So it's 4 p.m.

June 4th, 2026 call to order the taxation revenue and utilization of expenditures, the true commission.

This session begins the committee meetings that will meet from 4 until 4 30, at which time we will uh reconvene as the full commission.

We don't have any presentations in the um committee other than the auditors' presentations.

And since we do have four audit reports, why don't we go ahead, Tommy, and get started if you would like to take this time to let's take 15 minutes, maybe go through the first two, and then we will uh under item two of the commission agenda, we will pick up the other two.

How does that sound all right?

Yes, sir.

Uh to the chair, you want me to go through the quarterly summaries?

I know that's probably uh first, or or do you want me to wait till the the commission?

Let's wait till the commission at large is assembled as many of them as possible.

Sure.

Okay, we may not have an agenda, so may just be here to listen today.

Um council auditors office released four reports since the last true commission meeting.

Uh report number 832, which was the follow-up on the stormwater fee audit, uh, was released on May 14th of 2026.

Uh this was the uh second follow-up on the stormwater fee.

Uh the first follow-up was done back in 2023.

Uh the original audit objective was to determine whether or not stormwater fees were accurately calculated, uh, which included gross amounts and any reductions, adjustments, credits, or discounts that they were you know assessed and collected.

The original audit had 23 issues.

Uh the first report uh there were eleven issues remaining.

Uh after this follow-up, there are still seven issues remaining.

The main issues that are remaining are that the um there's public works stormwater area is still finalizing some policies and procedures, uh, particularly in regard to how um how compacted dirt is calculated for impervious areas for stormwater.

Uh uh, and um and then uh also regarding uh uh the utilization of third party vendors uh doing aerial photos uh to review non-residential parcels and compare that information uh to their customer billing service uh system uh that um as it relates again to compacted dirt and to identify the big differences that you see there.

Those those are issues that uh we're still not uh being done on that.

Uh also um the denying of incomplete applications for charitable and faith-based or organizations for for the stormwater fee calculation.

Um then uh there was a fourth one that uh dealt with uh let's see.

It dealt with uh applicants for pond credits uh toward stormwater fee, uh should be based on operating permits rather than a construction permit, and we found that they were that that was perhaps still happening uh as what was addressed in the original audit, and those issues are still outstanding for this follow-up.

So there'll be a third follow-up on this on this.

What was the date, the original date of the audit?

Uh the original date of the audit was April 9th of 2019.

And then there's a follow-up in 2023.

Correct.

And this is the second follow-up.

Correct.

So it would be fair to assess assume that the third follow-up will be sometime in 2029.

Uh depending on workload and things like that, uh, don't have an exact date but yeah does does the city have a policy on how soon after an audit is done that all outstanding items must be resolved because at this point it'll be ten years after the initial audit probably half of the people working in that agency will be gone by then uh to my knowledge I don't believe there is a a policy of how many times um we it just depends on uh you know uh how well they are addressing the issues uh that it it because this is an administrative this is on the administrative side um uh for the on and and I know you have changes in administrations and things like that but uh there's really no set uh time limit uh it's just that at this rate we could be on our third mayor by the time this is ever resolved at well uh yes or or sometimes you know if the our recommendations if technology changes or something then recommendations no longer applicable you know uh we may just waive those but then we will have them ready for we'll we will test the new procedure with a with another full audit we won't we won't test a new procedure in a follow-up we'll test it in a yeah I have two follow-up questions but I'd like to give the other members a chance to ask a question first are there any other questions regarding this audit all right my first question is you mentioned something about how compacted soil is calculated for impermeable area well the the the point of the the follow up or to the point of the stormwater is uh the amount of the fee is calculated on the amount on the amount of impervious area that's on the property.

That's what's going to create runoff correct right uh compacted dirt and I I wasn't on this audit so but a compacted dirt affects that somehow it's it's because it's denser therefore it's not as likely to be accepted absorbed water percolation right uh so uh their their um the policies on how that is calculated uh have not been finalized yet uh I believe the uh that um the public works had the policy in place but uh there was like a time um but it had not been approved yet so public department of public works has adopted a policy or has proposed a policy and it is required to be adopted by whom the city council no no it would be uh by the by the head of public works okay or the head of the stormwater area okay and when was that policy proposed uh that I do not know okay all right is it possible that it was proposed in 2019 and it was the subject of the follow-up in 2023 second um I don't believe it was proposed in 2019 um we found we recommended in the first follow up of any policies uh uh regarding second follow-up.

We found that they had implemented us uh a review process, but they hadn't finalized any written policies or procedures uh those are for manual updates.

It was between the first and second follow-up, I believe.

Sometime between 2019 and 2023.

2023 and 2026.

Okay, some time between the first and second follow-up.

There uh was a proposal submitted within the department pending approval by the director of the department of public works or the division head who had to approve the policy, the division head for uh stormwater management or the department head for public.

It would go to the division head and then ultimately it I think the department head as well.

And there's no evidence that that policy has ever been approved or adopted, finalized, correct.

So sometime between 20 uh 23 and 2026, this policy was proposed, and the department director under the current administration has never taken action.

Is that a fair statement?

Um I don't know.

I'm not I can I don't know the dates for sure on that, so I I would hesitate to say that it was a can you research that and bring it back to us in August?

Sure.

Um, ask my second follow-up question.

Okay.

All right, you made reference to how the fee is calculated for nonprofits, uh you expound on that, please.

No, I said denying the applications for charitable and faith-based organizations, okay.

So that the charitable and faith faith-based organizations have to go through a process of applying for an exemption from the fee?

Uh yes.

Okay.

And has that policy been adopted?

It's my fault for not listening carefully enough.

That's why I'm asking the follow-up question.

Um, could you just reread that section for us?

Yes.

Well, I was gonna say during the second follow-up test, we found that four out of five of the applications reviewed had incomplete applications, either not signed or all boxes not checked, and all five had required forms that they were not saved, um, had required forms that were not saved, in other words, missing property appraiser printouts, signed biz filing showing not-for-profit status with the state or program affidavits.

So they the applications were incomplete, right, but they were you know receiving the credit.

So the city has granted a credit on the stormwater fee based on an incomplete application by the by the respective nonprofit or faith-based organization.

Is that what you're saying?

That's my understanding, yes.

Okay, so we have organizations that are receiving a credit for the stormwater fee, even though they may not be entitled to it.

Or the application wasn't complete.

I mean, but they were given credit for the fee.

Yeah.

Do we know the total dollar amount of that?

Uh we do not.

Okay.

Can you find that out and report to us in August, please?

Okay.

Any other questions, Mr.

Tyson?

I'm sorry.

Good evening.

In reference to that, how often do those applications supposed to come in?

How often do they reapply?

I am not sure.

Maybe just be the first time they I don't.

I don't know.

I'll have to find out any other questions.

All right.

Alright, why don't we go on to uh audit number uh 906, the employee reimbursement audit?

Okay.

Okay, court number nine oh six, the employee reimbursement audit.

This was released on uh May 15th, and this was done uh basically what we we did was we we looked at um employees reimbursement program which is mainly related to city travel okay um and um you know employees submit their expense reports to request reimbursement for expenses that were paid out of pocket by the employee uh that have but have a business purpose such as traveling uh expenses mileage per diem or training expenses at the time of our audit the accounting division was responsible for the employee reimbursement program.

Uh accounting staff worked as expense auditors reviewed and approved expense reports uh submitted by departments and ensured compliance with policy requirements.

Our period that we looked at during fiscal year 2425, the city processed two thousand five hundred and ninety-eight employment reimbursement items totaling uh four hundred and three thousand eight hundred sixty-five dollars.

Uh we did a sample testing on a hundred and eighty-five transactions, uh totaling uh twenty-eight thousand seventy-seven dollars plus uh uh detailed testing.

Um we also looked at uh cash advances.

Employees can uh request cash advance advances.

It's not all that common.

Um so much so that uh we had to go back to February of February 29th of 2020, which was the implementation of the n of the new uh accounting system.

Um through and we looked from February 29th, 2020 through September 30th, 2025.

The city only issued 36 cash advances during that that time period, but the uh the cash advances total twenty-two thousand and eleven dollars.

And there were how many of those?

Uh thirty-six for twenty-two thousand.

And somewhere around eight hundred dollars, yes.

Question.

Yes.

Why would these cash advances be made to employees?

Do they not have a P card?

P cards, uh, but they may not have a P card.

Uh they may not uh have a credit card.

Um, right.

Uh so they can request a cash advance for travel.

Uh what we found, it appears that overall uh the employee reimbursements were appropriate, they were sufficiently documented and properly approved.

Um and accurately reported.

Uh we did find significant timeliness issues and some issues and control weaknesses related uh to other areas.

Uh our issues included uh they there were uh missing missing and incomplete policies and procedures.

Um we found cash advances were not properly and timely closed in the financial system, um, which creates problems in ensuring that the funds were utilized properly.

We found timeliness issues with the processing of expense reports and some that had not been fully processed.

Uh we found that the incorrect system configuration for meal reimbursement calculations uh based on time based on the time um entered by travelers, and then there were some um limited and accurate employee embursements and some that were not properly uh supported.

Um we also found some user accounts of employ former employees that were not timely deactivated, and we found that um uh and then um we found that the expense module system improvements uh for efficiency and effectiveness were needed uh during that time period.

Um there were um there were some numerous there were some deficiencies in the in the uh in the procedures, for example, uh types of things that can be reimbursed for and then no dollar limit being identified for reimbursements that are missing receipts, uh things like that.

Um cash advances were not properly entitled, not timely closed in the financial system.

Cash advances have to be submitted within five days of the return from travel.

Uh that we found that that wasn't being happened that was not happening.

Um for five thousand one hundred and eight dollars of the twenty two thousand uh and eleven dollars uh were not closed properly because there were no expense report that was created or expense reports have been in pending status for over three years.

Um for sixteen thousand six hundred and fifty three dollars of the twenty-two uh thousand and eleven dollars and cash advances expense report was not submitted within the five working days of the traveler's return.

Um things like that uh on the on this audit, and so um I can keep going if you'd like I think I've heard enough.

Does anybody have any questions on you may have already said this through the chair, but I guess they have to provide receipts?

I especially for the cash advance, especially for the cash advance and also um there are any cases that they did not provide receipts?

Um we found well I mean there probably were because uh there were no the expense report wasn't created so uh you would attach the receipts to the expense report.

So what does the supervision for lack of better words, what do they do when somebody goes out of town or whatever they're doing and they give them in advance of some number 500, 200, whatever, and they come back and they don't do a report and they don't turn receipts?

Uh is it is that it uh an understanding that they get audited at some point, but is there any repercussion?

Even the company I work for.

If you go out of town, you gotta come back with receipts.

You know, taxpayer company.

I know I know in traveling, um, you know, the limited I've done for you know CPE and things like that.

Um you attach your hotel receipt uh meals or or per diem, you know, you're you have a set amount uh uh for breakfast, lunch, dinner, uh, unless there's um and then um and then you get mileage and based on um the miles based on either Google Maps or things like that.

Okay, so is it's mileage not a refunding for the gas.

That's correct.

It's mileage using the IRS.

Through the chair, um did I hear you say that there was outstanding um reports which mean people did not submit their expense at all, which means it was not paid?

Um the well, for the advances, they'd already um these were cash advances, they'd already been paid.

No, not the cash advance.

Did I hear you say there was reports not submitted, or were you saying there was reports submitted for the cash advance only?

Cash advance only.

But not not reports weren't submitted for that.

Okay, thank you.

Uh-huh.

So what happened what happens when an expense report is not created?

Obviously, can the city employee be reimbursed?

Well, when these are for um these are for the cash advances.

They've already they got the cash advance.

And they have not filed an expense report.

So they have the money, but they never have provided documentation as to why the advance was justified.

That's um and do you have a total number of that in dollars?

Five thousand one hundred and eight dollars out of the twenty-two thousand in cash advance.

So twenty-something percent.

Yep.

Fortunately or unfortunately, cash advances don't happen very often, but there's um not like the regular expense report.

You know, kind of reminds me of Everett Dirksen.

You know, a million here, a million there, pretty soon it's real money.

Well, in this case, five thousand here, five thousand there, pretty soon it's real money.

I don't think they have like a threshold of the minimum where they don't go after a certain amount if it's below a dollar amount.

Well, it was I mean, with the with the cash advances, no.

That's um I don't know the reason why they didn't, uh, but they should have had a report and it should have been followed up on regardless of the.

All right, it's uh running up on 425.

Um any other questions.

All right.

We will go ahead.

We will adjourn the committee until uh we resume at 4 30 as the full commission, and then we will resume that part of today's meeting.

Any questions?

Uh Mr.

Chair, um I will have to leave at five due to a prior engagement, but I am writing some notes um regarding the resolution um regarding that resolution and also regarding the bylaw revisions that uh Commissioner Barr is putting forward.

Um what would be the proper procedure for me to be able to pass that along with you?

Uh uh in accordance with sunshine.

On our agenda, we're you're leaving at five.

Correct, sir.

Uh so we probably won't have a quorum when the time comes, and we just won't be able to take action.

Okay.

So it's uh I guess we could uh do that so we can at least take some sort of action.

So what to what we'll do?

Let's take a we'll recess, we'll come back at 4 30.

Uh I will look at the agenda and we will restructure the agenda.

Do we have that flexibility as chair?

Okay, in light of the extenuating circumstance.

But yeah, you can look at the agenda around how let's do that.

Do we have to put com public comment first before we take any business, or is it okay?

So I'm sure.

Okay.

I get I'm still a little bit of pain, but I'm probably about ninety-five percent recovered at this point.

Can I put our pen real quick?

Kevin, do you have anything on your subcommittee report?

Okay, so what I'm gonna do is um is it okay with you if we delay your presentation till August?

Okay, so we'll be able to move straight on.

We'll take care of item number one.

We will then take care of item number seven.

Then we will come back to the agenda.

We will now convene the meeting of the full commission of the taxation revenue and utilization of expenditures, the true commission.

Today is Thursday, June the fourth, twenty twenty-six.

We are required to have six of eleven.

We have six.

Um excused absences.

No, sir.

Okay.

Um, you had a chance to look at the minutes of the meeting meeting in May.

I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes as presented unless there are corrections.

I move to approve the minutes.

I have second.

All those in favor?

I all right.

We have for action a memorandum that has been presented to you.

Pursuant to Article Three of Section D of our bylaws.

Um all members of this commission are expected to attend all meetings on a regular basis.

If any member of the commission fails to attend two of three successive meetings of the commission without cause and without prior approval of the chair of the commission, the commission shall declare the members' seat vacant, and the vacancy shall be filled as soon as possible.

This particular provision of the bylaws is derived from section fifty point one zero four of the ordinance code of the city of Jacksonville.

That section of the code relates to advisory boards and bodies of the city of Jacksonville.

According to the attendance record of the commission, two members are not in compliance with the expectation of meeting attendance.

Commissioner Alexandra Hoffman and Commissioner Kim Pryor have failed to attend two of three successive meetings without cause or an excused absence.

Section 50.104 requires the commission to declare the office vacant, which requires an action and a vote by this body.

The taxation revenue and utilization of expenditures commission declares that the offices of the above referenced commissioners to be vacant.

The Urban Core CPAC and the Greater Arlington Beaches CPAC are to be notified of the vacancies and requested to initiate the process for filling the vacancy of each commissioner.

Do I have a motion to approve this memorandum as presented?

I move to approve.

To approve it.

I move to approve.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yes, don't I mean?

Is there any discussion?

Call the question.

I will just say this is not an easy thing to do.

I don't know that it's ever been done before, but if if we're going to operate in a business like manner, we have to follow the rules.

And uh you can't have one set of rules for some people and a different set of rules for other people.

And that is inconsistent with the traditions of our country and our city and state.

All right.

We're not required to.

It is the duty of a member of the commission to give notice of their absence, and technically the ordinance says they are to request approval of the chair of the body.

And I will say I have been very ill myself, but I have been reaching out to say hey, I cannot make it today.

So it's really no excuse.

It's a simple email or phone call.

I mean, it's an email to Colleen.

That's all you have to do.

Exactly.

You know, I'm not going to require, you know, I I don't have time to maybe set members of a commission.

We're all adults.

So all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Right.

The seats are hereby declared vacant.

So Chairman Day, with your um permission, I'll go ahead and put a date and approval vote on the bottom of this and send it to both of those CPACs.

All right.

We will move previous business up next.

We have a motion.

I'm sorry, we have a proposed amendment to bylaws that have been submitted pursuant to the bylaws.

Mr.

Barr, would you like to address it?

Well, Mr.

Chairman, uh, let me say we've been, I think we've been working on this for this is three months.

This is the third meeting.

Uh I know that Commissioner Bass had been outspoken one way or the other about it as well.

And I know that he'll be here shortly because he uh he was in some traffic a few minutes ago.

I would ask that we'll delay this at least till say five o'clock or something, uh till Commissioner Bass gets here because he's he's been very voisterous for the last two months.

Uh I think he should have a warrant, and he's uh since he's been on commission, though he's a little bit late sometimes due to traffic.

Uh he's never, I don't think he's missed anyway.

So I would I would ask that we postpone it for a few minutes and go about some uh other business at a time.

I will, with great reluctance, accept your request.

Um, once again we have an obligation to meet the responsibilities of the members of this commission.

And uh there is an expectation that we meet those obligations, but I will defer and grant your uh request for that forbearance.

I agree with you, Mr.

Until 445.

At which time we will take this matter back up.

Okay, all right.

So we'll go on and I think we're not gonna have time to do the auditor's presentation right now.

So we will forego that.

Committee report item number four.

We will defer that until August.

All right, we will move on into public comment.

Do we have any comments of the public to speak on matters that are on the agenda of this commission today?

Mr.

Nooney.

All right, you got a timer.

Hello, I am John J.

Noone.

Jacksonville, City Council resolution 2023 0819.

I'm in City Council District 4, Carico, CPAC, Planning District 3, that's uh Raymond Day, Rosemary Waslowski, uh School Board District 3, Cindy Pearson.

And you know, uh, yeah, I'll be touching on this resolution.

Also, I am gonna be making three donations.

First, it's gonna be to 2026 000.

It's the Parks Trust Fund.

Next one, that's that's a Mr.

News Three.

It's the veterans trust fund.

I got one more no sir.

Mr.

Noone.

2009 442.

It's the Artificial Reef Trust Fund.

And I will be, you know, you know, this is taxation revenue utilization.

Mr.

Nooney.

Okay.

Um I'm gonna rule you, I am going to rule you out of order.

Well, I'm gonna ask you down.

Well, you got this resolution thing.

So please speak to the resolution.

All right.

If you can't, then please have a seat.

Uh all right, right.

Uh okay.

Well, you know what?

You better just defer this thing.

You know, um, right now, okay.

You know, uh you you know everything about this.

You need to take a time out.

And let me just say, as a participant in the resilient Jacksonville October 23 report, it was highlighted that public access on our waterways is the worst ever.

Mr.

Nuny.

Okay, but Mr.

Nooney, but you're talking about you're talking about Mr.

Nooney.

Mr.

Nooney.

What?

This resolution does not pertain to public access.

It's quality of life stuff.

It is not quality of life.

It is re it relates to affordable housing.

Yeah, well that's a that's a that's no that's a quality of life issue.

Well, how would they get three minutes?

It's well now we're doing a time issue.

Right.

You have 40 seconds left.

Forty seconds left to speak to the resolution.

Well, the resolution, uh, like I said, upon this approach will increase the supply of housing units available for sale and rent.

The combination of no cost land, low-cost financing will foster the creation of more affordable housing in the city of Jacksonville.

I mean, you know, that's all fine, well and good.

But again, it gets back to a quality of life component that was highlighted in a study where you know waterway access is the worst in the entire city, cities exist.

Your time is up.

Please sit down.

All right.

Well, thank you for listening.

Thank you for your comments.

Okay.

We will revert back to item number seven, previous business.

Mr.

Barr.

Would you please continue?

Yeah, so my motion was to.

Well, let me see, it's in red here.

In the past, what seems to happen like last meeting, I think we were I don't know, six and a half, seven minutes of what we just saw.

The meeting before that, we were 11 minutes of what we just saw.

Most of these committees and commissions you go to, at least ones I've been to, even JEA, they have time limit, X amount of time to give public comment.

You can talk about your grandma's cake she cooked that day.

They don't really care.

Uh you can talk about anything.

They they let them know when there's a, of course, when they get up and talk about a certain bill, they have to talk about that bill.

But they do have public comment.

And look, it gives the community a voice.

Whether whether we like what we hear or we don't like what we hear is it still gives the community that voice, and quite frankly, uh, I think the proposal was for two minutes set up that a uh somebody who wants to do public comment, they can speak about whatever for two minutes.

Now we just we just we just seen this for three minutes, right?

Uh six last month, eleven the month before.

I would rather uh whoever, it doesn't matter if it's Mr.

Nooney or or whoever come in, say their piece, speak speaker piece.

Given that voice, because even though we're not being paid like city council's being paid sitting up there, we are commissioned for people to come vent to.

There may be somebody show up in this room that really don't know where to go.

They don't have a clue, and they come here and they're and they talk about some money they spent uh putting rocks out in front of your street, which has nothing to do with the agenda, but it does have to do with spending money, but they don't know, so they come here or or they might show up at another commission.

I mean, I've walked into commission for having no idea what it was.

So that's my proposal is that we give the members of the public two minutes, not three or four.

That number could change in the event all of a sudden all these seats are filled up because we know we have to be out of here at a certain time, but currently there's only one or two, usually one, but there has there have been a couple before, and we haven't had an issue, so that's my proposal is that we vote to allow the public to speak for two minutes about whatever they want to talk about.

Two minutes is it, they can't go over.

Uh anyway, that's what we're voting.

Is there a second?

Second, second.

Discussion on the motion to revise the bylaws as presented.

You should see a copy of a red line revision of the bylaws.

Comments on the revision, please.

Who would like to start?

Well, Mr.

Lewis.

Well, I agree unequivocally with with um your sentiment there in the sense that I I don't many of us are very highly engaged, pretty well educated people on on these matters, and and we have members of the public come in.

You're right, they might not know everything or where they need to go.

And I do think it is important for us to be able to offer a form for people that even if it's not on the agenda, if it's germane to the work that we're doing, then absolutely they should be able to come and speak.

So I I'm going to support this motion.

The only thing that I have is I would rather have the three minutes to be honest with you.

I I'm a I'm opposed to any reductions and um speaking time.

Um, sure, you could make an argument logistically, but I just anything that that restricts the ability of members of the public, um, whether it is in length or in content, uh, to come before this body and and speak on any matter that they wish.

I'm I'm a I'm opposed to that generally.

So if it would be possible to entertain a motion to do that, that would be um I I would I would very much like to uh be able to put it back to three minutes.

Mr.

Chair, I'm no expert on Robert Schools that can he make a proposed an amendment.

I was giving it to amendment, I was getting I was getting ready to address the matter Mr.

Lures you may offer an amendment to the motion that is on the floor.

Of course okay.

So please reference the written document indicate where the changes should be made sure.

Verbalize that so we have a record of it.

Sure so just kind of say the the suggested amendments and then make a motion.

Look at the text yeah and tell me where you want to change it.

It's C.

So I would like to have it back to um to revert that change for for three to two to just keep it to three minutes or less.

So you're speaking in support of the general article nine section B.

Yes correct read as follows all members of the public may speak before their true commission on any matter period.

Correct.

C would read members of the public shall be limited to three minutes.

Or less or less depending on the number of commenters.

Yes sir all right that would be my motion so it's that's your amendment.

There's a second to the amendment second any discussion on the amendment.

Okay.

Let's have a vote on the amendment.

Let's raise hands we have an accurate count.

All in favor.

Opposed here the amendment passes now to the motion on the floor as amended all those in favor indicate by saying aye raising your hand.

Well the motion is to pass it right yeah as amended and I vote no right so the amendment the revision is adopted so going forward article nine public comments will read as presented except that there will be a new section B all members of the public I'm sorry section B is amended to strike the language after the word matter for the remainder of that sentence and then to add section C members of the public shall be limited to three minutes or less depending on the number of commenters.

Perfect right done Mr.

Chair I just want to say thank you to the commissioners for taking this in consideration.

All right so we are back on the agenda so we are moving next to auditors presentation item number two people Tommy we will pick up with um audit number not report number nine oh six correct yes sir right excellent through the chair of the commission um the council auditors office release report number 906 I'm sorry it'd be 905 we finished out of six earlier um we we we covered the employee report we did 832 B.

We did and then we did the employee reimbursement audit on 90 which is 906 yes and okay I see all right I follow you all right so we're on number 905.

905 okay quarterly summary of report number 905 which is a quarterly summary for the six months ending March 31st of 2026.

This report was released on May 15th and um highlights of the report uh for the independent agencies uh jpa uh jpa is projecting to have a surplus at year end of six point three million um jAA um is projecting to have a uh year in surplus of 11 point two million and uh j is projecting a balanced budget at year in for district energy system and the electric uh to have a um two 20 point 2 million dollar surplus and water and waste water of um six point five or sixty five six point five that's and the the reason for those surpluses and those is they're as JEA is not spending um as much cash as originally uh planned on capital projects.

They're cutting back a little bit on that.

Um JTA, uh JTA uh is has a bus um has a fifteen million dollar shortfall uh um overall uh for the actual right page here, okay.

Uh JTA shows an overall deficit of 15.6 million in year-to-date actuals, and it's projecting an overall deficit at year-end of 2.2 million dollars.

Uh that's despite uh they've made some significant cost reductions throughout the year.

Uh the overall projected deficit of 2.2 million dollars is based on a total projected unfavorable budget variance of $15 million uh for revenues that is partially offset by a total projected favorable budget variance of 12.7 million dollars for expenditures.

JTA is addressing the revenue shortfalls through various cost containment measures across all divisions, and those were approved by JTA's board on February 26th of 2026.

Specifically for the bus division, uh like a stated uh JTA is showing a deficit of 15.4 million operating revenues, JTA is showing a unfavorable budget variance of $13.2 million, and that is primarily due to a projected unfavorable variance of ten and a half million dollars in the net uh sales tax.

That's the half cent sales tax uh that comes to JTA.

And uh and then an unfavorable budget variance of two million dollars in interest earnings that's primarily due to lower cash balances in JTA's investment portfolio for CTC, the the connection division um JTA is uh shows for the six months ending shows actual of a balanced budget.

However, they are projecting an overall budget deficit of 2.2 million at year end.

Uh schedule shows an um a projected unfavorable budget variance of 535,000 for operating revenues overall, and then they show um uh unfavorable budget variance of 1.7 million for total operating expenditures, and that's mainly due to projected unfavorable budget variance of 2.1 million for services and that's that's JTA.

A lot of unfavorables.

That's a lot of unfavorable.

Yes, yes.

Can you um can you back to through the chair to the council order?

Can you backtrack to you said a lot of numbers?

Okay, okay.

So I'd like us if we can to ask some questions before we jump any further.

So back to your you said 13 point, then you said 15 point, and you're kind of bouncing all over the place.

I just want to make sure we're all on the same page.

You said something along the lines of a 2.2 million dollar deficit.

So can you reference back to that?

Overall, I think overall, overall, all the divisions together.

Okay.

It's uh divisions of JTA specific.

Projected $2.2 million at the end of the fiscal year.

This physical year, okay.

Yes.

All right.

And then um, and then the bus division was the bus division was what?

What was the the bus division is projecting um well they're they're projecting to have a balanced budget at year end.

Okay.

The bus division is.

And so the UT UTC, what was you called?

UTC.

What was it?

Was it a UTC transportation.

You're you talking about CTC?

Yeah, CTC, yeah.

And that's the coordinated transportation.

Okay, yeah, the CTC.

That's connection.

Okay.

And is that that's the one that was having the unfavorable variance because that was the what the whole tobacco was prior that we had.

So they were having an unfavorable.

There was an unfavorable variance there, and that's primarily due.

JTA had um under budgeted their um their services line item.

Okay for that and um uh yes, J uh for for that.

They had um understated that line item for services, which was basically the MV contract.

Okay, for that.

Okay, that line.

Any other questions?

Right.

Mr.

Carter.

How many of those how many operating divisions does JTA have?

And can you real quickly summarize the surplus and deficit of each?

Um how we get to that two million dollar negative.

So the overall um it's projected deficit, I'll say it that way.

This is projected by September 30th of this year.

Correct.

So can you please now go into the detail as to how we get to that negative two million dollars?

Yes.

Um JTA bus division has a um let's see they are projected.

It's primarily coming from the what's the total number?

Uh the total of um of the of that first division.

Okay, the projected end of the year, September 30, 2026, what is that projected number?

Okay, so JTA is projected to finish the year at budget.

Um with the balanced budget.

Correct.

Right.

Now walk through the components on how we get there.

Oh, the balance budget?

Yeah, like the bus division is the bus division.

Uh negative or positive.

Um it's it's it's uh what they're projecting uh is your main and revenue they have a shortfall of uh what's the final number?

Well, it's it's zero's final number projected.

For the bus division because they're projecting an unfavorable variance in total operating revenues of thirteen point two million, they're predicting a favorable variance in their expenditures of thirteen point two million.

Okay, so that leaves you a net of next.

What's the next division?

For the uh connection division, they have uh unfavorable variance in total operating revenues of five hundred thirty-five thousand five hundred and eighty-three dollars.

They have also a uh unfavorable variance in total operating expenditures of one point of one million seven hundred and fifteen thousand eight twenty-two.

We should put them at two point two negative, two point two negative.

That's where your that's where your deficit is overall.

These are only two divisions in JTA?

No, you have Skyway and Connection.

Skyway is um projected to finish the year at budget, um, or with no no deficit, let's put it that way.

Uh they are they have total operating revenues of an unfavorable variance of 459,000, and they have total operating uh for total operating expenditures, they have a favorable variance of 459, 318, which nets to zero.

So this is the Skyway.

That's correct.

Yes, so it's not a revenue.

Right.

It is, but it isn't.

I'm just clarifying that, yeah.

So it's like we don't get anything from Skyway.

It's just it's just trade.

There is there is no uh the only revenue Skyway shows is transfer in from the bus division.

Okay, just clarify.

Thank you.

Uh-huh.

For the ferry division, um, again it's finished projected to finish the year um uh with no surplus or deficit uh it has a uh unfavorable operating uh revenue of 164,453, and that's offset by a favorable operating expenditures of 164,453.

Um and each of these divisions with the exception of the general fund um receives some transfer from bus.

From the bus division, the bus division.

Um the bus transfers to uh the uh connection division, the skyway division, and the ferry division.

But the bus division is is expected to finish at budget.

The bus uh yes, well it's just after it transfers money in the other division.

That that includes the transfers.

It's it's it has basically uh has a zero it the total operating expenditures that has a favorable variance offsets the unfavorable variance in total operating revenues for bus.

So uh but the bus division had a negative variance on revenue the I'm going to make that up because they're projected to have a positive variance on expenses.

That's correct, okay.

Uh and for the uh what's called the general fund, uh their engineering fund for the JTA, um they have uh total operating revenues of unfavorable variance of six hundred and two thousand nine eighteen, and that's offset by a favorable variance of the same amount in total operating expenditures for the quarter or for the six months year to date actuals, uh they are showing a deficit of 233,000.

Okay.

Um which of those divisions is gonna run the 2.2 million total uh surplus to offset the 2.2 million negative projected number for I forget which division.

Is that the connections?

Connection.

Uh well right now uh they're projected to be in the year at the deficit of 2.2 million dollars.

Connection.

Connection.

Which overall JTA is projected in the the year at balance.

For the three divisions for the for four of the five divisions, yes.

What's the total for JTA projected?

It would be projected overall deficit of 2.2 million from the from the connection division.

But total JTA will be 2.2 negative negative.

Total JTA.

Total JTA.

Yes.

Has JTA ever broken even.

Uh they they have ended the year without uh a deficit, yes.

Uh and passed they've had surpluses.

So how does JTA fund this 2.2 million dollar deficit?

Well, I mean they have um they have another six months or less now uh to continue their cost containment measures for connection, uh to try to mitigate the expenses there, try to cut back there.

Um they because the bus transfers in uh dollars to connection, the bus fund could try to and fund that at the but the bus for the actual for the six months is running a a deficit right now of fifteen million.

Um the bus is running a deficit of fifteen?

Actuals through six months, yes.

And they're projected to run a surplus by the reject they're projected to um in the year with no deficit.

I'm sorry.

They're projected to break even by year end.

Correct.

So they're and they're expected to make up a fifteen million dollar deficit in the next six months, yes.

Okay, all right.

Um they have uh adjusted their budget um for not necessarily through city council um because it's they're they're cutting their budget uh and they did that at their board meeting, um, which is which is uh you know allowable, of course, of course it's less than what city council approved.

Um and if they stick to you know, it and the amount that they adjusted their budget down to um is uh less than what was like I said approved.

So um the third quarter will be we'll have to see what how much they've improved over the third quarter.

Okay, so uh through the chair to the council auditor, so this is the U2C division, right?

The CTC.

I keep getting that thing, they got so many programs that's pulling money from our budget, I don't remember.

Um so UT, you can call it the connection to that's way easier to remember.

Yep.

Um so the connection.

So that is the only division that's running a deficit.

Now is it running a deficit or are they transferring stuff over to make it just this one division instead of four divisions?

And uh I need to correct you a little bit.

Yeah, yeah, go ahead.

Um they're they're the only division that is projecting a deficit.

Rejecting, okay.

Actual um for the six months actual, they are six months actual.

They are they are um uh zero.

They they're operating expenses equal their operating revenues.

So um I guess my question is are they is it actually this division that's running itself, you know, starting or gonna run a deficit at some point, or is it or is it them transferring stuff that's like that?

It's due to the uh as I mentioned before, it's due to the services line being under budgeted um by about um twelve million dollars.

Okay, okay, and I I guess so and then the ferry division.

Is it the ferry is its own thing?

Okay, and the skyways it's in.

Yes, okay.

So the ferry, what's the uh can you re- say that again the the what is the expenditures on the ferry and what are the expenditures on the skyway?

Projected or actual projected projected uh projected for the ferry um they are projecting operating expenditures of three point three million dollars against a budget of three point four million dollars.

And is, you know, I'm I haven't been as around as long as some folks, but it it is you know, the bridge was originally, I mean there wasn't a bridge there, that's where the ferry was originally there, put there for, but now there is a bridge.

So do they is it not plus the same chance of sanctioned?

No, I know that's what I'm saying.

With the ferry, but there was not anything at all at one point, I would think.

You're talking about the dame's point.

Yeah, talking about the dame point.

I'm asking, yeah, yeah, fair.

Yeah.

Yeah, maybe Mayport Ferry.

It's been there a hundred years, yeah.

At least.

Yeah.

I'm asking for a history lesson more than I am anything else.

Well, through the chair, may uh may uh uh ask about this as well, and that's that was kind of my question.

Is the ferry still there for nostalgic historical reasons?

I know uh it was there when I was a little boy.

But if you wanted to go to Mayport, it took over an hour going across the Matthews Bridge from from the north side.

Now you could jump across Dange Point Bridge, provide Nurse Not a Red, hit the Wonderwood, and you're right there at Mayport.

So is it still left open for the purpose of just because it's a nostalgic?

My personal standpoint through the chair.

I used to live in Mayport Village until last year, so maybe without their five years, people use it.

Okay.

Very, very uh and and and to uh Commissioner Barr, uh the ferry is the only continuation of A1A.

Okay.

Okay.

Um so uh A1A s stops there at Mayport and continues on across uh ha on Hexer Drive.

And that was the whole point of my question, by the way.

That was exactly what I wanted to know.

Was I don't I don't live over there, live on the south side of Jacksonville.

I'm just asking, not saying you don't want to take anything away, just asking um for clarity.

Um so that's great.

Perfect.

Okay.

I just didn't know with the Dames Point, if that made a difference or not.

I don't live over there, so just wondering.

And uh from what I understand and uh because I I I live in uh live south of here in Middleburg.

So um but um but born and raised here in Jacksonville.

Um the going down to the Dames Point actually adds yes, you can get there quicker uh by taking the dames point, but coming down from Hexer Drive it actually adds more miles to your trip.

Okay and dealing with traffic to that one.

I guess my general only thing was just making sure that it was the thing that was utilized.

And so yeah, I should.

Uh so I need to head over there.

It's uh yes.

Okay, perfect.

We got the questions.

The the state operated it for a while and then uh the city operated it and then Jacksport operated city operated it, now it's back to now it's to JTA.

Okay.

Any more questions on that audit?

Okay.

Well, to move forward then for the final.

This is going to be the uh follow-up procurement audit on informal purchase of supplies.

Bear with me while I get all my people together.

Um report number 871A.

This is the first follow-up on the procurement audit and formal purchase of supplies.

Uh the the original audit uh had uh 15 issues.

Uh this first follow-up cleared six of the fifteen.

Uh there are still nine issues remaining.

Uh the outstanding uh items that are remaining, we found uh a few uh internal procurement processes were not yet documented.

Uh procurement indicated they will address that in upcoming updates.

Uh we also found that there were some uh requisitions that could inadvertently bypass procurement.

Uh procurement has indicated that uh they changed the parameters for one of the scenarios and are researching the others to document how to best uh remedy that.

Uh we also found that there were still excessive um access rights.

Uh the areas are all working to uh they're all working to address those issues.

Uh we found that eighteen of twenty-two of procurement employees had a combination of access privileges that would allow them to uh the ability to single-handedly complete a purchase.

Uh that we found that 56 users had the ability to submit a requisition, utilize any city funding source.

We found that 179 users could submit a requisition for non departmental cost centers, including cost centers that are not necessary related to their department.

And we also found the system is still configured to apply work flow flows for requisitions to flow base on user position and business unit without consideration of the funding source.

Uh this means that a basically a requisition could be approved by someone in the requester's department instead of the department that controls the funding source.

And that's pretty much what we also found uh where solicitations were worded in a way that only one vendor could respond, so did you expand the audit to see on the operational side if any of those items was being done?

I know on the administrative side you filed errors, but on the operating side, was any of those items checked?

Well, this this wasn't um this was the follow-up to an audit.

So we were basically we were only following up to the what recommendations that were in the original audit.

So would you not expand or go back to see if anyone took advantage of those?

If it like on any of those that you stated that they I think you stated that someone to my user access, yes, user access.

Did you go back and see if it had been done?

That as part of the follow-up, we went back to see if they actually did that.

Yes.

I don't I don't know if that was part of the testing on that or not.

I know that we were uh original audit.

Um there were see.

Um I don't know that we tested to see if that if that had actually been done.

Uh we did note that none of those issues uh had been addressed from the original audit.

So, is that something that your division will go back and put in your procedures as a follow-up?

We'll go back.

Um I'll talk to the uh talk with the audit manager on that and let you know, but um as far as um I'll have to see what was tested on the original audit to see if they actually went in there and thank you.

Any other questions?

Thank you, Mr.

Carter.

Thank you.

That concludes my report.

Thank you.

It's 5 15.

We should at this point have been completed with the public service grant subcommittee discussion.

Mr.

Lewis is going to uh come back in August and present that information.

Uh so I am going to uh move on in to my comments.

I don't have formal comments, however, I will speak to the resolution that I have presented, and then that will be the next item to be taken up under new business.

In fact, probably it's more appropriate that we go ahead and move directly into new business, and then I can address uh this item uh this resolution under that item.

So uh we'll move forward into new business.

Is there any new business that members would like to bring to the commission?

All right, I do.

I have prepared a resolution this morning.

I don't remember the exact time, 10 30, 11 somewhere there.

I saw a Facebook post by council member Gaffney and uh explaining how there were multiple, I believe there were, I want to say six parcels of city property, and maybe one of them was actually a school board property that were uh on a surplus list, and um that uh he was encouraging nonprofits to apply to uh receive these uh properties.

So it prompted me to start thinking about uh this uh affordable housing crisis that we have here in Jacksonville per the city.

The mayor has spoken about it, so um the resolution reads as follows.

Whereas the city of Jacksonville has stated that there is a crisis in affordable housing within our city, whereas the city of Jacksonville recently disclosed there are surplus properties owned by the city, whereas there is a compelling public interest in utilizing the surplus properties to alleviate the crisis identified by the city of Jacksonville.

Whereas a viable solution is to utilize a partnership with the private sector and the public sector.

Therefore, be it resolved, the taxation revenue and utilization of expenditures true commission proposes that the city of Jacksonville explore the following concept.

Number one, all city, I'm sorry, all surplus city property be contributed to private developers who will create buildable lots for the construction of residential units to consist of both single family and multifamily structures.

Two, upon the completion of construction, the Duval County Housing Finance Authority shall issue bonds to finance the origination of mortgages that will enable operators of multifamily properties and homeowners to purchase the completed structures.

This new construction activity will create new jobs for the residents of our city.

Number six, the true commission encourages the Jacksonville City Council to enact legislation to implement this goal.

So the purpose of this concept is to whenever you're building housing, sometimes anywhere from 25 to 40% of the cost of a structure per unit is attributed to land.

Okay.

So if you're looking at a percentage, one to one hundred or zero to one hundred, and forty percent, and we'll just maybe cut that back to a little bit more.

Let's say 25%.

This is all very theoretical.

So 25% of your total cost is land.

So you eliminate that, and now you have reduced your housing cost by 25%.

Well, you go through and you complete the structure, and let's say that the typical house would be affordable house or affordable housing unit, whether it's single family or apartment, multifamily apartment, pick a number somewhere around 1500 square feet.

So under current construction costs, that would be somewhere around probably 200 a square foot.

So you're looking at about a 300,000 dollar cost to build a unit, a dwelling unit by limit by reducing that by 25%, so now you've dropped that cost that price point from 300,000 down to uh let's see, about you've reduced it down to about 210, right?

So 300,000 minus 25 percent, whatever that percentage is.

So 300 times 0.75.

Yeah, 225.

Okay.

Now your unit price has dropped from 300 to 225.

Then we let the private, we let the market set in, we've established the cost basis for the developer, the developer of the builder is going to make their profit in the construction of the structure.

Okay, they've built that price in the cost of the structure.

There's no land component because the city is going to contribute that to this project.

So now we have to finance the project.

So now whether let's say item number one is an apartment complex, okay, and so then you have an apartment operator who will then go in and acquire that property, and let's just say for sake of argument that you're talking about, let's make it a nice simple 50 unit apartment complex.

So we're going now about 11,250,000 cost for a 50-unit apartment project.

The developer is going to have to put in equity, probably of about 25%, so they're going to be getting a loan for $8,400,000 roughly.

They're going to have to contribute $3 million in equity.

So now that Duval County Housing Finance Authority issues bonds, their essence, their revenue bonds, that they issue at a municipal interest rate, which is typically around 60% of the market.

If the market right now is about 6% for a 30-year fixed mortgage, do the math.

So now this apartment operator has a 3.6% mortgage.

We don't have that 25% cost factor of the land, and we've just reduced our financing costs considerably.

So now that home, instead of costing $225,000, financed at 6% is going to be financed at, we'll say that there's a nominal about a 5% down payment, which is about $11,000.

So now your mortgage is $213,000, and if you're financing it on a 30-year loan at 3.6%, I think it's 21.

That mortgage payment is $959 a month as opposed to a higher mortgage payment at market interest rates.

Now you've not only you've not only increased the quantity of affordable housing, but now you've allowed somebody to own a property and to begin building generational wealth.

And we're doing this without a dime of city money, other than the city contributing the property, but that the city has declared a surplus, no longer being needed for public purposes.

We turn it back into the private sector for the for market transactions to occur to acquire the property and then to begin the development process.

So we have increased the supply of affordable housing.

We have created jobs in the construction of these structures.

We have enabled rents to be reduced, the rental properties.

We have allowed a lower price point for homeowners to buy a property and to begin building equity.

So this is the framework of this resolution.

I've explained it.

I would like to open the floor for discussion and see if we can take action and approve this and refer it to the city council for them to begin discussions of enacting this into legislation.

Mr.

Chair, I have a couple of questions.

I think there's already a type of system in place where the city gives people just on this commission.

I think it was last year, and I think Commissioner Pryor brought it up.

There were some houses that were given to somebody, and they have X amount of years to fix them and they didn't, so maybe the city took them back.

So there's already um I believe a mechanism for the city to give somebody uh properties or land.

Uh again, we discussed this at nausea uh sometime last year.

That's one issue.

Another issue is if I understand this right, the the housing department will uh do the financing and carry the mortgage, right?

No, the housing finance authority issues the bonds, the proceeds from the bonds will then be funneled into local lenders who will then make the mortgage loans from that resource as opposed to using the typical mix of uh intermediary depository institution sources of funds, which typically comes from your depositors' balances.

So the so there will be no zero involved with that.

There'll be no taxpayers' dollars, no tax dollars.

Because that's the thing about that, and to refer back to your first point.

If you remember, uh Commissioner Pryor revealed that those nonprofits which had been given they were given individual houses, these this accumulation of property includes literally uh as much as an acre in one case that I saw, and another was twelve acres, another was fifty acres, you can build a lot of houses on 50 acres, especially if you're doing you know quadruplexes or sixplexes, and uh that's how you put a dent in the affordable housing crisis.

Next point, my last one is uh so nonprofits will also be able to get involved with this.

Now, these nonprofits, nonprofits who don't take that's for the city, that's for the city council determine.

All I'm coming up with is a broad outline.

That was the proposal that nonprofits can also uh uh take advantage of this and and estimate it, right?

If you have a nonprofit developer, yeah, but most developers are not in it to for free.

I mean, they're gonna make a because a lot of times if it's non-profit, a lot of times uh they also receive tax dollars.

Right, yes, it does, and and so you're back to taxpayers part of this as well as well, not not taxpayers, but most nonprofits, a lot of nonprofits, let me say that.

Take taxpayers' money.

This is not designed for nonprofits, this is designed for a developer, a for-profit developer, to receive these properties, to then go in and start the development process to put in all of the horizontal improvements, the water lines, the sewer lines, you tilt the electrical utility lines, all the necessary infrastructure to come up with plot platable um lots, which would then be recorded, and now you have a piece of real estate that has gone from 50 acres down to individual lots that can then be put onto the market for private sale.

Uh it's not that the way that this would work is we're not out here handing out uh parcels of real estate to nonprofits.

This is going to be put into the development process so that we can create housing.

This is not for nonprofit to take advantage of, and then they you know go down the road and sell it in the so my last point organizers pocket the money.

My last point would be uh this is something that uh that you had thought on, or I guess earlier today or yesterday, and and we've just seen it.

Uh I wouldn't be willing, uh I I don't think it should be uh voted on today.

I think we need to take a month, think about it, do a little research because I mean, look, there's a lot of issues here in the city uh with uh developers.

Some people get mad with developers, some people don't.

Uh I'm not I'm not saying I'm for or against them.

I'm now we're talking about giving developers land uh without doing a little bit of I know you've done some research, but the rest of us haven't uh I would be more comfortable if we voted on this at our next when's it gonna be August?

At the August, that way uh we have time to look into how would this work out?

You know, the that's my opinion.

I concur.

Yeah, I agree.

So um through the through the chair to the commission, I would like to break this down if I if I'm able.

Um I'm a realtor here in Jacksonville, so I'm pretty decently familiar with real estate.

Um and I my family is in real estate.

Um and so I've heard about this a lot.

Um anything with the government getting involved, whether we're the middleman um or we're contributing.

Um, my ears perk up because I don't like that.

Um big unlimited government, limited taxes, all the things.

Uh when you said I'm just gonna ask questions, not poking anything, I'm just gonna ask questions, get answers.

That's all I'm asking for.

Um right here.

Uh number one.

All surplus city property, I'm just confirming.

Uh all surplus city property be contributed to private developers.

So that means we are um just we are giving them the land.

Correct?

Okay, there would be a process where all of these parcels would be advertised, developers would come in and apply for the award of that property to the developer.

So the developer has zero dollars on the cost basis of the land.

Now they begin the process of putting in all of the what's called horizontal and site improvements to get it to the point where we can then convert.

That's absolutely right.

Okay.

So when it says contributed, so you explain that.

I think a lot of times I'm gonna dig into this a little bit, and I'm gonna dig into each one.

I think this might bring up other questions for the commissioners that may ask they might have.

Um so a lot of times when they develop the uh section itself, whether that's pipelines, whatever it is, um, they often don't pay attention to when we say infrastructure, the roadways.

And I know we talked about, you know, it might that might fall into drainage for that specific area, but what about down the way?

You know, sometimes we can have okay, there's a huge development here, yes.

Yes, we did the plumbing, septic, all the all the things there, but what about down there in John and John House and Smith and Amy's house?

And so, um, I'll answer that question.

Yeah, yeah, go ahead.

So, in order for developer to be issued a building permit to develop the site, they have to comply with all of the current city codes related to subdivision development.

So they would be in full compliance.

Whatever the code requires, the developer has to meet those requirements.

Okay.

So another big thing that I'm concerned about is the values.

So the values at homes not only are surrounding said development, but um the development itself.

And I say that because we have had seen that happen.

I've seen this happen um in District 11, where they built an affordable housing complex, and then in turn behind a uh very um, let's say expensive neighborhood.

This is not me coming after saying, hey, I'm trying to, you know, go for the the rich, like a lot of people like to say, that's not what I'm trying to do here.

I'm simply just saying for other people's values that some of these developments may bring down the value.

For instance, um, we don't know where the city land is.

You may know where the land is.

That's why I like the idea of this voting, I mean not voting, but waiting to vote for it, because I would love to research this.

Um, but let's say one of those city parcels are you know, right behind a major development that they just did.

Let's say it's throw it out there seven pines.

Let's say it's the seven pines development, and those houses are like eight hundred thousand dollars there, and then we throw a development behind it.

We let's just okay, let's not even say that.

Let's say it's a full hundred, a full hundred thousand dollar development.

The four houses are selling for four hundred thousand, three seventy-five right there.

They have that, that's going on right now, Normandy, uh, Normandy and Yellow Water.

They have a development there, it's about four hundred thousand to three seventy five for a home.

What if we throw a development behind it where we're selling them now for 215?

And so now, okay, now that cuts into the builders, okay, yes, equity, they're gonna get equity.

Now, what does that mean?

You said it's in the front end, but now those values are gonna drop the house values around it, and now you got an entire pit mad district.

Um, you know, and so that that's some of my concerns with it.

Um, as far as rent, we're throwing up in an apartment complex.

Um, over here on the south side, district five, um, right there by San Marco.

Um, they have thrown up some affordable housing complex.

Um, they have the lofts at San Marco East, which rents houses, an affordable living complex, kind of similar to what you're talking about.

Um, they rent pro uh one bedroom for about 1150 and then a two-bedroom is about 1,400.

Um it's a it's an affordable housing complex.

And you know, what if this complex is built next to another apartment complex that is you know really privately owned, and they have their rents a little higher, and you know, yes, that may offset that, but what about that developer's, you know, the money they put into it in the beginning, and now you're talking about you know you're gonna bring values down of that apartment complex.

So now that, you know, it's just it's it's it can be a trickle effect.

Um, you know, it may do more harm than it will do good.

Um, but having a surplus of houses will naturally bring down the cost of real estate.

We know that's what I mean.

This will not limit the demand for affordable housing all this is designed to do is to increase the supply, and you have built in a cost structure that will enable the developer to sell the property at a reduced price because you don't have the embedded cost of a full market transaction.

Yeah.

And so, and I get that, like the you know, the idea behind um the what'd you say over here, the dual housing finance authority being the middleman where the city they're just kind of just making the bonds and giving lower finance options.

I kind of like that idea.

I mean, I can see that being successful.

It's when we get to the cost of the build itself, that's where because um to your point, you're gonna know this because you I think you're in real estate, correct?

Yeah, yeah, in some form.

I don't know.

No, no.

I'm in finance.

Yes, yes.

So, you know, with um financing, well, you know, you have H FHA and you have all these different all these different lender lending options, um, you know, bringing that the uh the cost of interest rates down can also reduce your mortgage, obviously.

And so yes, yes, and so which I'm in favor of bringing mortgage interest rates out.

I would be in favor of this bond issue, what we're talking about with the issuing of bonds.

I'm not totally in favor with reducing the house cost because it is going to it's going to affect directly or indirectly the houses surrounding it.

And with this with these city lots that I have seen that have been um on the surplus list, they are in these neighborhoods that it would not be ideal to put a development like that in there.

Um, I will send a list of these sites that were on the Facebook post today, and you will see that all of these sites are in currently developed neighborhoods with similar houses.

This is not gonna go behind seven pines, this is not gonna go behind my house in NACAT.

These are urban oriented uh, essentially it's an urban infill project, and um where the demand for housing is where the shortage of housing is the greatest.

So the purpose of this is to fill the need uh in the community uh and and solve a problem that the city has identified as a crisis, yeah.

And and I will provide all this, and then we can bring this back in August, and you guys can decide to approve it and recommend it to the city council, or you can just say no, I'm not interested in the subject.

Well, one of the things I'd like to see is rather than saying all, uh, because you're saying now the properties that are on this list are in areas, that would be great, but perhaps going forward in the future, some of these properties are exactly where Mr.

Bass is talking about.

And so that would create, I understand what he's saying because the other thing that would happen is that the residents in these neighborhoods would uh probably be taking things to the city council, let's put it that way.

Well that's why this has to come from city council.

So I would rather see rather than the resolution saying all that we change that so it doesn't include each and every property that is surplus, since we do not have an idea as to what all of these properties will be at one point in time.

Well, let's bring that uh we can make that change in August.

Okay.

I would like to know.

I would like to know, you know, just for you know, if you want to help us out with this, I would like to know with these properties you're talking about, you know, what that value, what the current average median home value is in that area, and the what we would propose would think obviously we're gonna have a set number.

It's not gonna be two, you know, two eighty-five, thirty-six, and I'm gonna be nothing like that, but a specific range of what a house would cost to be built there.

Because for instance, even if it's a a neighborhood with houses sell for 250,000, and we're throwing out there a house we're gonna sell for 195,000 or 190,000.

You're still that's still going to impact that value the home values in that area.

And we we seen this with the uh with the morgue, with the morgue, they're they were freaking out about their home values, perfect example.

Um, you know, and that stuff, you know, with the city.

I'm just my blood, I just get I'm shaking right now because anything with the government involved, I'm like freaking out.

I don't like that.

Um, you know, we want to keep them out, we want to limit the government.

Charles is there smiling because he knows that's what we're about, and we want to keep the government out of this if we can.

But but I completely understand I do like the idea of what you're talking about with the Duval Finance Authority, and I would love to look into that further, which when we go and vote on it, we could have that discussion, and I can do some more research.

I would like to do some more research on my own because you have, and so I would like to do some more research on my own and find out because that might be, you know, maybe we don't go just like anything with legislation.

Maybe we not we don't go with this option specifically, but we may be able to find a consensus somewhere in there.

So ultimately, this is gonna come before the city council for them to this is a policy decision.

This is simply a concept.

Yeah, that this commission can recommend to the city council for them to fully vet.

So the chair, um I like to go on the opposite end of this.

I have seen where we like to label affordable housing, but it end up not being affordable housing.

They turn around and they only do like five percent or lower as affordable housing, and then they sell the rest of the apartments at a higher price.

So I don't like the labeling.

Well, I mean, that's the whole point is because this is I mean, we're gonna put it in.

It need to be affordable housing and not change the earning.

And and that's what I mean, and again, the city council is gonna put in the percentages of area median income.

All of these are formulas that are well defined in the at the end of the day, it doesn't do it.

If you're gonna say affordable housing, then the turnaround only being five percent as affordable housing, then we're just wasting our time.

Yeah.

No, no, that's the whole point.

You take you take this parcel that the city has declared as surplus.

Like for the north side, they like they're building affordable housing.

Then they turn around and say, We're only gonna do five percent, or we're gonna sell the rest at a higher price.

That's why the city council has to write into the legislation that all of the units developed will be rented or sold to people of X area meeting, and you know, that's for the city council to write.

It sounds good.

It sounds good.

I understand your criticism, and that's one of the chief points of the failures and qu in so-called workforce housing.

Yeah.

So, the chair, may I make a motion or recommendation that we table this for our next meeting?

Well, we've already uh yeah, we can have a motion to table and bring this back in office.

Yes, so in the meantime, you have now two months to do your own research on this topic.

Is that fair?

Yeah, all right, and a motion to table is non-debatable, okay.

So, yes, you mentioned the housing.

And recent city council approved uh 400 some odd houses out on Yellowwater Road.

Actually, they've got another parcel about a half a mile away that's got another 85.

Southwest CPAC, we have we oppose that legislation because number one, this community is on non-contiguous lots, they're not all joined together.

Some are as low as one acre, with talking about putting seven or eight houses, others are 50 acres with 40 acre lots crammed into it, and all of that 500 and some odd homes out there finishing about the same time is gonna dump 570 residences, figure two vehicles per residence onto Normandy Boulevard.

Yeah, two lanes, two lanes, and they have no inkling of an idea when that they may end up for-leaning that.

It's been quote unquote spoken about for the last 15 or 20 years, and it still is no nowhere closer.

And our problem is it may be affordable, but there's enough exactly not practical, the infrastructure is not there.

Yep, and they may have the infrastructure on that piece of the property to tie into whatever the city has, but get three miles down the road where it's got to go.

And they you say you're gonna they have to be on the code, they'll build it.

The code won't be changed, and and the traffic the traffic right now is horrendous.

So, let me address, let me address your concerns, and then we'll move on because we're almost out of time for this component.

These are in fill locations, infrastructure is there, city water, city sewer, city roads.

We're not going out, you know, to uh off of Chafee Road somewhere with raw dirt, because it's not city land.

These are city-owned properties that for whatever purpose the city has declared them surplus.

I don't know why, but that's what the post said, and it got me thinking.

I said, Okay, well, let's put forward this proposal.

So that's the whole purpose of that.

We have two months, each of you can do your own research and then come up with your input.

And if we don't want to do it, just vote no, it's no big deal, right?

And we'll move on.

Where would we, to the chair?

Where would we go to?

I've never looked it up if we want to look up surplus property.

I'm gonna provide everything to Colleen.

I will give you all the parcel numbers, you will have the printout from the property appraiser's website.

You simply go to the property appraiser, the Duval County GIS map, you put in the address, and the parcel is gonna pop up and you see all the houses around it's an it's I mean it's it's not rocket science yeah and I just I just want to throw the chair to the commission I just sometimes I think with the city and with government just in general we we like to put temporary fixes on things and this is one of those patches where once we give the land it's gone it's gone and so that's what we do in I mean just perfect example CC to the stadium deal yes that's awesome we just gave the jaguars the land okay that's great this is just an example of what we're talking about we gave them the land but in 15 years 20 years that stadium's gonna have to be redone again and we have nothing left to offer that's and so that's but I'm just saying that's a stadium yes and so that stadium I'm just saying that's an example of what this could turn into is where we're gonna run it we'll move on last item commissioner comments we have 10 minutes anyone like to make any comments general right uh good enough we will meet again on august the August the sixth you are correct Thursday August 6th okay so we are not meeting in July and we will come back August 6th any other comments adjourn no all meetings are in person I'll come back with just just get a just no one must be present to play yeah it's unfortunate yeah present but um I just I have a trusted government and what about future lands this is six but what about this future