the deferment, but I I kind of don't really know what the the intention of that would be, unless it is to kind of give the bill a little more.

Uh, to the point of I think what some of the commentary is getting at, um, I I do not expect to add more pieces to this map.

This is meant to be the red line map that we discussed uh last time.

Does that answer your question?

Thank you, sir.

Uh um, I'm not gonna support any building of a criminal justice system in the black community, period.

But uh given the scenario and the need that has been identified the uh the the borders the acreage through the chair uh I think it's inconceivable uh and and I know the morgue has been mentioned several times but the morgue in the jail apples and oranges and I'm that pragmatic and and that's why I ask if you would consider deferment because the truth of the matter is I don't even know if your resolution is necessary at this moment that at this junction where we are thank you all right thank you we'll go back to council member Peluso for the second time.

Thank you chair and thank you for all the comments um it's it's something I understand uh I I understood that that many people would argue hey let's we gotta add more neighborhoods we got to go into other districts I get that that is not what the intention of this bill is or resolution that's not what I expect will happen um and it's not what I would support.

So the point of Councilmember Landon saying listen if this was Black Hammock Island I would show up.

If this was any other part of the city I would show up I fully agree with that I understand what you're getting at.

I understand what your position is and what this process looks like.

I believe that it is a transparent process and that you're doing an incredible job.

This is meant to make sure we are laying the fears of our constituents who have come time and time again discussing discussing what has happened in their communities and I I just I just do not like I mean listen I mean we all see it often in this body right we know a certain thing we know how a process is going to look we all know um you know that there's there's going to be more to the story but constituents don't necessarily do that the public doesn't necessarily understand everything that we know and so this is meant to share with them basically we said today we don't really expect that the jail's going to be built in any of these areas so what's the what's the concern of passing this resolution part of my push was because I am a little concerned there might be an annex.

There might be a a 12 acre annex perhaps that is a holding site um you know because maybe it'll have 50 beds or something along those lines for for inmates while you know in waiting for the next day when they go to the the courthouse that's a possibility that might be the size of a medical examiner's office.

And so it's it's just a matter of if we already know or expect that the jail or any sort of facilities are not going to be built in these areas let's just put it in this resolution right if anything else if you're CGL it gives you information early and often so that you're not taking the time and energy and effort into looking at these other sites.

I just I also get frustrated because I hear what people say to us and I hear what the community says often and in these community meetings and it's oftentimes for those of us that are elected officials or work for the administration we're quick to say whoa oh maybe you didn't get all the answers here's what's actually happening and so this is a way to kind of get in front of that right we are letting our constituents and the public know hey we do not expect this to be built in these areas this resolution was passed.

It's a carryover from the original redlining bill.

I understand everyone's concerns I understand if you're gonna vote it down but I but I unless there's a deferment for the purpose of you know oh let's let's add language to make it you know one way or another um I I would ask that we just vote this up or down and and I I know I know where a lot of people's heads are I don't think that this I don't think this vote will mean like oh that we we still live in well no I don't want to go down the road um I I know I know that that that this body is not is not filled with people who had the same mindset of those who believed in redlining back in the 30s I know that but I do ask that you recognize um these communities and these neighborhoods and these neighbors have heard a lot over the past 50 60 70 years that no no no those were old policies we live in a new age now we're not gonna do do things to hurt your neighborhoods.

Well, let's let's put our money where our mouth is.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Let's go to Colonel Miller.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Through the chair, um, won't say a lot here because uh most of what I would have said has already been addressed, but I I will say I appreciate the intent, I really do, um of of this resolution.

Um, but I agree there is a process here, um, and let's allow CGL to do what they've been charged to do, and then everyone will be heard all the input and and we'll go from there.

Um I certainly wouldn't like to see 14 more resolutions coming highlighting areas of each district that don't want to be included uh for consideration, and and I don't know that's a productive uh way forward either.

So um, even though again, like I said, I appreciate the intent and and we're hearing everyone what they're saying, and we'll have another opportunity once there's more uh clarity on the recommended sites in this process to be able to give more input uh from each one of the districts uh perspective.

So I will not be supporting this resolution today.

Um but again I I appreciate the intent.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right, thank you.

Let's go to council councilmember Clark Murray.

Thank you, Chair.

Through the chair to Councilmember Lane, where are the um the corporation or business that's working on the um the consultants, where are they in their process in terms of locating and um determining sites?

Sure.

So as uh through the chair to uh councilman Clark Murray.

Uh going back, and again this is still fresh in most everyone's memory when we gave the full council brief, I believe, was two months ago.

Uh shortly after that, I believe was when we did finalize the contract and what we've been saying this first phase uh to get to those deliverables I've outlined, uh, which again there are substantially more than the site selection recommendations.

It's five main deliverables and 13 other services and deliverables were part of the statement of work of the contract that we signed.

Uh, but most likely uh I have not gotten an update this month, but we're still probably looking at the beginning of the year uh next year is when they're gonna come back with uh their first report to us.

Thank you for that.

Um, through the chair to council member Peluso, you don't have to think very hard as to where I stand in this particular debate.

But my thought is that if you would be willing to defer, which would allow you to um bring the bill back as opposed to it being voted down and then you have it having to wait an entire year where based upon council member lanin's um information, we're looking at next year.

So if you would reconsider just the idea of a deferral, then I would put forth the motion, and I understand the um criteria that you told us in regards to what would be the conditions under which you would consider a deferral, but I just hope that you would do the chair.

Uh let me go to Ms.

Mary.

Through the chair to council member Clark Murray, do you mean withdraw?

You you've mentioned deferral, but I'm I'm wondering if you meant to say withdraw.

So thank you for that, uh Mr.

Bopola.

So withdraw means that he would have a year to bring it back, and so he could come back at any time.

If a bill is withdrawn, it can come back at any time.

Doesn't have to wait an entire year.

It does not have to wait, that's if a bill is denied and somebody wants to file something that's substantially the same, then they have to wait a year.

Thank you for that.

I appreciate it.

So with that being said, um, and the correction in regards to the motion to withdraw, so then you would have an opportunity to bring it back at any time, seeing that we're looking at a time frame for the results from the consultants being at the beginning of next year, which you know right now.

We're we're this is almost June.

So we're looking at about six years at a sorry, six months at a minimum.

So if you would consider that, because as opposed to if we just if we vote the bill down through the chair to Missopoulos, that's he has to wait an entire year, correct?

Through the chair to council member Clark Murray, correct.

If he were to want to file the same or a substantially similar bill, it would be barred for one year.

And it sounds as if just listening to the the remainder of the members of this b of this committee that they might be amenable to that depending upon the results of the consultant study.

Go ahead Ms.

Busso you recognize chair um through the council member uh to council member clerk murray I I think we would just I think I'd rather just get voted down now and then we do it in a year like if that's if that's the the intent or we try to file an ordinance if we find out like if we find out that one of these sites really isn't a red line area we got to pass a resolution we got to pass an actual ordinance on that.

I think the the community would would be livid um and I get I get the the the nature of of where people's heads and mindsets are at I just feel like we've been sitting on stuff like this for a very long time and oftentimes we say to folks oh in five months a thing will happen in seven months a thing will happen and then it takes years the Durkeville study for instance that we uh approved in our first year uh in this term one of the pushbacks on that was hey you know groundwork jacks is going to be doing studies in each neighborhood so you know why why do this study council member peluso and myself and council member salem recognized okay that work's not going to get done for a long time.

Um councilmember Pelusa I understand what you're saying you're talking about the study we're talking about this study we've already approved the um the funding they've done the the RFP we have the the business that is going to conduct the study so it's on its way it's not in any of those phases so just something for you to consider understood okay all right thank you let me go to council member Lannon uh thank you chair through the chair to uh council clerk murray and council member so I will uh do my best in the next few days to get an update because we've been saying early next year and I'll go back and confirm if that's still what we're looking at as far as the uh the timeline when to expect uh like I said our uh preliminary report to us all right no other speakers in the queue um so I I as well concur with uh councilmember Lannon and um Salem about uh the due diligence that's going forward and I think I think we've got enough uh protection there to where at that point in time um that we all understand the red line and then that's that's gonna be taboo to even consider this going in there so with that I'm gonna open the ballot and record your vote one yay six nays by your action you've denied 2026 zero three five six all right we'll go to the next item will be number 47 2026 zero three nine seven can I get a motion on emergency can I get a second I've got a motion and a second on the emergency Mr.

Peterson on emergency.

Through the chair to the committee um the nature of the emergency is the current BCID charter has processes that involve the supervisor of elections and as the qualification period um occurs in June this is an attempt to remove the supervisor from those processes and allow the board to move forward with their operations.

All right I don't see any speakers on the emergency all in favor say yay.

Any opposed likewise none the emergency carries can I get a motion on the amendment I've got a motion second on amendment Mr.

Peterson through the chair of the committee the amendment clarifies the initial board of supervisors is being revised to reflect the current membership places a revised charter on file uh to correct the listing of the initial supervisors and then there's various scriptures all right no speakers on the amendment all in favor of the amendment say yay any opposed likewise, none the amendment carries.

I get a motion a second on the bill as amended.

All right.

No speakers in the in the queue.

Open a ballot and record your vote.

Seven yes, zero and a's.

By your action you approve 2026 0397.

All right, that takes us to item number back to item number 27.

Got a motion in on 2026 0358.

On the auditor's recommended amendment.

Mr.

Peterson.

Yeah.

I've got a motion and a second on the auditor's recommended amendment.

Through the chair to the committee, there is some language in the bill that's just repeated from current language regarding insurance requirements as it relates to uh towing, and those insurance amounts are 30 plus years old.

So our recommendation is just to update that to amounts as determined by the risk management division so that as those they see amounts needing to be changed, they can be handled administratively rather than having set amounts identified in our ordinance code.

All right, I believe um Mr.

Marshall, you you want to speak to them the amendment.

First off, I need to repeat my name again.

Absolutely.

Marshall Atkinson address on file.

Um I just heard about the insurance requirements, and we all know what's going on with the insurance with commercial carriers and everything like that.

Risk management doesn't live in the same world that we do when they do this because the risk, we're the four statutes already set what what our limits have to be in our trucks.

So I don't know where I don't want to get caught into this.

Oh, you gotta have a million dollar limit liability because then you've just given every attorney to uh you put a target on our back.

We like to keep what our insurance has always been, and that's what everyone else is running around town.

We can't be competitive for doing that.

And uh I don't think there's any reason for it.

We haven't had any problems in my 30 years having this going on.

So I I think leaving it to somebody that sits in a different world is not doesn't even need to be part of this.

It's not what we came here to do.

We came here to fix so that the public's protected, and the insurance is already protecting the public, and we have them.

We got enough people driving around with no insurance and nothing's being done about them.

Only the people that are gonna be having insurance are the ones that want to legally.

Thank you, Mr.

Atkinson.

Let me go to uh councilmember Clark Murray on the amendment.

Yes, absolutely.

Um, come back, Mr.

Atkinson.

The um to the chair to count to Mr.

Peterson.

I was listening to what you said, and you're saying that basically the language in the uh city ordinance is 30 years old, but it it but you don't want language in regards to insurance that specifies how much or like the amount of insurance.

Just give me some clarification on that aspect.

Sure, through the chair, council member Clark Murray.

So yes, this language has been in the city's ordinance code since at least the 80s, if not prior to then, and it lays out specific dollar amounts that um records who are on the city's call list are required to have maintain an insurance.

Uh this is not a section of code that gets touched often, and so when we became aware of it, I sent it to risk management to say, hey, do these amounts still apply in today's world?

And their response was we would recommend updating these amounts.

So given that the amounts more than likely would have changed since the 80s, rather than putting the exact amounts that risk would suggest having today, my recommendation is just to have a language that says up, you know, suggestions by the risk management division, so that as risk amounts change or insurance amounts change that those they could automatically update rather than having outdated language in our code 20 years from now.

Okay.

So you're saying that we need to have language in this bill that states that the uh the risk aspect or the insurance aspect needs to um be adjusted with current rates or current um times.

Okay, thank you for that through the chair to Mr.

Atkinson.

So tell me what the statute says in regards to the 2025 and the 2026 statute says in regards to the risk management, the insurance aspect.

Hopefully we can come up with this.

I know y'all have a long morning.

Sharon, are you in here?

So, okay.

Just take me a second here.

It's so to through the chair, while they're looking for those things.

See the chair, thank you, Chair, so much.

I'm trying to, and but if we want to at a later time, we can I can work with you all and get the language if that's what you all would prefer.

Um that's that's fine with me too, because this is the part that I really really like about what we do.

Um so it's page uh four, ma'am.

And it and it talks about uh that we have to have a hundred thousand or three hundred.

And that's been the norm forever, and what we have actually been doing for the last 25 years is watching our insurance rates.

Mine went from in five years from 700,000 to 2.5 because of all these million dollar policies and these umbrella policies.

Um I'm sure most of y'all know what's been going on with company.

So, Mr.

Atkinson, because I have the floor through the chair, so you're saying that what you require for for personally for your towing business is more than what the statute says that you should have.

Is that what you're saying?

Yes, ma'am.

We have in the past, but we can't afford it anymore.

We're having to go back to to the to the minimums to stay in business.

And and so the minimums are the minimums that you just read from the statute, correct?

Okay, so through the okay, go ahead, thank you.

Through the chair to Councilman Clark, he read our ordinance code, he did not read the statutes.

Oh, I was I asked I specifically I thought I said the Florida statutes when I asked the question.

Okay, so at this point, thank you, Mr.

Atkinson.

Because I don't want to belabor this because I know we have a lot to do today.

So, to the chair, would you like to just defer this?

Because I know you're part of this bill, you're your sponsor or introducer of this bill as well.

If you would like to uh us to just off, you know, defer it or look at this aspect and we can add the language for on for rules because I think you all this will be seen in rules, correct, Ms.

Defopoulos.

Through the chair to council member Clark Murray, it's going to both rules and TEU.

Um Mr.

Chair, if you wanted to defer it, what we can do is clarify what the state statutes actually state with respect to minimum levels of insurance for this type of vehicle for the service, and then maybe it's a matter of referencing the minimum amounts required by state statute rather than risk management would be the the option that could be discussed as far as an amendment.

It's up to you.

Thank you.

Um actually I'll just we we can I'd like to keep it moving forward and then we can get into rules by the end of uh of the this auditor's recommended amendments to where we can dial it in with the state requirements minimum thresholds to uh make sure that that's that's uh we're in agreement in align with that.

So that that would be my uh preference on that.

So but let me get back to the Q here.

If you're finished from now, and I'll let me let me ask one question, Chair, through the chair to uh Miss Defopolis.

So this is an amendment.

If we don't, I mean if we vote right now, we don't it's there isn't really it's a recommendation, is it something that we're going to vote on in regards to the recommendation?

Do we need to make a move do we need to make a motion so to vote on just adding an amendment from the auditor in this aspect through the chair to council member Clark Murray?

So there is a motion on the floor to move the auditor's recommended amendment, which would be to add the language that references the risk as determined by risk management versus the specific amounts in the bill.

Now, if something if additional information is available for rules or for TEU and those committees want to make an alternate motion to amend to address different language than going into council next Tuesday traditionally the president would identify which motion which amendment would get moved first and that they would both be included on the blue sheet to the extent that there's differences between the two any of the committee reports so you would have that information going into council next week all right thank you so much thank you chair all right let me go to Dr.

Salem thank you chair I'm confused let me go through some very direct questions the present bill um from the 1980s has 100,000 or 300 thousand what was the I heard two different numbers through the chair to council member Salem the current code requires the sheriff to require public liability insurance coverage by participating firms in an amounts of not less than 100,000 for damages arising from bodily injury or death to any one person not less than 300,000 for damages arising from bodily injury or death to more than one person in any one accident and 5000 for all property damage in any one accident issued by an insurance company.

Okay so these companies have been carrying that type of liability since the since the 1980s is that a fair statement okay now that we're rewriting it risk management has suggested one million dollars but you mentioned three different types is that is the total one million dollars or is each each one of those one person two persons and then the the third item you mentioned.

Through the chair to council member Salem it the it'd be one million compared to the hundred thousand uh looks like two million compared to the three hundred thousand and then I believe I believe one million compared to the fifty thousand so we're basically increasing it by about a thousand percent ten times is that correct yes sir okay I why are we as a city putting these suggested liabilities on there I mean we're simply um diverting these and these trucks to pick up these vehicles correct the sheriff is off of public property so they're providing a service for the city they're providing us are we liable I would assume so but I I'm not in this world so I cannot definitively answer that question.

Uh through the chair to OGC are are we liable for these things?

I mean I I I'm trying to understand why we are putting such high numbers on these things unless we are liable through the chair to council member Salem so I think number liability in any incident is subject to whatever the circumstances are of that incident I can tell you that traditionally if it occurs on public property and their city is involved contractually with an entity they're always going to want to sue the city as well because people I believe that we're the deeper pocket in a lot of instances so and then we have to wash out liability through that litigation.

So I think from risk management's perspective if there is a higher insurance policy required of the provider then it's more likely that that then that insurance is going to cover a greater extent of liability and costs related to an incident that would occur and maybe then it's less like you know to an extent that doesn't mean they're not going to sue the city and that still could always happen and does so if if uh Marshall's one of his records pulls a vehicle out of a parking garage that the city owns that would be an example where they might sue us or even if it's on on just the public right of way I mean people like to include the government agency and pretty much any litigation that's on sidewalks, drives you know, roads, that kind of thing.

It it I don't think it's going to prevent that, but when you have more insurance money at play, as you know, then more of the the damages and and injury can be covered by that policy, and then they don't necessarily have as much to subrogate out later.

Last question.

Have we had issues to our knowledge with the 100, 150,000 that we've had in place for the last 30 years?

Through the chair, Councilmember Salem.

I unfortunately I cannot answer that.

Who can answer that question?

Um I can follow up with our litigation department to see if they have any data that would be relevant to that.

I'm very uncomfortable requiring a business to increase their insurance by 10 by a thousand percent without some uh understanding that we've got a problem, and I don't I don't hear that today.

I'd like to see, Chair.

I know this is important to you, but I'm just not comfortable.

I and unless you can enlighten me with some of this stuff.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Let's go to uh council member Morrow.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I I think pretty much um a lot of uh what has been said kind of answered uh my questions.

I've known Marshall's business for a number of years, a man of integrity and has done a wonderful job.

I I see from the city's perspective, because um uh whether direct or indirect, his work will be acting as an agent of the city and therefore the city is is exposed.

If if I'm a good lawyer and and there's a claim, uh as uh Mr.

Popoulos just pointed out, um, I'm gonna go after all the parties, and and everyone thinks that the uh the city has the deepest pockets.

So I I see where the uh risk management is is trying to uh have uh safeguards to uh minimize or protect uh that exposure.

Um I don't know what the right dollar amount is, um, but you and I know, sir, that um the coverage in 1980 compared to 2026 is is like day and night.

It's um so I I don't know where I'm gonna uh land on this.

Uh I think uh a whole lot about um uh Marshall and and his business uh I've dealt with them over the years, so that's not an issue for me.

It's an issue.

Are we uh safeguarding the taxpayers' purse strings here?

Are we doing the right thing?

And so that's something I'm gonna have to deliberate here.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Atkinson, if you come back up.

Thank you, Council.

Uh, let me clarify a couple things.

Y'all are all forgetting, uh, when y'all are talking about lawsuits.

One, the city has never been sued in over 30 years for any action that we have taken as a tow company on the roads, and reason being is the city has this thing called sovereign immunity, so does the state of Florida.

So, my Road Ranger program that I do, I got with the state and I said, Hey, we need to have sovereign immunity because we're one entity doing one job for the state of Florida.

You have to pass five criterias.

We passed all five of them plus two more.

So we got sovereign immunity in it.

Sovereign immunity is two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

All right, so when you get into the other numbers, you play into the insurance companies' pockets, which is the attorneys at large, and that's that's what we're seeing.

We haven't had we're picking up disabled vehicles.

Now, if the city wants to give us a sovereign immunity for doing the tows for sheriff's department, which I already tried to do, but you can't do it because we also tow for GICO, we do private property tows and all that, so it it doesn't fall in the same room to get sovereign immunity, you have to pass all five characters.

The state has to control you, the state has to do this, the state has to mandate your hours, they gotta mandate your route basically, which they do on the road rangers, but sovereign immunity is a is a trick to protecting the city, and that's where y'all have sovereign immunity from lawsuits.

That's why no one sued the city on anything we've ever done.

I've been involved in multiple million dollar lawsuits that have dwindled down to nothing after three or four years.

But the problem is your loss ratio.

When I mentioned to you a minute ago, uh I like uh Councilman Salem's response of a thousand dollars.

In four years, my insurance went from 400, 700,000 to 2.5, and we had no actions related to our fault.

It was because of other people running into our vehicles and the passengers suing us, which comes back to we need insurance reform, but that's not what we're here today.

We're here to try to get this to protect the public on the towing and the rates that people are charging.

I know this insurance thing just all hit us all that one time here.

Ms.

Mr.

Atkinson, would would you be inclined to we take in and defer this?

And that would give you uh more time to set down and let's get something more dialed in to absolutely I'd like to get it all done, but we'd also I'd like to actually deal with people that I would like to risk management.

Probably that could actually give us the numbers and then we can come back and debate with them what we think we should be at.

Yeah, I think it's uh uh at with all the questions and the concerns.

Uh I think it's only wise that we pull this back and defer it and give uh you time and OGC and the sheriff's department time to uh get this unified because I I see a couple of problems here with the the you your firms or these these record firms that would be working for the sheriff also tow independently, and so when we require their these companies work for the sheriff's towing to be increased to a level they're not able to be competitive out in the uh regular market.

Uh we kind of do a disservice to these businesses.

So I think it's at this time I'm gonna go ahead and uh defer it and for one cycle, and if if we can't get get it done by then we'll we'll keep deferring it until we can get a uh a good land in place for this to where it's it's it's agreeable to everybody.

Yeah, and and that's exactly what the Florida state did with the highway patrol and everything when they went to the rates, and though that's what their rates requirements are too, as far as the state of Florida is the same rates we are we've got in here now.

All right.

Well, thank you, sir, for coming down and uh Mr.

Mary, uh through the chair or to the chair, so we'll work on um confirming what the minimum statute requirements are.

I do want to mention to the to the committee a sovereign immunity came up.

Um the state has passed a bill.

I'm not sure that the governor has yet signed it that is increasing those rates this year.

So those are going up to the extent there might be consideration or discussion of maybe establishing minimums that meet the sovereign immunity limits.

I will I will just mention to the committee as well that with respect to, for instance, the property damage being fifty thousand dollars, which is currently what's in the code.

Um, one of the things that I believe risk management is mindful of in that respect is that most vehicles nowadays cost a lot more than $50,000.

So when you look at what the property damage claim alone could be on a single incident with one vehicle, it could it could greatly exceed the $50,000 minimum property damage.

And so I just kind of put that out there as part of the consideration that when they look at these numbers in risk management and making their recommendations.

But Mr.

Chair, I'm happy to um work through this and also Mr.

Salem, Dr.

Salem identify if there have been any suits, even if the city was sued, they just may not have been in successful in pursuit of that.

Um, but I can follow up to get some data on that as well.

All right, with that that bill is deferred.

That takes us back to the beginning of our agenda.

We'll start with item number one, 2024 0966 is deferred at the request of council president Carico.

Item two, 2025 0361 is deferred at the request of Council Member White.

Item three, 2026 0227 is deferred at the request of Councilmember Diamond.

And item four, 2026 0312.

Can I get a motion on the bill?

I've got a motion and a second on the bill.

Dr.

Salem, you recognize.

Thank you, Chair.

I have a number of questions on this.

Um Mr.

Peterson, I asked you, I think on Friday, what is the average salary of these grant coordinators within that department?

Through the chair, uh to Councilmember Salem, yes, sir.

You did ask that.

Um, and we looked at the entire division and took out the division chief just because it's she's probably not into the weeds.

Uh the average salary is 76,200, and then with benefits, the average salary and benefits is 98,190.

And they're asking 139 to 252 for each one of these positions.

Is that is my understanding that correctly?

The 139 to 252 would be the two positions combined.

Two positions combined, so still a little bit on the high side.

Could be okay.

Number two, within the opioid program that that we uh that I think this is patterned after there's one more senior person and one person that reports to her.

Is is that the model here?

To the chair to council member Salem, yes, sir.

So there is okay.

Number three, Mr.

P through the chair, I'm sorry, to Mr.

Peterson.

Um are these two people dedicated to to the east side community?

Through the chair to council member Salem, they should be.

I can't say that they won't be overlap, but that is the intent behind these positions.

Well, one of the reasons we have two positions within opioids is someone's on vacation.

I mean, there's it I think there's work for two people, but it also gives you the ability if someone's out and that kind of thing.

Pregnancy or whatever it may be.

Can someone are is it's very bell?

Are these people dedicated to this effort because we're taking the money out of the of the east side grant money?

Through the chair, Maribel Figaroa grants and contract compliance chief.

Uh through the chair to councilman Salem.

Yes, these two positions because they are funded through those dollars will be fully dedicated to just this particular program.

Eastside community grants program.

How much do you anticipate hiring the more senior person for?

The grant administrator, I don't have the range in front of me, but the grant administrator range is somewhere in the 90 to 110,000 dollar range.

It's it's an existing position.

Uh so it would be comparable to the grant administrator position that currently resides for PSG and the direct appropriations grants.

So that's the more senior person.

Yes.

Okay.

With with that information, I'm comfortable with this.

Thank you.

All right.

No other speakers in the queue.

Let's open a ballot and record your vote.

7 yes, 0 nays.

Mayor asking you approve 2026 0312.

Next item number five.

The 2026-0313.

I've got a motion and second on the bill, and then we will be taking up the companion bill, which is item number fourteen right after this, and so I'm kind of moving them together.

And our first speaker in the queue is Dr.

Salem.

Is Mr.

Jeffrey here?

I am a through the chair.

I'm a big proponent of down payment assistance and have tried to push that through budgets as we look at ways to uh enhance affordable housing.

I I read over the weekend where there's some cities where the rent and the mortgage is the same amount, and if if those people had the ability to put out a down payment, they'd be in a house versus renting for years and years and years.

Are we taking a money away from down payment assistance through this?

Um good morning, Travis Jeffrey House and Creative Development Vision.

Uh, through the chair to Councilman Salem.

We're doing some um reconciliation from some of our older home dollars, so we're just kind of doing a swap.

We're lowering the uh down payment assistance increase in some admin, and then you'll see in the companion bill, where we're actually filling that gap with some 25 funding just so we can clean it all up and we'll be able to close out that 22 year.

So the answer is we're not taking money away from down payment assistance.

No, sir.

We're actually just moving it from year to year.

Thank you.

All right, Ms.

Councilmember Clark Murray.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I am always a proponent of helping anyone move from renting to owning.

And so with that being said, Miss I don't have any questions, Mr.

Jeffrey.

I just want to be added as a co-sponsor, and I think all of my uh colleagues here will support this bill.

Thank you.

All right, no other speakers in the queue.

Open a ballot, record your vote.

Seven years, zero nays.

By your action, you approve 2026 0313.

Then that takes us back to item number 14, 2026 0323.

I've got a motion of second on the bill.

No speakers in the queue.

Open a ballot, record your vote.

Seven years, zero nays.

By your action you've approved, 2026 0323.

All right, that takes us back to item number six, 2026 0314.

And a motion on the bill.

I've got a motion and a second on the bill.

Any no speakers in the queue.

Open the ballot, record your vote.

Seven yes, zero nays.

By your action to approve, 2026 0314.

Item number seven, 2026, 0315.

Get a motion on amendment.

I've got a motion and a second on the amendment, Mr.

Peterson.

Through the chair to the committee.

The amendment attaches a revised exhibit one, which includes the budget of uh the harbor waterway dependent special district to include supplemental budget descriptions.

Uh one of the items that they are funding this year was not described, and so trying to get all the documentation to reflect uh what they originally submitted.

All right, no speakers on the amendment.

All in favor say yay.

Yay.

Any opposed likewise, none amendment carries.

Get a motion second on the bill is amended.

I've got a motion and a second.

No speakers in the queue, open a ballot, record your vote.

7 yes, 0 nays.

By your action, you approve 2026 0315.

Next item number eight, 2026 0316.

Get a motion on the bill.

I've got a motion second on the bill.

No speakers in the queue.

Open a ballot, record your vote.

Seven years, zero and a's by your action to approve 2026 0316.

Next item number nine, 2026 0317.

Okay, get a motion on amendment.

I've got a motion and second on the amendment, Mr.

Peterson.

Through the chair of the committee, the amendment would remove the waiver of the section requiring the honoree to live within five miles of the designated roadway.

Uh he in fact did it also places revised notice documents on file to include all the notices the city sent out to the affected property owners.

Uh correct the designated roadway description to reflect the the signs will only go in the area that's in front of the church parcel, and then also correct various scriptures.

All right, Mr.

Councilman Amorrow, you recognize on amendment.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Very quickly to our legislative services.

Would you please add me as a co-sponsor?

I knew uh Mr.

Murray, who's a bow tie wearing preacher, so all right, council member bowling on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Through the chair, Mr.

Pearson.

Peterson, what's the rationale for having uh someone who lives within five miles of the designated roadway?

Uh yeah, a waiver is required for that.

Doesn't seem to make sense to me.

The person lives in the neighborhood, there's, no reason why I don't know.

I might just I'm sure it's a historical fact, but I'm not sure you can speak to that through the chair.

Through the chair to council member Boylan, a prior council determined that that was one of the requirements for an honorary road designation.

So we're just following our ordinance code.

All right.

You good with Mr.

Mr.

Boylan?

All right.

So I've got a motion and second on the amendment.

All in favor of the amendment say yay.

Yay.

Any opposed likewise, none.

Amendment carries.

Can a motion second on the bill is amended?

I've got a motion and second on the bill as amended.

No speakers in the queue.

Open the ballot, record your vote.

Six years, zero and ease.

By your action, you're approved twenty twenty-six zero three one seven.

Next item number ten, twenty twenty-six zero three one eight is deferred.

Text just item number eleven, twenty twenty six zero three one nine is deferred.

Item number twelve, twenty twenty-six zero three two zero.

That one is being deferred as well.

Next item number thirteen, twenty twenty-six zero three two one.

Give me a motion on amendment.

I got a motion second on amendment, Mr.

Peterson.

Through the chair of the committee, the amendment reflects uh which landfill facilities the solid waste class three mitigation funds are coming from as noted on your agenda, and then also attaches a revised BT to correct an account code.

Thank you, sir.

Councilmember Bolan, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, I applaud you for your diligence in securing these funds for the your much needed needs your improvements of the park.

Through the chair to uh Mr.

Peterson, uh were these funds available to all council members.

He just was diligent enough to find it.

Through the chair to council member Boylan, um so there's a number of funding sources that are in this bill.

Um I'll if you look on your agenda, there's four different funding sources.

The Solid Waste Class III mitigation funds that are those are as tonnage is deposited at a landfill, uh 50 cents for each ton goes into a fund for that landfill, and those funds must be spent within a seven mile radius of each individual landfill.

So depending on where you are in the city, you may have access to some funds, you may not.

Uh the card room tax, that is a uh tax we receive from the state as it relates to the best bet card room on monument road.

The ordinance code says that those funds must be spent on park improvements within a five-mile radius of that facility.

Um so there are very few council members that could benefit from that.

The Autumn Bonds investment pool earnings.

That is uh that's funding that could be used on any capital improvement project.

Councilmember Gay came to us needing that additional dollars.

We were able to find that, and then the last one the Williams Sheffield Regional Park, he's just moving it from a larger Sheffield Park project to a specific Sheffield Park project.

So that is uh I say available to him.

I'm certain councilman Salem Shutters when he sees these kind of bills come through, trying to save these dollars for other purposes.

But I think it's a worthwhile and investment on uh and improvements of the parks in area.

I don't want to ask this question, but I think I need to.

Are there still other dollars available?

Through the chair to uh council member Boylan.

Um, there are dollars in the uh class three mitigation funds uh landfill accounts.

Um this does take a majority of the dollars from the real co uh facility and then also the coastal recycling facility.

Um the card rune tax.

I believe this takes every last dollar available in there, but we do receive uh two to three hundred thousand dollars a year uh as it relates to that facility.

Well, in all seriousness, I think it's probably wise just as you now provide us with information with respect what funds we have available to us through the parks improvements.

Uh, that we also have access to uh equal access, if you will, to information regarding the availability of dollars that can be used in our various districts.

I'm certainly going to support this today, but I think it makes sense for us to have a better understanding of uh these of the availability of these kind of dollars.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right, thank you.

Uh Dr.

Salem on the amendment.

Oh, yeah, we're on the amendment.

Mr.

Peterson.

Through the chair to council member Salem.

It was clarifying which of the solid waste class three mitigation funds are which dollar amount is being appropriated from which facility, and attaches a revised exhibit one BT to correct account codes.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Morrow.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I'm going to support the amendment as well as the bill because uh even though though at Austin is in district two, it's uh touches uh district one.

But I'm gonna raise the flag now that uh next year the card room tax there won't be no access because if it's coming from best bet, that's in D1.

I'm gonna make sure that money is spent in D1.

Thank you.

Alright, thank you.

So no other speakers on the amendment, all in favor of the amendment say yay.

Any opposed likewise, none amendment carries.

Can a motion second on the bills?

I've got a motion and second on the bill as amended.

Dr.

Salem.

Thank you, Chair.

I sure admire your ingenuity here.

I mean, uh what you did to pull this through.

I mean, I I tip my hat to you, frankly.

Uh, and I want to be a co-sponsor of this.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh, but I also need to give a lot of credit to Miss Ms.

Kim Taylor.

She and Mr.

Peterson, they they work diligent with me on this.

So let me go to uh council member Clark Murray.

Thank you.

I also tip my hat to you, and I once I want to be a co-sponsor as well.

Work well done.

Thank you.

Colonel Miller.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, to and through the chair.

Um, yeah, I also echo well done.

Um, and I gotta say there's some of our projects that don't always get on the queue and in the queue and completed in your district.

So there's a good reason why you're doing what you're doing here, and um and putting this together and because of the that radius requirement on uh the two biggest ones.

Um the only one that really was wide open uh was the uh autumn bonds investment pool earnings and uh and so you know you you did what you needed to do and worked with everybody to make these happen, and so I I also applaud you for this, and and uh I would like to be added as co-sponsor.

All right, Chief White.

Yes, sir.

Please add me as a co-sponsor too, and I'm already familiar with what you have because I've got the largest dump in Duval County, and it gives me some funds to keep my so don't even talk to them about that fund.

Thank you.

All right, yeah.

All right, no other speakers on the queue.

I appreciate all the the co-sponsors.

Uh so I've got a second motion and second on the bill as amended, open the ballot and record your vote.

Sabanya zero nays by your action you approve 2026 0321.

And my district thanks you.

Item number 14, we've already taken action that takes us to item number 15, 2026 0324.

Can a motion on amendment?

I've got a motion second on amendment, Mr.

Peterson.

Through the chair of the committee, uh, this bill authorizes a reduction in the required private funding capital investment.

Uh so we need to reflect that in the amendment to the redevelopment agreements with this entity down to the seven million dollar number.

All right.

Any speakers on the amendment?

I see none.

So let's list all in favor of the amendment.

Say yay.

Yay.

Any opposed likewise, none.

The amendment carries.

And a motion and second on the bill as amended.

I've got a motion and a second on the bill is amended.

No speakers in the queue.

Open a ballot and record your vote.

Seven yes, your nays.

By your action, you approve 2026, 0324.

Next item 16, 2026, 0327.

Can you get a motion on the substitute?

Okay, a motion, second on the substitute, Mr.

Peterson.

Through the chair of the committee, and the reason this is a substitute rather than the amendment is a rather lengthy uh portion for Ms.

Stephalius and I to take care of later this week.

Should you approve?

So otherwise it would just be a normal amendment, but because of the length of it, we are recommending a substitute.

The first is to attach a revised exhibit one, which is a the BT to correct an account code.

The second, uh, which is the reason for the substitute is include details on the steps taken by the city in making the determination of necessity uh as it relates to uh having to go forward with this project in its form and then go on to eminent domain proceedings if the real estate officer is unable to negotiate agreements with the 17 property owners identified.

Uh it also would include placing applicable survey studies and reports on file as it relates to that determination, and then lastly attaching a listing of those 17 affected properties.

There was a map that's attached, but it's very difficult to identify the property.

So we're laying out the RE numbers of those 17 properties.

All right, Dr.

Salem, you recognize through the chair to Mr.

Peterson.

Are these homes or these vacant pieces of property?

Can you enlighten me at all?

Through the chair to Councilmore Salem, I'm gonna defer to public works.

I did not inspect the properties, just the location of them along Hogan's Creek.

Just curious.

Ahead, Ms.

Hunter.

Good morning.

Um Renee Hunter, Public Works Real Estate.

Um, so we have a list of all the owners and they all appear to be commercial, but I would like the opportunity to go ahead and go through each one, double-check the zoning of all them and see if any of them are actually zoned residential.

So if that's okay, um with this committee, I'd like to follow up on that.

But at first glance, it looks like everything is uh commercial or business owned.

Through the chair to Ms.

Hunter, are they active businesses?

Do you know, or are they just zone commercial?

Uh I uh through the chair to council member Salem.

I don't know offhand, but I can find out for you.

Please.

I mean, if it's an active business, I mean, and you're taking the property, I'm sure that would be a little expensive, but uh you can follow up with me.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

And if I may elaborate, um obviously if it is an active business and they're not willing to negotiate with the city, then business damages as OGC can tell you is definitely a large part of negotiations moving forward.

So all of those things are considerations that are taken into account if we cannot reach a negotiated settlement on these.

All right, thank you.

Let's go to Colonel Miller.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, through the chair to the committee.

Um I just wanted to get thoughts on from a colleagues here on this portion of this ordinance that um takes away city council uh oversight approval for anything exceeding fifty thousand dollars in settlements.

Um, a little uncomfortable with with that part, but maybe there's something I'm missing here, and and I've had businesses come to me previously about eminent domain on the part of some independent organizations that I after the fact found out and was very concerned with that whole process.

Um so I just wanted to get some thoughts, if I may, from other colleagues on removing that that oversight by uh removing that requirement uh above 50,000 for city council approval.

All right, let me real quickly go to Mr.

Peterson to the chair uh to the committee just in context to council member miller's um statements and this just to provide information you make the decision.

Um but as it relates to the negotiation of the purchase price, uh first off funds have to be appropriated, and that's what this bill would do.

Um the city will receive the necessary interest in the real property from the transaction without any incumbents encumbrances negatively affecting the property.

The purchase price can be no more than 125% of the appraisal that real estate will get for each of these parcels.

Uh, the chief of engineering and construction management, along with the director of public works and the general counsel have to find that the purchase of this property is in the best interest of the city.

So there are processes laid out uh for going the down this route.

Then, secondly, just to add additional context, we have done this two times come to mind.

One for old Middleburg, that BJP project where they're widening that from two to four lanes.

That was recently done, and there's another instance that I'm drawing a blank that y'all have approved in the past, uh, knowing that the amounts are there's going to be instances where there that $50,000 amount will be surpassed, and rather than having to come back to council for each individual instance as its own separate piece of legislation, this was a process recommended by OGC, probably in the last two years, but just laying that out before you.

Alright, let me go to uh councilmember bowling.

Thank you, Chair.

So Chair Ms.

Hunter.

Um I guess my question, and I appreciate the fact, and I think I I do uh appreciate Councilmember Miller's concern, but I think you know the my question is whether or not have you done enough work to appreciate the the amount of money requested or appropriated here is going to be sufficient to cover any situation.

Have you had any conversations with any of these property owners yet and get a sense of where they are in this process?

And I realize we don't want to make the number too big because it's gonna be a scramble for those dollars, I'm sure.

Correct.

Um through the chair to council member Boylan, we haven't reached out to any of the owners yet.

Um we're waiting to see whether or not City Council approves of this legislation, and then we would reach out, and when it comes to the settlement amount, that would be something I think OGC could better address.

We have done um just like um Philip had said, we've done old Middleburg Road one, and we're getting we're moving forward on old Middleburg Road two.

Those are I believe two separate pieces of legislation that went before this council.

We also did uh Chafee Road, so all of those had the same language in them to allow us to do essentially 25% above an appraisal and proceed to eminent domain.

So I guess my question then is how did you arrive at the number the 12.6 million dollar number to say that that's gonna be sufficient to do what you need to do here?

Can you speak to that through the chair?

Yes, sir, through the chair to council member Boylan.

So historically, under the Better Jacksonville plan that was done, um, it precedes me and my current staff.

But what was done back then in the engineering division was to take three times the just market value that's on the property appraiser's office website as just kind of a best estimation without wasting money on appraisals that we will then need to purchase appraisals later on because they have become outdated since.

So that's been the methodology that we've been using moving forward.

And actually, the that number comes up to 8.8 million dollars.

So the above and beyond that engineering is looking to do with BT on would have to be answered by them.

But there's it's too early to tell whether or not that's gonna be sufficient to cover everything.

Uh OGC can certainly tell you there's a lot of back and forth when they hire their own attorneys, they get their own appraisals, or significantly higher.

So that's just kind of our best starting point.

Um, so that we can at least figure out a number to submit to this council to ask for the VT so we can get started.

And I do appreciate that through the chair.

Uh I think it's you know understanding that the formula or the process by which you came to this number, I think was very helpful for me to understand the work that's already gone into this, making a determination and have as you said.

Some experience from the uh prior experience helps us to get a better understanding of what this number is.

Thank you.

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Uh Miss Mary, you were on the queue.

You're you're good, Mr.

Peterson.

Okay, good.

All right, so I've got a motion and second on the substitute.

So no other speakers on the substitute, all in favor to substitute, say yay.

Yay.

Any opposed?

Likewise, none.

Substitute carries.

So I can get a motion of second on the bill as substituted.

I've got a motion and second on the bill as substituted.

No speakers in the queue, open the ballot, record your vote.

Six yay, zero and nays.

By your action, you approve 2026 0327.

That takes us to item number 17, 2026 0331.

Can you get a motion on amendment?

I've got a motion second on the amendment.

Mr.

Peterson.

To the chair of the committee.

The amendment's just to correct the effective date of the agreement.

Right.

No speakers on the amendment.

All in favor of the amendment.

Say yay.

Yay.

Any opposed?

Likewise.

None.

Amendment carries.

And motion second on the bill as amended.

I've got a motion and a second on the bill as amended.

No speakers in the queue, open a ballot, record your vote.

Six yay, zero and a's.

By your action approved, 2026, 0331.

Item number 18, 2026, 0332.

I've got a motion second on the bill.

No speakers in the queue.

Open a ballot, record your vote.

Six yay, zero nays.

By your action approved, twenty twenty-six, zero, three, three, two.

Item number nineteen, twenty twenty-six zero three three three.

Can a motion on amendment?

I've got a motion second on the amendment.

Mr.

Peterson.

To the chair to the committee once again just correcting the effective date of the agreement.

All right.

No speakers on the amendment.

Mr.

Bowling, no on the amendment.

On the bill.

All right.

No speakers on the amendment.

All in favor of the amendment say yay.

Yay.

Any opposed likewise.

None.

The amendment carries.

Get a motion second on the bill as amended.

I've got a motion and a second on the bills amended.

Ms.

Councilmember Bowlin, you're recognized.

Thank you.

Chief Mono, come on down real quick.

I know I asked this question probably five years ago, but who is just exactly is the landlord here.

I and the volunteer volunteer fire department, I think, is long since uh expired.

Yeah.

Um first of golden JFRD.

Um through the chair.

Um it is the it's a volunteer fire department station.

Um the issue with um delay on that March deadline.

It was trying to find out who that point of contact was.

Sure.

Find out who that was.

This agreement that we've been doing for years before this.

On the initial agreement, it was in 2021.

But it was one prior to that, but that won't last five years in this one.

I as you might well have expect I've you visited that uh station a number of times.

Is that does it still meet the needs?

Are we looking at an expansion in that area?

I know it's kind of difficult because it's a pretty congested area, but yeah, yeah.

Through the chair, we we've looked at different locations to possibly put a fire stationary area, but as you know, the mandarin area.

Um, it's not much land to find around there, and that's why we've been still doing the same.

It's it's an it's in a great location, great access and a great crew over there.

So I do appreciate the support.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right, no other speakers in the queue.

I've got a motion of second on the bill is amended.

Open a ballot and record your vote.

Seven, yes, zero and nays.

By your action, approved 2026, 0333.

Next item number 20, 2026 0334.

Can a motion on the bill?

I've got a motion second on the bill.

No speakers in the queue.

Open the ballot and record your vote.

7 yes, 0 nays.

By your action, you have approved 2026 0334.

Next item number 20 2026 0335 will be deferred.

Next item number 22, 2026 0336.

I've got a motion second on the amendment, Mr.

Peterson.

Through the chair of the committee, the amendment uh revises section 118107 waiver justification originally approved as part of ordinance 2025 781 to reflect this new project.

Also includes public works as the oversight department for the funding agreement.

Uh the parks department is the oversight for the use agreement.

And then attaches a revised exhibit two, which is the use agreement to reflect this legislation rather than the 2025 legislation that originally set the two million dollars aside.

All right, thank you.

Um Mr.

Gabriel, are you on the amendment?

Um I'm here on the bill itself, but we can talk about the amendment too if that helps.

Okay.

All right, I have no speakers in the queue on the amendment.

All in favor of the amendment, say yay.

Yay.

Any opposed?

Likewise, none.

The amendment carries.

I've got I've got a motion and second on the bill as amended.

Councilman Amaro, you recognized.

Looking at the uh concerns and the auditor recommendations are uh I presume we're gonna move.

Yes, I'm uh jumped ahead of the amendment.

So let's go to the auditors.

Um, I need to get a motion and second on the auditors' recommended amendments.

I've got a motion and a second.

So let me go to Mr.

Peterson on the auditor's recommended amendments.

Through the chair to the committee.

So our uh recommended amendments correlate to our concerns that are listed on the agenda.

Uh the first amendment would be to revise the term sheet to require retainage of 10% of the city funds until the project is completed.

Um, and then also require repayment of the city funds if the project is not completed by uh what is in your filed version as a September 30th, 2028 deadline.

I believe that's being requested to be extended to December 31st of 28.

Um and then secondly, revising the use agreement to do a number of things.

First, extend the term to greater than five years.

Uh the entity is proposing a 10-year agreement.

Uh the majority of cities joint use agreements are 20-year agreements or perpetual agreements.

Uh B.

Providing designated hours for general public use.

Uh Edward Waters is suggesting a 6 a.m.

to 9 a.m.

window on Mondays through Fridays, 6 p.m.

to 9 p.m.

window, Mondays through Fridays, and then a 12 p.m.

to 6 p.m.

window on Sundays.

So that is much more uh expansive than what was originally included in the filed version of the use agreement.

Um allowing the city to require additional insert insurance coverage as approved by the risk management division when this uh term sheet was going through the administration uh risk had originally signed off the version that got filed, risk management would uh like to have additional insurance requirements.

So our recommendation is just to update those uh based on what risk requires, allowing the city to sue for specific specific performance if EW defaults on the use agreement.

So currently, if EWU is in default in the use agreement, it there's a statement that says the city's sole remedy is to terminate the agreement.

We have no other um option.

So allowing for uh suit of specific specific performance would fall in line with other agreements that the city enters into.

And then lastly, uh this was a recommendation from the Office officer general Council.

Was recording the agreement be uh recording the agreement with a clerk of court so that it runs with the title to the land, allowing ensuring that the sit the city and the public had access to those uh facilities while um this agreement is in place.

All right, thank you.

Let me go to council member Clark Murray.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I don't have an issue with any of the things that uh Mr.

Peterson has said.

Um I just at this point we just need to make a motion regarding them, but I imagine that most of you need to do we need to make another, okay.

So through the chair to council member Clark Murray.

So the the auditor recommended amendments have been moved.

The one thing that I would identify is that uh and Mr.

Gabriel is here to speak to this, they've provided some revisions to the uh term sheet for the funding agreement as well as the use agreement that can be taken up as well.

Um the one difference that I Mr.

Peterson highlighted is their initial recommendation on item number one is to um reference the repayment of city funds if the project is not completed by September 30th of 28.

And he indicated EWU is proposing a project completion of December 31st of that year, so you may want to amend the amendment to reflect that date as proposed by EWU to at least address that item and then there may be other items that could be taken up for consideration as well.

Mr.

Chair, you you can take them up as part of this discussion on the auditors recommended amendment.

So to the extent there might be differences, you could take them up as amendments to this.

You can dispose of the auditors' recommended amendments, potentially with or without that one additional change that I recommended, um, but then just recognize that what EWU is proposing may be in conflict with certain aspects of this, and then we would just have to determine kind of the final determination of the committee for the committee amendment at the end.

Okay, all right.

So I thank you because I do have the floor.

So I will um do the chair to Ms.

Popoulos.

The first of the first uh amendment I that's being proposed by the applicant, um I think that's something that we could go ahead and take up, which is the moving the date to 1230 28.

So I meant to uh move to amend the amendment.

All right, I've got a motion and a second on the amendment.

Yes, okay.

And so that's do we need to?

I'm sorry, do we need to vote on that now or just well I uh we we've got a motion and a second on that amendment, so I need to open the floor up for discussion on that amendment.

I'm gonna get I'm gonna go ahead and get off the queue for now.

Okay, so this is on the Clark Murray amendment, Dr.

Salem.

Okay, okay, all right.

No discussion on the Clark Murray amendment, all in favor say yay.

Any opposed, likewise, none.

The Clark Murray amendment carries.

So you're back to the council auditors amendment, the recommended amendment as amended by the Clark Murray amendment.

Correct.

So now we're back on the auditors' recommended amendments.

So do you?

Okay, thank you.

Let me go to Councilman Amor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

On the auditors uh recommended amendment uh through the chair to uh Philip or either uh Mary, is the uh condition number six, a D rather.

Um is that in lieu of a clawback um condition?

Through the chair to council member, it is in addition to a clawback.

So there's language that if they uh fail to use the facility as a track within a 10-year time period, um one tenth will be amortized each year, and so at any point they could owe the city back uh a portion of the funding if they stopped using it as a track.

Um this 2D allows us to um sue them for not holding up their end of the bargain, if you will, as it relates to the use of the track, so allowing the public to have access to it, allowing uh the community wellness events that are supposed to occur and then partnering with two local organizations.

Um right now the city has no um recourse if they're in default of the use agreement.

Thank you.

Just for clarification through the chair.

So is there a provision of a clawback, which would be standard in so many of the the the agreements we've done?

Through the chair to council Mamarrow, the callback is already included in the documents.

All right, thank you.

Let me all right, Ms.

Clark Murray, you're on the queue.

Well, I keep popping back up on the queue really, really fast.

Okay, so um through the chair to just want to make sure, because I I think you just went through all of those items that the changes in regards to this amendment.

I'm just trying to make sure, because this is a this is a tough one, y'all, and I think you all realize that.

So we have through the chair to Mr.

Peterson.

Do you feel that we have all of the protections that we need in regards to this particular project under your auditors' recommended um amendments?

Through the chair to Councilmember Clark Murray, I believe we do.

The one thing that council does or the committee needs to decide on is the term of the use agreement.

So the as filed version was for five years.

Um outside council said that was not long enough to meet a public use requirement.

EWU and Mr.

Gabriel are proposing a 10-year time frame, but I'll point out to you that the majority of the city's joint use agreements are either at a 20-year or a perpetual use agreement.

So that but that is something you will need to weigh in on as it relates to our agreement.

I didn't want to put a specific time year, but it just needs to be longer than five years.

Okay.

Thank you so much for that.

So through the chair to Mr.

Gabriel, good morning.

Go ahead and give your information.

I know I'm sure you know the routine.

Good morning.

Jason Gabriel with Burr Foreman here on behalf of Edward Waters University.

I'm here with Louis Narcisse who's a chief of staff for uh Dr.

Faison, the president, and we have uh Mr.

Sam Newby that I think everyone here knows, former council president.

I appreciate your time.

And um, so specifically my question is in regards to the the use agreement.

So the typically, as Mr.

Peterson said, that we have either it's perpetual or at least 20.

What is the reason for the limited uh number of years as compared to typical agreements with the city?

Um through the chair, I would submit that actually this is not this is not common.

Um this is unique.

So let me give you some examples.

The and so remember what was what was uh actually filed was five years.

We're proposing 10, and you have to look at it as a as a relationship or a nexus between the term and actually the amount, the two million.

So let me give you some examples.

The DIA retail enhancement grants have a time period commitment of three years.

The JU College of Law grant that was given, which by the way was a $6 million loan, which was obviously more than the $2 million that's being offered to EWU, that's 30 months.

Um now there's a 15-year lease requirement on that, but it's a 30 month uh time period commitment.

The Titan Florida NWJ EDF grant, that one is 36 months, the DPRP forgivable loan program, MAG Cafe is a good example, five years.

Um the MN PSG standard appropriations agreement, five years.

The DIA small scale multifamily grant, on average 10 years, which this would be in alignment with, and then TIFF notes typically 10 years.

So we would submit that a $2 million grant over the lifespan of 20 years is is way out of proportion that 10 years would be appropriate.

And if I may, we're in complete agreement with the council auditors um first amendment that you've already passed.

We appreciate that.

We're also in complete agreement with the second amendment that you're talking about with the council auditors, save for two things.

One a 10-year term, and then the last is the auditor recommended amendment E, which is the recordation with a clerk of the courts again, not a standard thing.

We don't want to create a property interest here.

That would actually be contrary to the Greenberg Trying memo that was produced.

Um it shouldn't be recorded.

It's a contractual obligation, not a property one.

So with that, we would be in complete agreement with the council auditors.

Amendments except for don't record it and make it a 10-year term.

And with that, I I appreciate uh any questions you may have.

Thank you so much for that, Mr.

Gabriel.

So, um, with that being said, and for everyone's consideration, I hope that everyone was listening.

I'm looking at y'all faces, y'all not looking like y'all.

But um, so I I agree with the term in terms of discussion.

So the 10 years instead of five.

And I understand what he's comparing is the number of years as compared to the amount because that's where he's looking at the differences.

He did mention some of the agreement terms with other um entities, but we just don't know their dollar amounts, though.

So we can't really we can listen to what he said, but we don't know what the dollar amounts were.

So um it it seems reasonable, but um through the chair to Mr.

Peterson.

Through the chair to Councilmember Clark Murray, um, the instances that Mr.

Gabriel referenced are all economic development incentives, not where the public has access to a place that is being created.

Um I will um add context in 2017.

Uh, this city council approved four million dollars for improvements to the Edward Waters field, um the very nice facility that has a perpetual use agreement in 2004.

The city approved dollars for another Edward Waters improvement, and I'm drawing a blank on exactly what it was for, but it was for a 15-year agreement that extended on a year by year basis that could only be terminated by the city.

So in effect, it acted like a perpetual agreement.

So for and then the city has plenty of joint use agreements with the Duval County School Board that are uh perpetual until either party for whatever reason um needs to come to the negotiating table.

But um those instances are not Apple, this it's apples and oranges, if if you will.

Right.

Thank you so much for that.

Um Chair, at this time I'm going to allow this to be discussed with the other committee members.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Now let me go to Dr.

Salem.

Thank you, Chair.

Through the chair to uh Mr.

Gabriel, I'm comfortable with the 10 year, I think that's reasonable based on the dollar amount.

Can you again explain the the clerk of the court issue?

Sure.

Um again, not a common thing to record what is really a grant uh or economic incentive here.

Um, but I'll tell you the reason why, substantially.

Um, and again, putting aside the fact that I do not believe that was imposed on JU, it was not imposed on UNF, it was not imposed on FSCJ, it was not imposed on NEFPA, it was not imposed on WIT.

But putting that aside for a minute based on just the merits of it, access to commercial financing uh markets is a particularly acute concern for a historically black college, and so we do not want anything, any encumbrance that's unnecessary on the title that'll have to be explained any time EWU is going for a refinancing, and it will come up because it's a unique type of encumbrance.

I I deal with title stuff all the time, and this is a sort of thing that'll require oh, what is this uh encumbrance of this use grant agreement?

What does it mean?

And honestly, all for it's a lot of money, two million dollars, but all for two million dollars.

So, with that, we would ask that this not be recorded, that there's no benefit and burden.

This is a a purely contractual interest here, not a property one, and we'd be creating a pro a property interest if we were to record it.

Okay, just for the sake of moving this forward, and we'll see where the votes are.

I'll make a motion that we make it at 10 years and remove uh uh one uh two e from the agreement or potential agreement.

Okay, we got a motion, a second so I've got a motion and a second on the Salem amendment.

Let me go to Colonel Miller on the Salem Amendment.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

On the Salem Amendment, I wanted to go back to uh Mr.

Peterson.

You've you've heard the a couple of comments about um that Mr.

Gabriel has talked about not wanting to impose this on Edward Waters um as far as filing or recording it with the clerk of courts.

What what are your comments?

Wanted to give you an opportunity before we vote on uh the Salem motion.

Absolutely.

Through the chair to Councilman Miller, can I ask John Sawyer to come up?

I saw him make his way forward?

He's the one I had many discussions with him re regarding this use agreement, and he's the he brought it up and probably more appropriate to talk about that concept than myself.

All right, Mr.

Sawyer.

John Sawyer off the owner counsel through the chair.

Um I I would like to clarify the the other grants being referenced or complete apples and oranges, it doesn't relate at all to this agreement where capital dollars are being spent, and the analysis that we're trying to satisfy is Article 7, Section 10, where you cannot pledge or lend the credit of the city without a valid public purpose.

That's why the use agreement becomes necessary because simply supporting the project when it's not an economic development agreement doesn't satisfy that prong.

That's why our recommendation has been for the 20-year term to have a sufficient use right so that we're not in jeopardy to the extent we are sued, what a court may determine.

Twenty years is better than a 10-year term, and it's our recommendation.

With regard to the restrictive covenant, that's in line with how the two prior agreements this recipient has entered into, the primary protection of that is in year three or whatever it may be.

They sell to a special purpose entity who is now a different property owner.

The obligation doesn't flow to that property owner, and we've lost the benefit of the bargain.

If a lender has a problem, they can come, we can do it, they can subordinate to our restrictive covenant right.

We can discuss things, but again, even if a lender forecloses, you want that right to remain and flow with the track improvements.

And it's the only thing that restricted covenant will attach to are the track improvements.

So that's why that element is important because otherwise it simply allows our use rights to go away and we do not receive the benefit of the bargain.

All right, Colonel Miller, you had the floor.

Okay.

So let me go to uh councilman tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Mrs.

Sawyer, would you come back up, please?

Um, I am um one of the things that I take uh uh seriously is my fiduciary responsibility as an elected official to uh safeguard our tax dollars, my tax dollars.

I pay taxes like everyone else.

Um I am uh I am comfortable with um the recommended amendments from the um auditor's office.

My question to you, sir, and you just said it.

I just wanted some clarity.

Uh is OGC, you've reviewed the agreement.

Are you now satisfied with the public purpose threshold being met?

Not without a 20-year term, and we ran everything by Greenberg and they agreed the 10-year term we do not feel is long enough.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Let me go to Councilmember Clark Murray.

Thank you, Chair.

Only I I don't have a question, Mr.

Sawyer, because I read through this and I know you do excellent work.

Um so I'm so glad that you brought up why, because that is the main reason why the extension of the, in a sense, the perpetual um instead of 10 years, the perpetual agreement, and why does it need to be uh recorded with the clerk of court because if that's not done, then the community, so remember this is so that the community has access to the track.

If they don't have access, then once again, we don't have the the portion of our agreement that we benefit from, we don't have it.

So this is for access to the track for the community, and so and it protects us once again.

If the property changes hands, then that agreement continues with the community.

So with that being said, thank you so much, Mr.

Sawyer, for clarifying because I need it to you to say that again, and I'm hoping that you're listening to that part.

It's not about the the necessary the amount of time, it's not necessarily about the recording itself, but it's once again, this is like a a contract between EW and the community.

This continues to give the community access to the chat because that is what we are bargaining for with EWU.

All right, thank you, Chair.

All right, thank you.

Let me go to Councilmember Bowlin.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, if I direct this to Councilman Salem, it might suggest that we split the amendment because I'm comfortable with the 10 years, but I'm not necessarily comfortable with uh l losing the opportunity if the property gets transferred.

So I know Ms.

Stefopoulos, if you would help me out here to uh amend the amendment to uh uh speak initially to the 10 year term.

Through the chair to council member uh Boylan.

So you can only have one amendment to an amendment on the floor at any given time.

So my recommendation is if there's a desire to split them, either Mr.

Dr.

Salem can withdraw his amendment to the amendment and you can take them up individually, or you can deny the amendment to the amendment and then somebody could move just the one portion of the proposal.

That's why I defer.

All right, I'd like to go ahead and make uh since that amendment has been withdrawn is to amend uh the the auditor's recommended amendments to a 10 year term.

Um and look for a second.

Um I got a motion in a second on the bowl in a minute.

And through through the uh through the chair to Mr.

Gabriel or the maybe perhaps the chief of staff of uh EW to speak to this.

So we're looking at a 10-year habit that's gonna be put into place and and the likelihood of EW wanting to continue that relationship, because I assume at that point in time there'll be some established relationships with respect to the use of the of the facilities.

Can you speak to the viability of the uh you continuing that relationship, the public access or public use beyond the 10 year point?

Sure, I'll let uh Ms.

Narcisse answer that, but um just to respond real quick, I don't want it to be lost on anyone, I'm sure it's not, that regardless of the property encumbrance recordation issue, this is a contractual enforceable obligation in the contract.

So regardless of whether this contract is a is recorded or not, that enforceable obligation.

That's a separate matter.

We'll talk about that in a minute.

So I'm just I'm interested in making certain that there's an interest, an active interest on the part of EW to continue the relationships and public use beyond the 10 years.

Good morning, Louis Narcisse Chief of Staff of President Faison.

Thank you.

Um Edward Waters College at Waters University has been in the same place for over a hundred years.

It is not our intent to remove ourselves from the community.

In fact, it is our intent to continue the relationship as Mr.

Grabriel already shared.

That is a contractual agreement, but we have been in this community and our goal is to remain in the community.

And you would continue to provide access beyond the 10 years, I expect of this.

The expectation is that we are in our community and we will continue to provide the services necessary for our community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Alright, so I've got a amendment on the floor, the Bowling amendment, and Dr.

Salem, you're all for it.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

If you would get back in the queue right after that.

All right.

Uh Councilman Amorrow, you're in the queue.

Gabriel.

Oh, just I heard Mrs.

Sawyer said through the chair a second ago that Greenberg was okay with 20.

You're advocating 10.

Uh why is there uh a difference of agreement?

Uh I know Greenberg was uh representing the uh the university, so without getting into the roots of why Greenberg even opined in this situation, which I didn't see any opinion on any other agreement here.

Um 20 years is a I you know I say this respectfully, a manufactured embellishment.

Um there's no nothing in Supreme Court law that says public use, you need 20 years on a 20 on a two million dollar grant or others.

So to me, 20 years is a completely manufactured arbitrary sliding scale of obligation.

10 years is wholly appropriate, it's completely in line with other things you've done, and certainly in alignment with a two million dollar grant.

So the 20 years I have to say is is a manufactured embellishment.

Through the chair, I'm not trying to be facetious here.

You've made reference several times to the dollar amount.

If this was a 20 million or 200 million, would 20 year be as offensive, then.

It it very well may be.

It very well may not.

It depends.

Through the chair, I I don't I can't answer that right now hypothetically, but really uh I would say that there's absolutely a relationship, a nexus between the amount of the loan and the and the years is plenty sufficient, and it's actually four times more than the JU uh law school grant that was given with a 30 year or I'm sorry, a 30 month uh time period.

All right, thank you.

Councilmember Clark Murray.

Thank you, Chair.

Through the chair to the committee.

So I hear you saying 10 years, but I want you to think about the community.

10 years.

I've been where I live for almost 30 years.

I would if I had a track such as the one that I had access would have access to, I would like it to be there in a sense all the time, all the time that I'm living in the community.

Remember, think about the people who live in the community.

Not about us, not about an agreement, but the people who live in a community.

10 years.

10 years.

Most people live in their homes for at least 30.

So you're shedding, you're cutting like one giving them like one third of the time that they would spend in their home, access to this track.

Remember, it's about the community and the access that the community should have, not us.

The access the community should have.

And so, of course, with that being said, I am going to be in opposition to the 10 year.

I am it, I am for it being perpetual, or at least 20 years.

Because once again, the community needs to have access.

That's what we're bargaining for.

Thank you, Chair.

All right.

Thank you.

Uh the other salon, you're back.

Mr.

Gabriel, can you come forward please through the chair?

I'm gonna try to mix these two to some extent.

Where is the track located on the campus?

What where will it be located on the campus?

Is it part of the core campus?

It'll be on Pierce.

It'll be on the on Pierce Street.

So Kings turn on Piers.

Have any of you all visitor?

Is that near the I'm sorry?

Is that near the football stadium?

It actually will be like two blocks away from the uh football stadium.

It'll be right next to our student union building, so it'll be centrally located.

It will actually be down if you're down going down King's Road, you turn right on Piers.

Okay.

I I'm familiar with Pierce.

So it is in the center of campus, so to speak, this track will be.

Yes.

Okay.

So what I'm trying to demonstrate is that the particularly for this clerk of the court part, it's it's not like they're gonna it there seems to be a concern about this thing being sold or or being picked up by another entity and a track that's in the middle of campus.

I I fail to understand what's gonna happen to it.

It's it's gonna be there, I would think in pertuity, but I understand that the desire to limit that time frame, so um I'll support the 10-year as as my colleague, and then hopefully we can address the second issue.

Thank you.

Let me go to Colonel Miller.

Through the chair, I just want to ask Mr.

Peterson what was that one option you talked about before that that was already in agreement on another issue with Edward Waters University that allows for one-year extensions.

Um, I I just I listened to um councilwoman Clark Murray, and and she kept going back to this is about the people of Northwest Jacksonville and Newtown residents and their access.

And if at the point of 10 years as it is right now, after 10 years, and the decision is made, no more access, that's where we are.

And if that's a decision, um we can say what we intend to do or how much we support the residents of the community and and place their health as very important to us, but that's just a statement right now, unless we have that in writing.

So I was looking for what was that option you mentioned that's already in place with another agreement with Edward Waters University?

Through the chair to Councilmember Miller, so this was a 2004 agreement.

Um for they were constructing a gymnasium and arena called a multi-purpose facility, and the term of the agreement.

I I apologize, I said 15 years, it was uh through 2015, but it was a 10-year agreement that automatically renewed year to year unless terminated by the city.

Thank you.

Through the chair, and I know there's another uh something else in being considered right now, but I to me that seems to be a good place to be.

Um, and and that would be my preference because it ensures that this happens, but otherwise, this all potentially could stop and those residents that councilwoman Clark Murray talked about, could get used to for 10 years using that track, and then the decision could be made by people, new people at that point, to not allow that access anymore.

Is that is that correct?

Uh Mr.

Peterson through the chair.

Through the chair, as long as the city kept the agreement in place, the community would continue to have access under that scenario.

Through the chair, but not if it's just 10 years.

Through the chair to council, you're correct.

After that 10-year period, there's no requirement for Edward Waters to provide community access.

All right.

So we have no other speakers in the queue.

We've got a motion and a second on the boiling amendment.

Ms.

Murray, can you explain the bowling amendment?

Yes, uh, through the chair to the committee.

So the boylan amendment to the council auditor recommended amendments would require that the use agreement would have a 10-year term.

So that speaks to item 2A on the auditor recommended amendments where it provides for extending the term to greater than five years.

There's been discussion of various numbers, 10 years is what Boylan's amendment to the amendment is proposing for that item.

All right.

Thank you, Chair.

Through the chair to Mr.

Fopoulos.

Thinking about the considering the language that uh council member Miller just mentioned, can we amend the Boylan amendment to include that language?

Through the chair to Councilmember Clark Murray.

So you have an amendment to the amendment already pending.

So my recommendation would be is the same as I recommended before on the Salem amendment to the amendment, which is you could Mr.

Boylan could withdraw his amendment motion and you could reconfigure it, or you could vote it down and then propose an additional amendment to the amendment which provides for the 10-year term with that additional language included that was being discussed with Councilmember Miller.

Thank you so much for that.

So with that being said, um, through the chair to Councilmember Boylan, if you would consider what Ms.

Devopoulos just said.

With all due respect, I'm not gonna withdraw my amendment.

I think it's a reasonable number, 10 years is more than sufficient to get us to where we need to be.

So I'm not withdrawing my amendment.

We need to vote on it.

Thank you for that.

But once again, council members, if you consider through the chair to the committee members, what council member Miller mentioned would give us what we what I think the community would like since we're focusing on the 10 years, the additional language would continue to give them access unless terminated by the city.

Thank you, Chair.

All right, Miss Mary.

Uh through the chair to Councilmember Clark Murray.

The other option is that you all can take up the boiling amendment, and if you wanted to move that as a separate item, you could still do that.

It's not in conflict with the boiling amendment, it's an addition to so you could offer that as a subsequent amendment to the amendment if you so choose.

Okay, through the chair to Mr.

Fopoulis.

So what you're saying is that we can vote on the boiling amendment, and then I can propose another the additional language as a separate amendment.

That's a separate.

Absolutely, thank you.

All right, Dr.

Salem.

All the questions, questions called.

Point of order.

Can we call the question in a committee?

Through the chair to council member Clark Murray?

It's not traditional, however, the rules don't indicate that it's only specific to council meetings that you can call the previous question.

All right.

Well, I've got the questions called.

Actually, there is no other speakers in the queue, but all in favor of the question that's called, raise your hand.

So it passes.

So there is on the boiling amendment.

There's no other speakers in the queue.

I've got a motion and a second on it.

All in favor say yay.

Yay.

Any opposed?

None.

Motion.

Nay.

I got one nay.

So the motion carries.

So I've got a Miss Mary.

Mr.

Chair, would you like me to put you all in the posture that you're currently in?

Um so what you are currently the posture that you're currently in is now you're taking up the auditor's recommended amendments that are identified on your agenda with two changes or two alterations.

The first being to item one that the um completion date has been changed to December 31st, 2028.

And then with respect to item two A, you have established that the term of the use agreement would be 10 years.

So you're taking up the amendment with those two modifications.

All right.

So Ms.

Clark Murray, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Don't get weary, guys.

Don't get weary.

So uh I would like to propose uh an amendment, and then that amendment to add language in regards to the 10 years um access for the community, that we include that the language that was mentioned earlier by Mr.

Um Peterson in regards to the agreement um continuing automatically, um, unless uh terminated by the city.

All right, I've got a motion and a second on the Clark Murray amendment.

Any discussions, Dr.

Salem.

I don't understand the Clark Murray amendment.

So it is it's essentially in pituity, even though we just voted on 10 years.

Okay.

I I just wanted to make sure that I understood what the amendment was.

Thank you.

All right.

No other, okay.

Councilmember Clark Murray.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Through the chair to Mr.

Fopoulos, go ahead, because I think you were about to explain a little um more.

Thank you.

Through the chair to Councilmember Clark Murray.

I was just prepared to address councilmember Salem's question.

He is correct, it could go on into perpetuity.

Um, the other option that the committee can discuss is if you wanted if this is approved, or if this is continued to be discussed, you can also address whether or not you want to establish a cap on years of the automatic renewal.

So you could get to the 20 years, having a 10-year set term with automatic renewals for one year increments up to a total of 20 years, and then you know, you you kind of you reach that 20-year point that was identified by the Office of General Counsel in consultation with the uh Greenbird Trick with respect to really solidifying the public purpose and looking at the totality of factors with respect to that analysis.

That's where that 20 years came from.

So it's another opportunity to get to that 20 years.

Thank you, Mr.

Popoulus.

Do the chair.

I think I still have the floor.

So thank you so much for that, Mr.

Popoulos.

But I will say once again, remember it's about the community, those have in the community having access to the track.

Thank you.

All right, no, okay, yep.

Councilmember Morrow.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Chair.

Through the chair to uh council member uh Clark Murray.

Would you be amenable to uh two automatic renewals?

To your amendment through the chair to council member Omaro, that would be put us at about that 30 years.

And I I would be because typically to me that's once again thinking about home ownership, mortgages, living in the community, wanting to have access, and just being able to do basic things such as exercise and enjoy one's life in the community.

I would be, but if we needed to add that in the language, but once again, it's up to the city.

They can renew or not renew.

So I think the language as stated earlier is sufficient.

Thank you.

Uh through the chair.

I think given the fact that the city has a draw that at the end of 10 years they can say we no longer need this.

It seems fair and reasonable, satisfied and satisfying some of the uh concerns that have been raised from the general counsel's office, and therefore I would like to move an amendment to the amendment uh for two automatic if that's the proper posture.

Through the chair to council member Amaro, so um what we have an amendment to the amendment already pending, so uh you would need to wait and you can offer that separately.

But since the if council member Clark Murray wanted to revise her amendment to the amendment, she could with leave of the committee.

But from my understanding, I just want to make sure I I'm clear on what you're suggesting, which is two automatic renewals of the full 10 year term.

So it would thus be 30 years total without any further renewals after that point is what you're proposing.

Okay.

So that is in conflict with I think what council member Clark Murray is proposing, which is 10 years, one year automatic renewals at the city's determination, which could be perpetual rather than 30 years total.

I think that the committee would just have to determine whether or not it supports one or the other and vote accordingly.

To the chair uh to council member Omaro, I will not amend my amendment.

Thank you.

All right, Councilmember Bowlin.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh Mr.

Gabriel, if you wouldn't mind coming up.

If um we keep hearing about the importance of this for the community, what's the likelihood of EWU moving forward with these plans without the two million dollars?

I'd have to pose that to EWU.

I just want everyone to remember EWU has been there since 1866.

But uh I'll pass that along to the staff.

I think it's important to appreciate that you know, obviously, maybe the chief of staff can speak to how important these two million dollars is to the project and the viability of the project continuing without it.

Um thank you so much for your question.

Again, our institution is in the middle of a community who is asking and in need of access to more um equitable access to health.

Uh, we will continue to move forward to ensure that our community has that access.

I will bring your question back to President Faison.

Um, what I will say is that it is a dire need for our community to have access to something that um other institutions across the city have.

And while I have you through the chair, uh what is the overall investment for the development of this pro of this track?

It's four million dollars.

Four million total.

So we're probably 40 million dollars.

So yeah, that's that was kind of my point.

What we're asking us to do to support the community is to contribute 20 two million dollars with a 40 million dollar investment.

So I think the terms that we're we are at right now with respect to uh the 10-year term, I think is reasonable.

Secondly, as you said, it's gonna be here in perpetuity, so I I don't even know why item number E is it should be even concerned for all of you, recognizing you have no interest or intention of selling this property in time soon.

So, uh the clerk or court piece, I think I'm supportive of the amendment offered by the auditors, but with respect to this, and then let's keep it at 10 years.

Let them get it built.

Let people have access to it.

I am fully convinced that over the course of those 10 years, the relationships that we're built, the use will not be limiting the the neighbors' access to it after thereafter.

I think putting it in a situation where we make it in perpetuity is just really far too much for what we are investing in this project.

All right, thank you.

Let me go back to council member Clark Murray.

Thank you, Chair.

Once again, focus on the community and think about if you live there and having access.

And I'm gonna give you a specific through the chair a specific example.

And my my goal is not to besmudge EWU, but Success Park.

Success Park is a park that is um that the city had an agreement with EWU in regards to taking care of it, to um maintaining it, and EWU failed on its part to do that.

How do I know?

Because it used to be in my district until we had redistricting, and I've been out there on multiple occasions to clean it up to fix it up.

In fact, had worked with the parks department um to move some funds that was at a park that was bought by an entity, and we had funds in the account for district nine, and I've allocated those funds to fix that park because it had been burned down, and it didn't work out because of some issues with EWU.

So I'm trying to give you an instance in which they don't always in the past, they have not lived up to those agreements that we've made with them.

So once again, it is not a community that I'm unfamiliar with.

It's midwest side.

That's what it's called, Midwest Side.

Grandparents lived there for 40 plus years.

This their home is still there.

I'm very familiar with Flag Street apartments that that community.

I've walked it, I've helped clean it up.

And I'm telling you, they would appreciate having this agreement for the lifetime of their for lifetime for a lifetime, not just themselves, but their children and their children's children, meaning the grandbabies.

So don't limit it.

Let's just keep that original that that language that I mentioned earlier.

Thank you.

If I may add, go ahead, I'm sorry.

No problem.

Thank you so much.

Um Councilmember Clark Murray.

It is my understanding.

While I am new to Edward Waters University, is my understanding that Success Park University were at that time the college provided the land to the um to the city.

That is my understanding.

However, what I do want to make clear is that our institution again has been in that community for over a hundred years.

It has continued to provide services to that community over a hundred years, whether we have a contractual agreement with the city, because that is our purpose in our institution.

So I just wanted to make sure that's um cleared.

Thank you.

Alright, thank you.

Um I'd like to recognize Councilmember Joe Carlucci has joined us here.

And just reminder of everybody, we're still on the auditor's amendment.

Uh, so we still got to get to the bill.

So the next next one in the queue is uh Councilman Miller, Chief Colonel Miller, and then it'd be Dr.

Salem.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Chair through the chair.

And I'm gonna I'm gonna ask this because it was part of what went into us getting here, just so I understand, and then and then I'm I'm through, I'm ready to vote.

Um I hear the commitments for the community, and I've heard it and I know the existence of Edward Browners University and the history there is amazing.

Um what I wanted to ask about is though there were negotiations that went on for some time between the city and Edward Waters University, and one of the key parts of the negotiations were trying to get community access to this track.

Um but it was my understanding that was not accepted a number of times.

And so if anybody could speak to that, I'd I'd like to I'd like to hear about that because that does speak to the core of what we're hearing.

We don't need to make these adjustments.

Let's go with 10 years.

Um we will continue to support the access when it was my understanding.

The access was was never supported until this latest uh legal um opinion was filed.

If whoever would like to speak to that, that would be great, and then, like I said, I'm then I'm through.

Thank you very much.

To the chair to Colonel Miller.

I'll let Luz speak to the actual negotiations itself if you want to be edified on that.

But I will say, and we're happy to this language has actually been provided to OGC and the council auditors, but we have created I suspect this was part of that conversation and negotiation, a whole provision on community access windows with times for access to the facilities that are being funded.

So that's definitely embedded in this agreement, but um I'll let lose uh piggyback on that.

Um thank you so much for a question, council member uh Miller.

Through the negotiations, one of our major concerns where we were being asked as an institution to provide things that other institutions were not being provided upon, including that.

So we stood ground on it and we actually waited uh I believe quite a few months to receive um factual evidence as to why we were being asked for something that other institutions were not being asked, particularly since we were only asking for a very minute amount of dollars.

So I just wanted to provide that um clarity, and then as Mr.

Gabriel already shared with you, we went ahead and provided a total of 36 hours as it was documented Monday through Friday, 6 to 9, 6 6 to 9 a.m., 6 p.m.

to 9 p.m.

And then on Sundays from 12 p.m.

to 6 p.m.

And again, in that same language, it states of course that if we have athletic events or if we have events that aren't priority to our university, that would take precedence.

However, we are more than welcome and open to work with our community.

In fact, for many of the locations that you all have mentioned, like at the Adams Jenkins um complex, we are right now working with the community to host various events this summer.

The same thing for our Nathaniel Glover stadium.

So through the chair, um you all were asked to provide access to the track to the uh Northwest Jacksonville and a new town residents in those negotiations, but you said you would not do that.

That's correct.

Thank you, Council Member Miller.

That is not what I stated.

What I stated was that during the conversations, we were being asked to provide an uh an insorment amount of uh items outside of the timing for access, and we wanted to understand the reasoning behind it.

We never said we would not.

What we wanted to understand is why were we being asked not only about the access to the community, but other items as well.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Let me go to Dr.

Salem.

Thank you, Chair.

In the spirit of compromise, we uh through the chair to Ms.

Stepopoulos.

We have a tenure agreement presently.

We voted on that amendment, correct?

Through the chair, yes.

You voted to establish a 10-year term for the use agreement.

Okay, I'm gonna move E.

Well, you currently have the Clark Murray amendment to the amendment on the floor with the additional year renewals.

I didn't I apologize whenever that's done if you'll come back to me.

All right.

Thank you.

Let me go to uh council member uh, thank you.

Um I just wanted to make commentary on the dollar amount because what I've heard thus far is uh the reference has been to the size of the money, and as if it's an relatively insignificant amount, uh it's two million, and uh I don't want anyone to trivialize or minimize the fact that it may not be 200 million, it is still two million, and so it is a significant dollar amount that we have to consider if we're gonna make the right decision, and and and I don't think the decision should be based on whether it's two or two hundred, it should be based on is it the right thing to do.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

So now let me go.

Uh Ms.

Mary, did you want to?

Oh, all right, thank you.

Let me reach over to Mr.

Delaney.

Thank you, Chair, and through the chair to the body, I wanted to uh clarify the administration's position here in reference to uh Councilmember Miller's uh questions.

Uh I will say that uh the administration worked uh incredibly hard to come to an agreement.

Um, this joint use agreement is something that's was also required of the two other colleges that got similar money.

We were able to come to agreements with them.

Um Edward Waters is uh needing the money a bit earlier, uh which is you know why we're you know this is coming up.

Uh unfortunately, we were not able to come to that agreement.

We've always been supportive of the project in principle.

In fact, we had it in the budget last year, uh, but uh without that agreement, um, you know, we now leave it as a policy decision for the council to make.

All right, so uh we've got the Clark Murray amendment on the floor right now.

Uh I guess Miss Ms.

Mary, will you explain this amendment so we make sure everybody's clear?

Yes, sir.

So the amendment to the amendment would provide that um the 10-year term would be for the use agreement would be subject to automatic one-year renewals unless terminated by the city.

All right, thank you.

So I have no other speakers in the queue.

I would just like to uh finally add that um yes, I I understand it's just two million dollars this into an overall project, but you know, if you add up all the hours of the week that that there is, and it's uh we're only asking for 36 hours that we're we're not asking for full access, it's just a 36 hours uh portion uh in a seven-day period.

So I don't see any any uh I guess big problem with uh just uh make make it with uh supporting Clark Murray's amendment uh to get this moving forward.

So with that, uh I'll go ahead and we've got the Clark Murray amendment.

I got a motion and a second on it.

All in favor say yay.

Yes, yay.

Any opposed?

Let's do a hand hand vote.

All in favor of the Clark Murray amendment.

Raise your hand.

All right, all opposed.

Amendment passes.

Okay.

Would you like me to just address where the committee is now, Mr.

Chair?

Right, we're on the auditor's amendment twice, twice amended.

As three times amended, Mr.

Chair.

You uh had the new and date for the completion of construction of 1231 28.

You have the 10-year term for the use agreement, and you have now added that one-year automatic renewal to the term of the use agreement.

So you're back to the auditor's recommended amendment as amended by those three items.

All right, so we're at the we're back to the auditors recommended amendment, and Dr.

Salem I got you in the queue, I was gonna offer a compromise based on the first one uh going the other way.

I I'm no longer gonna do that because that's not a compromise, that's a capitulation.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

All right, I have no other speakers on the queue on the auditors recommended amendments.

Oh, Dr.

Mr.

Mr.

Bowling.

Thank you, Mr.

Jair.

I I um I I still have some angst and I'm not crazy about how we just landed on the the term, if you will, but to require the agreement to be required with the clerk of court, and I appreciate Mr.

Sawyer's comments, but as we heard, the university has been there for a hundred years.

This piece particular parcel they're looking to build on is deeply embedded within it.

So I I don't know that it's even necessary, but the prospect of them turning this property over any time in the foreseeable future, and now this being perpetual, uh, this really burdens them greatly for a long period of time.

Uh they are now forced until we tell them otherwise to have provide that kind of access to the property, and then we're gonna turn around and make sure that that this it's encumbered thereafter uh with this on here.

So I would like to offer an amendment to exclude item E as part of the auditor's amendment.

Look for a second.

All right, I've got a motion and a second on the Bowens amendment, and let me go to Ms.

Mary.

Thank you through the chair to the committee.

So I just want to interplay the I wanna address the interplay between this and what you all, the action that you just took with respect to the use agreement.

So, yes, the committee currently has an amendment on the floor that provides that the use agreement will have a term of 10 years, subject to automatic one-year renewals until unless terminated by the city.

This provision ensures that by recording it with the clerk of court, that any subsequent owner would also be subject to that use agreement, such that if they were to even create a subsidy organization, subsidiary organization might still be under the Edward Waters University umbrella, but there's a transfer of ownership, it could be through sale or donation.

That use agreement ceases regardless of where it is in the term, unless it's recorded against the land and to ensure that any organization, subsidiary, brand new, et cetera, is obligated to abide by the use agreement.

So in two years, regardless of the term that you've set for the use agreement, if they transfer the ownership of that property, they are no longer subject to the use agreement.

The new owner would not be obligated to honor it unless it's recorded with the clerk of court.

All right.

Councilman Morrow.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, Mrs.

Sawyer, uh, if you will.

Um I I don't believe this institution is going anywhere, and that that's not I'm not concerned about that at all.

Um my question through the chair to Mrs.

Sawyer, why is this condition necessary?

And and has this condition been applied to other uh use agreements with any other entity, whether it's uh public or private, John Sawyer office general counsel through the chair to the council member.

Yes, it has.

Um, most recently, the Jacksonville Classical Academy has a recordable joint use agreement.

And again, Mr.

Gabriel said it's a contractual issue, it is in part currently there are broad assignment rights, and so all we're trying to do is close a loophole where Edward Warders can decide in the future, they just want to terminate the use agreement by, for example, assigning the agreement to an entity that doesn't own the property, that eliminates the use right.

If for some reason they chose to convey it to a single purpose entity that they controlled, that destroys the use agreement.

So the goal of the restrictive covenant is that it always travel with title to the land, meaning that the use rights are always tied to ownership, which is maximum protection to the city.

That's the purpose of that.

Through the chair, and how recent was the application with Jacksonville Classic Academy, which which one of their campus of both?

I can't speak to the location.

It was originally authorized, I believe, in 23, and that document was recently signed after completion of the project.

With the uh with the Ash site, okay.

Thank you.

I I'm sorry, Chair, I didn't mean to crosstalk.

I apologize.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just a quick question because we're in the sports lane and we know um so many things are happening in this world with NIL with foundations.

Uh many years ago, there were five institutions in our country that had their own foundations.

University of Florida, Ohio State, Texas, where those entities, and in Florida at that time, it was they had like a 60 billion, 60 million dollar budget.

So my just thought process to put out to you all is more of if there were like a sports foundation started, would that then now inherit the ownership as opposed to the institution?

I I see exactly where you all go on.

I think I mean I don't have a position on it at all, but that just kind of brought up my thought when I'm looking at where we're going with the sports entities with private equity companies coming in and purchasing a lot of these sports um programs at these universities.

So just wanted to put that out there just to make sure that that is something that is considered um as you're tracking through the conversation.

Thank you.

Okay, uh no one else is on the queue, but I'm gonna wait till Mr.

Gay gets back.

We'll pause for 30 seconds so he won't miss this and see where he wants to go from there.

So just Mr.

Miller, you're now on the queue.

Go ahead.

Do you mind?

Yeah, through the chair.

I just would you answer that then.

I guess since past President Freeman brought that up, uh Ms.

Stepopoulos or Mr.

Peterson, please.

So through the chair to Councilmember Miller, I think this goes back to what Mr.

Sawyer had indicated, which is if they were to have such a foundation be created for the sports programming, and there's an assignment of the use agreement or a transfer of the land in the use agreement that's the subject of the use agreement, the facilities that are the subject of the use agreement, then there would no longer be a requirement absent 2e where it's required required to be recorded that that sports foundation or organization honor the use agreement with the city.

All right, Dr.

Salem.

Thank you, Chair.

Through the chair to Miss Mary, the Clark Murray amendment mentioned the city would have to terminate, correct?

And that is correct.

And is that the fine city for me?

Is that the city council?

Uh no, no, not necessarily.

So once it's a contractual right, um, I don't know I don't think that that is something that would be required to come back to the city council.

It would just if the executive branch were to terminate it, unless you made it subject to council approval, it would not come back to council.

I'd like to do that.

I'd like an amendment that well once once um we've addressed the boylan amendment, then you can offer that, Mr.

Salem.

Okay.

The boiling amendment, I'm sorry, is to remove two remove E.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

All right.

So the bowling amendment would be removing the uh filing.

Correct.

It would remove the two E requirement as listed under the auditor recommended amendment that the agreement, the use agreement be recorded with the clerk of court.

All right.

No other speakers in the queue.

We'll go ahead and take a hand vote on this.

All in favor of the bowling amendment, raise your hand.

Any opposed to the bowl amendment, raise your hand.

So the bowling amendment moves forward.

So now, Dr.

Salem.

I'd like the approval from the Clark Murray amendment where it's one be uh concurrence by the city council or approved by the city council.

I've got a motion and second on the Salem approval of the city council.

No speakers in the queue, so council member.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh through the chair to uh Mrs.

Salem.

Uh, why do you feel it's necessary to come back to the legislative body?

Mr.

Marr, we're a co-equal branch of this government.

We have worked on all these uh university agreements, and I'd like to see it come back to the city council.

And through the chair to Mrs.

Salem, UF, J U, those have the same stipulation.

I have no idea.

I don't know that they've that that we have put the constraints on those as we are with this one, frankly.

Through the chair to Councilmember, the JU agreement does not have a city termination because it's with the city doesn't have or the public doesn't have access to the site.

As it relates to the UF agreement.

There were so many details in that agreement.

I'd I'll be happy to look into that and report back, but I don't recall off the top of my head.

Thank you, uh Philip.

Uh, through the chair.

Just a matter of curiosity because the reality is uh we ain't gonna be here.

Uh uh should something occur in five, ten, fifteen, twenty years.

Uh, and and the legislative body then uh different composition.

Um knowledge, so I I I don't know if if it's necessary to outs the reason.

My question can I respond to that?

In years from now, we're gonna have a different mayor as well.

And I I'd rather have a debate amongst 19 if there's an issue than one person, frankly.

No, all right.

So I have no other speakers in the queue on the Salem amendment to come back to city council.

Let's do this by hand.

All in favor, raise your hand.

With that, the amendment moves forward.

So now we've got the auditor amendment.

Mr.

Chair, would you like me to go back over it?

Or do you are you comfortable?

It's the auditor's recommended amendment subject to the five changes that were discussed and debated by the committee.

Correct.

We we don't need to go back through it.

So we've got five five amendments to the auditors' recommended amendment.

No other speakers in the queue.

All in favor of the auditor's recommended amendment, raise your hand.

You're now back to the auditor's recommended amendment as modified or amended by the committee five times.

So you would have the auditor's recommended amendment with a change to the construction end date or the 1231 28.

You have a 10-year term on the use agreement, subject to one year uh automatic renewals unless terminated by the city, which termination would be required to become to the council for approval, as well as removal of item two e under the auditor's recommendment with respect to the recording of the use agreement.

So it's all of the remainder subject to those changes.

All right, very good.

No speakers in the queue.

All in favor, raise your hand.

All right, we have the Mr.

Chair.

There is an additional amendment that would need to be taken up by the committee potentially that um Edward Waters University has provided a red line of the term sheet for the funding agreement that was attached to the original bill, as well as the use agreement that was attached to the original bill.

And for the most part, those changes are relative to aspects of what's already been discussed and voted on by the council or the committee.

I apologize, but if I could, I'd like to go through some other changes that were being proposed for your consideration for an amendment.

And of course, Mr.

Gabriel can come up to speak to them as well.

I'm happy to keep it concise and just to the other kind of more substantive changes that are being made to both documents, if that's okay.

Yes, yes, Mr.

Gable, come on up and then we can establish the amendment.

Yes.

If you want, I'll I'll describe it all in that before anybody moves it so you know what you would be addressing.

So the with respect to the term sheet for the funding agreement.

So what we did is we attached to this legislation a revised term sheet relative to the two million dollars in city funding because what was originally proposed in the legislation that was adopted last year, earlier this year was for the Living Learning Community Center, and the substantive alteration is that the city funds would now be applied to the track improvements at the campus.

So the primary changes there are that the city funds um would be applied to any aspect of the construction of the track improvements, not just the planning design and permitting.

So it would be applied applicable to planning design permitting, site preparation, construction, and related costs.

Um there's additionally, there's a provision in here that specifically indicates that none of the city funds would be applied to the residence hall component or any other component of the campus improvements.

Um it also acknowledges that the track improvements would serve a dual institutional and public purpose, including the advancement of community health and wellness and access to a recreational infrastructure.

Um it references that December 31st, 2028 date.

It also has the 10-year term.

Um the the those are the primary changes with respect to the funding agreement term sheet.

With respect to changes to the grant-related programmatic use agreement, again, it also has that acknowledgement of the dual institutional and public purpose.

With respect to the community access windows, there's additional community access that's been added to with respect to the access to the track improvements as he indicated Monday through Friday from 6 a.m.

to 9 a.m.

6 p.m.

to 9 p.m.

Sundays from 12 p.m.

to 6 p.m.

And then that's at that access is obviously subject to their institutional priorities and other events that they may schedule.

It also provides that they'll conduct a minimum of six university-led community-wide wellness or public engagement events.

This is up from four as was originally proposed.

It also provides that they will partner with other organizations to potentially offer additional engagement for the residents of Newtown and Northwest Jacksonville.

And they also reserve at their discretion to coordinate with the city to support additional community-based programming.

It also provides a little bit more information with respect to the type of reporting that they would be required to provide with respect to use of the track facility.

And those are the substantive changes that I've identified here.

And of course, if Mr.

Gabriel has anything to add, I would uh defer to you, Mr.

Chair.

All right, Mr.

Gabriel.

To the chair, I think that's a very succinct summary.

I won't belabor your time.

I just want to confirm to Miss Stepopoulos.

I think you're going off that um May 12th uh draft, I believe.

That is correct.

I was referring to the red line that you had provided from May 12th, correct?

Perfect.

Yeah, we're complete agreement.

Thank you.

So if some if somebody wants to move that and second it.

So I've got a motion and a second on that amendment.

Any discussion.

None that I see.

All in favor say yay.

Yay.

Any opposed likewise?

None.

So that amendments.

Mr.

Chair, can I roll those all up into one?

Please roll them up.

Okay, thank you.

So I've got a motion second on the bill as all those amendments.

Do I get a second?

Second.

I've got a second.

Any speakers in the queue?

No.

All right.

Open the ballots.

Record your vote.

Six A, zero and A's.

By your action, you approve 2026 0336.

Alright, that takes us to item number seven, 2026 0337.

Can I get a motion on amendment?

Mr.

Peterson.

Do the chair or to the chair.

You've taken up item seven.

You're on 23?

Did I hear?

So I apologize.

I heard seven.

The amendment to item 23 is to clarify within the reverter section that the restricted use period is the greater of five years or the time in which the vehicle retains any JSO insignia.

That's just replicating what's in the agreement in the bill.

It changes the oversight of the vehicle monitoring from fleet to JSON and then attaches a revised exhibit three to clarify that the sheriff can approve an assignment of the agreement and then correct scriptures in the agreement.

All right.

Any opposed likewise, no amendment carries.

I've got a motion second on the bill is amended.

No speakers open the ballot, record your vote.

Six years, zero and a s.

By your action, you have approved 2026 0337.

Item number 24, 2026, 033, 0353.

I've got a motion and a second on the bill.

No speakers in the queue, open a ballot, record your vote.

Six yay, zero nays.

By your action to approve 2026, 0353.

Item number 25 2026 0354.

Get a motion.

I've got a motion and second on the bill.

Open a ballot and record your vote.

6 yay, 0 nays.

By your action to approve 2026 0354.

Item 26, we've taken action on.

Due to planning commission.

The following items are on second 2026 037, 0378, 0380, 0381, 0382, 0383.

That takes us to item number 36, 2026 0384.

Okay, no motion on emergency.

I've got a motion second on the emergency.

Mr.

Peterson.

Through the chair of the committee, the nature of the emergency is the Iron Man event was scheduled for May 16th and the Jazz Fest.

It begins on May 21st.

No discussion on emergency.

All in favor of the emergency say yay.

Yay.

Any opposed likewise, none emergency carries.

We get a motion second on the bill as an emergency.

I've got a motion and a second on the bill as an emergency.

Councilmember Bowling, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

First of all, Mr.

Peterson, if you provide some background as to the impetus of for this bill.

Through the chair to Councilmember Boylan.

Uh Councilmember Arias had uh funding that he had uh ran through council to uh give a grant to an organization.

Um that grant didn't materialize due to I believe contract negotiations, so he still has available funding that's good through the end of this year.

Um the iron man, it's my understanding the iron man entity itself uh came to the city uh but maybe at too late of a time to get funding this year.

Uh so council member areas wanted to be able to assist the office of sports entertainment in putting that event on as well as I believe the they have additional cost for the jazz festival.

I thank you.

I appreciate that, and I I will support it today, but I have to say uh with respect to the Iron Man event.

I can tell you, many of us have seen a number of emails uh of the impact it had on the day-to-day citizens in our community.

So I think we need to be do some greater diligence on the part of the administration and visit Jacksonville and making certain they're communicate what's going on and do if we do this event in the future that we minimize the impact it has on the community as a whole.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

So I've got a motion and a second on the bill as an emergency, open your ballot, record your vote.

Six YAsy nays.

By your action, you've approved 2026 0384.

The next items are on second as well.

2026 0385, 2026, 0386, 0387, 0388, 0390, 0391, 0393, 0394, 0395, 0396, and we've already taken action on numbers 47 and number 480 is on second 0418.

That takes us to item number 4920 260419 is being deferred at the request of Council President Carrico.

And with that, that takes it to the the miraculous end of our agenda.

So, any other comments without that?

Nope, but we're adjourned.