Alright, it's two o'clock.

I would like to call the students order, meeting of July 16th at 2 o'clock.

We have a voting forum that has been established in person.

Melissa, are there any members attending by phone?

Any members appearing by phone?

Um possibly Mr.

Costum may be joined the meeting.

Okay, but not currently.

Not as if yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Yes.

Also would just like to take a moment and thank our board members for the voluntary service.

It's an honor to serve alongside of you.

It's a robust group with uh tons of experience, and I thank you for your time you spent doing this.

And I would understanding the uh gravity of the latest meeting.

We'll just ask that we hold a civil meeting and respect one another and people that are making statements.

Allow them to finish and move to the same on our standpoint.

So I just thank you for your consideration there.

Notwithstanding the certainly the issues of the budget today.

So with that, I'd like to call Jason not to leave support.

And to college stands undervisible with liberty and justice for all.

Melissa, I see we have three recordings of public topics.

Is that correct?

Yes, correct.

Councilman, you're up first.

You also on the agenda at the end.

Oh, great.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, McCallin 117 West Duval Streets.

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for coming this afternoon.

I wish this meeting today was about bringing a growing aerospace company to Cecil, creating thousands of jobs for Jacksonville.

Instead, it's about suing the city.

The board will soon vote on what's a fairly inflammatory resolution and on what lawyers call a quote-unquote speaking complaint, one that relies on rhetoric and set of facts.

Unfortunately, JA doesn't record its meetings, but City Council does, including the 2025 August budget hearing that forms the basis of this lawsuit.

If you watch it yourself, you'll see these allegations are wrong.

My assistant Amber right now will be handing out QR codes linking to that budget hearing.

At 223, I praise JA's management of the International Airport.

Note there's more investment at Craig than Cecil and urge accelerating investment to capture the growing aerospace market.

At 314 in this budget hearing from August 2025, I explained that I had already withdrawn every proposal I previously made regarding airport cash long ago, except Cecil.

Yet this complaint repeatedly attacks proposals that no longer exist.

At 340, we debate the FSCJ amendment.

The complaint says council pickpocketed JAA and created a budget line item from Holt Law.

Neither is true.

We simply transferred 10 million from retain earnings into Cecil Airport's capital account with one big condition.

Not one dollar could be spent unless JAA, FSCJ, the state, and the FAA agreed on a collaborative solution.

It gets crazier.

The complaint claims council seized JAA funds and compelled violations of federal law.

Neither happened.

JA has the funds now.

We haven't taken them, and we expressly prohibited spending anything without FAA approval.

JA doesn't have to spend any of the money that we allocated if it doesn't want to.

Anyway, that hearing lasted two hours.

All amendments passed unanimously.

And at 4.01, we conclude the hearing and call for a new spirit of cooperation between City Council and JAA.

We now know that never happened.

And I now know why.

This lawsuit isn't really about those allegations.

They're easily disproved when you watch the hearing.

This is about control.

While council is working to bring airspace jobs to the city, while Keystone Heights Airport just announced a billion-dollar airspace hub of their own.

JAA is suing to separate itself from the city.

Our general counsel has already concluded that the budget actions were lawful and that JA is part of the consolidated government.

And he's not alone.

Republicans and Democrats agree.

The mayor and council agree.

By a vote of 167 to zero, council and the Florida legislature agree.

Only you on this board or a JA management to disagree.

And if this board approves a lawsuit, it will stand alone.

I conclude at 3.17 saying this.

There's nothing I'd love more than JA, this board, myself, and the Duval delegation working together in lockstep moving Cecil forward as a job engine for Northeast Florida.

The people have spoken.

Let's put this behind us.

Move forward together and make Cecil the air space hub.

It's meant to be.

Thank you, Kenny House Brother.

Next up, I have uh Jason T.

Good afternoon.

For those of you that do not know me, my name is Jason Teal.

I am the former general counsel, and I was with the Office of General Counsel for almost 25 years.

And I am not here in my current role with the city council, but I'm voluntarily here because I care for both the consolidated government and the Office of General Counsel.

I'm also appearing before you today because I fear that you have not been provided proper legal guidance concerning the resolution and draft complaint that is on your agenda.

You've been asked to approve a lawsuit against the city of Jacksonville and to ratify the previous hiring of outside legal counsel that has not been authorized by the general counsel, Michael Facker, as required in section one four of JAA's section of the consolidated city's charter.

JAA's failure to adhere to the requirements to obtain the general counsel's approval could be determined to be a misuse of public funds for any fees that are paid to the illegal outside council.

This could result in each of you being held personally liable for those funds, potential criminal liability, and a determination of malfeasance or misfases.

To demonstrate this risk, JAA's section of the city's charter states, quote, the authority may use any of the services available to governmental units to the finance and administration department, information technology division of the city of Jacksonville, but is not required to do so by law.

However, the authority shall be required to use the legal services of the city of Jacksonville, except in those cases where the chief legal officer, the general counsel, of the city determines that the city legal staff cannot provide legal services in the required legal area.

End quote.

I know the draft complaint alleges that this provision should mean that JAA can choose if it will use OGC.

But for your own sakes, that allegation had better be right.

Because it doesn't take my decades of legal experience in statutory construction and charter interpretation and implementation for anyone to believe that this position is black wrong.

JAA's charter provision gives JAA the optional use of the city's finance and administration department and IT services.

But however, it makes it mandatory that JAA use OGC unless the general counsel approves outside counsel.

It really couldn't be any clearer.

Additionally, instead of making its legal claims in a clear, dispassionate manner, the draft complaint is full of hyperbole and inflammatory language that, in my opinion, is intended to attempt to inflame the six of you to support your staff's desire to take this action and ignore the misleading and in some instances incorrect assertions.

In addition to the fact factual inaccuracies that Council President Howland just clarified, whoever drafted this complaint is attempting to mislead you into thinking that the state legislature created a separate JAA charter in 2004, one that is independent of the consolidated city charter.

That couldn't be further from the truth.

JAA's creation in 2004-464 Laws of Florida specifically states in the title of the bill, quote, an act relating to the Jacksonville Airport Authority, comma, consolidated city of Jacksonville, comma, Duvall County.

JAA is part of the consolidated city of Jacksonville, which is part of Duvall County.

It states creating and establishing separate charter provisions, uses the word that, not a standalone charter, separate charter provisions concerning the airport authority, not creating a separate charter concerning JAA.

Three minute.

In addition to providing optional use of the city's finance and administration department and IT services and mandatory uses of the Office of General Counsel, the JAA Charter also provides JAA's budget must be approved by the City Council, not just when JAA comes to the city for funding, but in its entirety.

Auditing authority by the council auditor, city council has control of JAA's use of its own real property.

JAA must obtain city council permission to work and dispose of its real property under some circumstances.

JAA must pay the city a $50,000 surety bond for each of its members to guarantee, quote, faithful performance of their duties.

All of this control and oversight proves that JEA's charter section is not a freestanding charter as the complaint alleges.

Jason, let me close to wrapping up.

Yes, sir.

We'll pass time.

We'll wrap it up with this.

Finally, I feel that there's a very real possibility that if you approve of its filing today, this complaint will not even be heard on the merits.

I believe it will be dismissed out of hand due to JAA's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies, and because many of the claims are impermissively speculative, namely that the city council and its president will possibly take certain actions in the future.

JAA has a legal obligation pursuant to the charter to first seek a binding legal opinion from the general counsel on every one of these legal questions, even if it's argued that, even if it's argued to you that it will not be fruitful.

This complaint seeks to illegally bypass that requirement.

My belief is that a reviewing court will require this procedural step before it even looks to the merits of the complaint.

That is JAA's path, not this one.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Next we have McCartney.

Any others after Nick, I have the last.

I have a seal.

Mr.

Harding on the following by chance.

No, okay.

All right.

Any other public comment is the rest of the lesson?

Chair, you're going to allow me to speak at some point.

I just want to make sure.

Yes.

Thank you.

It will be allowed.

All right.

We are next to moving on to do business.

I will follow on Mr.

Gulf for sentence.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I'd like to move resolution number 2026-02S.

And after seconded, I'm requesting the opportunity to make comments.

Okay.

Second.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

Further discussion.

Thank you.

Just prior to consolidation of the Jacksonville city and county government.

Corruption in local government was rampant.

The grand jury indicted 11 public officials on 142 counts of arsoning and bribery, seven of whom were office elected office holders.

Convictions followed.

Political manipulation and influence pedaling was obvious in city departments and offices.

The framers of consolidation certainly recognize the negative impact of political influence on the operations of local government, especially utilities, transportation, and the like.

In short, a degree of insulation from day-to-day politics was needed.

Hence the independence of the authorities, consolidation created, isolated them from such interference.

Furthermore, the architects of consolidation wanted a strong unified government, but were wary of concentrating every important function in the one elected administration and council.

Independent authorities provide a measure of separation, making operational decisions through boards instead of city hall.

Lastly, there were other reasons, including ensuring bondholders that revenues would remain dedicated to the enterprise, avoidance of revenues being diverted to unrelated city expenses, and more stable long-range planning, not hampered by the potential change of office holders every quarter take years.

Again, for these reasons and others, independent authorities made a lot of sense.

I share this because of my belief that independent authorities, and particularly the JAA are under attack, and some people ignore the ideal and definition of independent.

Perhaps we need to be reminded more often of the intent of the original framework's consolidation and the subsequent local and state enabling legislation that led independent authorities like the JAA.

I dislike the headline, JAA sues the city of Jacksonville.

It connotes an adversarial action, and that is not the case.

It is an attempt to resolve a disagreement, which I think directly calls to question certain aspects of the relationship between the city and council, city council and the JAA.

A relationship enjoying 20 years of success prior to the document and unlawful demands of the last three years.

The board and staff of the JAA are in complete agreement with substantially increasing JAA's primary emphasis in Cecil Field of Maintenance Repair and Overhaul facilities, as well as interest in developing infrastructure infrastructure in support of future growth of the aerospace industry.

In fact, that has been the goal of the authority for some time, evidenced by what's already taken place at Cecil, like polling.

Additionally, auto air, the biggest aerospace development news here in some time, as a result of the hard work, tenacity, and persistence of the JAA staff.

I witnessed that first hand at the air show outside of London several years ago.

Since 2005, a total of 375 million dollars from all sources has been spent on capital improvements at CESO with JA advancing over 264 million dollars.

Much of it on infrastructure improvements to benefit future development.

Also, with sizeable and fiscally responsible cash reserve, JEA is already always ready to meet the significant financial demands that could be related to a major project in CESL, not to mention most important issues of airport aviation safety.

As community citizens, we are committed to assisting in any way possible in legally allowing to help enhance workforce development and economic growth in this area, even if it's outside of the realm of aerospace development, as long as it is not outside of the realm of lawful revenue diversion, unlawful revenue, there are lawful revenue diversion and fiscal prudence.

In the last several years, there have been multiple requests to manage even threats that JA provide funding for certain city projects and initiatives.

Time and time again, the authority was prevented by federal law to fund such projects because as the federal aviation administration is opined, it was not directly related to airport and aerospace activity and development.

In the last year's city budget hearings, for the first time ever, the council took the unprecedented move to amend the 2026 JAA budget.

General Council of the City, Mr.

Michael Facler was asked for a legal opinion as to whether they could do that, and he said they could in very limited fashion.

More specifically, Mr.

Facler said, I quote, the council's budgetary control or JAA's budget has limitations.

Council cannot reduce JAA's budget below the required debt service obligations for bonds issued by the authority.

However, the council could alter the JA's budget in such a manner as so as to create a violation, could not alter JAA's budget in such a manner as to create a violation of federal or state law or result in a breach of contract.

The council amendment to the JAA's budget would both violate federal law and result in JA breaching a lease, which with an existing long-term tenant regarding these potentially unlawful amendments, Mr.

Fackler and his staff also noted the JAA is not required to honor any council amendments to its budget.

Please note that the JAA receives no funding from the City of Jacksonville.

Our budgetary and spending decisions are based solely on money that the authority generates.

I'm further concerned by the stance of the council in the upcoming 2027 budget deliberations.

The finance committee has allocated nine minutes to consider and possibly act on the JAA budget.

Let's do a comparison.

Other independent authorities, 45 minutes.

Sheriff's Office of Fire and Rescue, 60 minutes.

Public works, 45 minutes, half the time allocated to JAA.

Most of the other departments, 30 to 45 minutes.

The JAA, 90 minutes, and the only 90-minute allocation.

Why?

Is there a message here?

Do we as board members have a right to be concerned?

After engineering the amendment to the JA's charter, and with the help of the Office of General Counsel, Council President Howland is insisting that a JAA does not abide by the new charter workforce and economic development language.

JAA will invite will violate state law.

I'm not sure how he can system JA violate federal law, so as not to violate state law.

Council President Howland's attempt to codify his workforce and economic development initiatives into Florida law is Twitter from this April 23rd, 2026 email to our board chair, in which Council President Howland states: it is abundantly clear that JA leadership sees neither the city council nor the state legislature as an authority, but they worked for the board, and it is a board's responsibility to abide by and implement the charter.

City Council and State Legislature put workforce development intentionally into the definition of economic development in the revised charter language for this for this very project.

The project referred to here is the same FSCJ training center project that the FAA has recently and repeatedly said represents unlawful revenue diversion.

I wonder if all those that voted for council president's amendment to the JA charter knew their votes would be used this way.

This is another of many examples of the JAA's proposed legal action is the only remedy available to us to challenge actions by the city council and the ruling by the general council of the city of Jacksonville.

In total agreement with language contained in the proposed resolution and draft complaint.

Interestingly, in his inaugural comments, the incoming council president called into question the procedural practice of the authority.

Council President Howland says he wants a change, followed by a chilling threat that if we don't, he will have the council change it.

I won't speak about the merits of the change, but I can tell you unequivocally that it is a board's unilateral decision to consider such a change and not the council.

I think Mr.

Holland is reaching beyond its authorities.

Council president, I'd say that with some experience having served as a council president.

I hope this will help explain JA's position, my position, and hopefully my colleagues' collective position on this issue.

I hope this will elaborate our concerns and direction.

Again, this is a totally objective direction without animosity or ill will for the future of JA.

This needs to be resolved.

Lastly, the JA Aviation Authority is either a non-independent authority created by city charter and controlled by the city council in ways that could supersede federal and state law, or the Jacksonville Aviation Authority is an independent special district, a political subdivision created by the state of Florida, controlled by its board of directors, and regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration.

This City of Jacksonville believes the former to be true, and the JA believes the latter to be true as to the framers of consolidation.

Inasmuch as the city and the JA's believe are fuller offices, this is a matter for a court to decide.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and board members for giving me the time to speak my mind.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Mr.

Chairman.

We're going to uh ask out copies of my remarks of the people to the people that had.

There's been considerable commentary and opinions concerning today's topic.

So my contribution will be facts and one opinion related to my three board responsibilities.

First, as chair of the committee for Jacksonville Aerospace Development.

The committee consists of JAA board members, members of the City Council, JAA development partners such as Jacks USA, Jack's Chamber, City of Jacksonville, existing Cecil Airport tenant partners and community leaders.

Second, when we began this process in December, there were substantial knowledge gaps among the participants.

For example, our records show prior to that time, only two of the 19 members of the City Council had ever been to Cecil for non-ceremonial activities led by the JAA, and none had ever been on the plate line during their terms of office.

Third, substantial money is being spent on Cecil Airport to Spaceport Capital Improvements during the current fiscal year.

As we learned, Cecil requires infrastructure upgrades.

A master plan has now been submitted and approved by the FAA.

Resiliency modifications for existing and future tenants has begun, and Reynolds Smith and Hills is finalizing a consulting report that will continue the momentum and development over the past five years.

These actions will include our work with JAX USA for more aggressive marketing to potential relocation or expansion tenants and the identification of aerospace industries and technologies that do not yet exist.

However, in planning for our future, we must not forget, as Mr.

Veliper just said, that Cecil's bread and butter is MRO.

Fourth, according to the most recent FDOT report, Cecil has the highest average employee salary of any airport in Florida.

Fifth, we, our development partners, along with Space Florida, FDOT, and the Florida Department of Commerce, continually seek out and respond to requests that include Cecil Airport and Spaceport.

This work requires confidentiality and can take from months to more than a decade before any agreement is finalized.

One of those negotiations is reaching final stages after almost 20 years.

As part of that pipeline, discussions are also ongoing with existing Jacksonville area businesses.

Lastly, for this section, all this work and other activities, such as assisting FSCJ and their workforce grant requests that do not involve revenue diversion, demonstrate the ongoing daily function of the JAA board and staff that is consistent with both the spirit and language of recently enacted legislation.

House Bill 3045 is delegated responsibility for the economic development of Cecil Airport and Spaceport, which JAA will do subject, of course, for FAA regulation.

Now, second, is treasurer of the authority, the reminder that JAA receives no income from the city of Jacksonville and cannot levy taxes.

The only income directly from individuals is PFC passenger facility charges and other user fees.

Second, I've spoken with and reviewed past and potential costs of the proposed outside council.

The proposed hourly rates are consistent with administrative law attorneys in Florida with similar experience and knowledge, and the cost will not be the threshold requiring board action or approval.

Next, having previously served as chair of another state entity that used outside council, my interview with the proposed legal team determined, in my opinion, this is one place where it's my opinion that they will provide opportunity for positive outcome for the authority on board.

Next section as treasurer relates to the FAA reauthorization act 2024 and 49 USC 47107, which clearly applied to the outcome of any litigation.

Here's a condensed version of the U.S.

code as it applies to us.

One, as a separate and distinct entity, JAA was responsible for preventing revenue diversion.

Second, in cases of revenue diversion, the Department of Transportation can assess treble damages, statutory double penalties, interest, withholding grant money, and future PSE penance.

Third, however, if the Department of Transportation determines a stated in paragraph Q that the municipality, not the agency is at fault, cross-modal funds are at risk.

In plain English, JTA, pastation authority, past and present, past and future funding could be confiscated, requiring the City of Jacksonville to refund tens or possibly hundreds of millions of dollars of federal government, most probably from tax revenue.

Now, my third responsibility as one of the seven board members.

And I've heard stated that there's no need for litigation.

And the statement about set of law, it is accurate.

And I'm going to read the relevant passage.

And it is quote, this Constitution, the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.

And the judges in every state shall be down thereby.

Anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary and understand, close quote.

That's Article 6, Clause 2 of the U.S.

Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause.

With all deference, Jacksonville City Council and the Florida State Legislature, this body is first and foremost down by the federal laws who granted licenses to the aviation facilities that are the core of our current work and economic development.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

I just wanted to make a few comments.

First, I'm going to start by thanking all of you for your comments, especially Mr.

Teal, thank you for coming out.

Your comments certainly resonate with me as a lawyer, and I will say that one of the things that has been swirling around in the back of my mind, and you you mentioned it was the concept of the conflict of a law firm and representing two people who share different interests.

And I did a quick Google search while you were speaking.

A law firm cannot represent two clients whose interests are directly adverse to each other.

Now I certainly understand Florida law, I understand federal law, but I even more than that understand the fact that each of us as lawyers are granted a license, and that license requires us to act within the confines of our profession and the rules regulating us as lawyers.

And so I can't understand, and I'd love to hear response as to how it is that a law firm, which is the general counsel's office, can represent two people who have different interests who don't agree and provide opinions, even though lawyers may be separate and different.

With impeded to one person in the firm, that what information one person in the firm has is impeded to everybody else.

And so I know that we've talked to our lawyers about that, and that is certainly one of the concerns that I have as a lawyer looking at these issues, and so I want to mention that.

It's about clearing up the confusion and about having clarity.

We as board members cannot effectively do our jobs.

City council people cannot effectively do our do their jobs if we do not have a clear understanding of what our roles and responsibilities are.

And so I want to be clear that I did not review the draft complaint before it was handed out to everybody on this board.

The facts that are contained therein, I understand to all be true.

Uh, but I want you all to know that with respect to the information, uh, the relief that is being requested in my mind, again, this is not about power, it's not about control, it's about having a clear understanding.

I served as board chair for two years prior.

These questions have been swirling around for a long time.

They're not new, they didn't creep up overnight.

These are issues Mr.

Fackles come to address at these meetings before now.

Mr.

Howland and I have had conversations about these very issues, and I do think the citizens of this great state deserve to have clarity on what needs to be done, what we're tasked with doing, how we can expend our resources to ensure that this is not an issue that continues to unfortunately split parties and split people who should all be on the same team.

We're certainly all in the same team, we want what's best for our community.

Um, and with that being said, I'm supportive of moving forward, and again, um, this is not.

I I hope that the final draft, there's we've done one triple check the facts to make sure that they're correct, uh, that only the information that's really necessary for a court to review.

Um, we should not use this as a political tool, the filing of this lawsuit should not be used for any other reason than to gain clarity so that we can all do our jobs.

Shall I have a comment on the board member?

Well, I do want to say something to the people in this room.

I'm just, I'm one of the luckiest.

I think I am the luckiest guy in the room.

I wear two badges from your tenant, and I'm on the board.

And I've worn a lot of badges in Jacksonville.

Um in 1975, I went to work for John McCain out of Cecil Freedom.

And I blew for 15 years out of Cecil.

And I was on the redevelopment committee in 1990, and I've seen this JAT take Cecil Field from a small airplane light attack base to what I saw it as the night before our country went into Venezuela to take the president out.

If you really were lucky enough to see Cecil on Saturday before that Sunday, there were 8 KC 46 tankers on the west side of the field, lined up on that runway.

I thought Cecil Field had retired.

I thought I had retired.

When I see Cecil Field acting in its highest and best uses as a home for our Coast Guard, Customs, an Army Air National Guard unit, the C 46 is the night before our country.

Didn't go to war.

When I see everything Cecil does, when I watch Boeing open, when I see auto, when I worry about, are we going to run out of land over there?

Are we going to run out of land if auto produces airplanes and the next MRO wants to be there?

I look at a team at JA that has put land to the highest and best use at a level Regency Centers, a company I spent 39 years at, it would blow up, it would, it would amaze, it amazes me as a former pilot out of Cecil, what Cecil is today with 4,000 employees going looking for lunch.

It's pretty amazing.

When I look at uh the best business and recreational airport on the West side, when I look at Craig as Jacksonville Executive Airport and the training basis, when I when I look at Jackson International, it's a really fine improving everyday airline airport.

When I look at the projects this team tackles, I just want to thank this team.

This isn't about you doing a better job.

This is about you continuing to do the great job you have been doing under the leadership, which I happen to respect at a level that's amazing.

I'm proud to be on this board.

I'm thankful.

Mark lets me interact at a very uh interesting level with you guys.

Uh he lets me uh the thing I love about this organization is you try and make these airports every day.

And Nick, you got two great ideas.

We need more mechanics, and we need to keep doing what we are doing.

But we are we're keeping doing what we were doing before you put it out there to us.

Just let us work.

That's really, in my opinion, when you have a team this good, we just want the clarity to keep doing what we're doing.

So thank you for putting that into words so eloquently.

I and I hate to say this, no way to insult you, but I think hiring lawyers can get silly sometimes.

This one's silly.

We just need your key.

Nick's got a couple of good ideas, some of them weren't so good.

And let's just keep doing what we're doing.

Thank you, Bill.

Uh like a third three comments.

I think we should have had a third gear at all.

Uh we do have a lot more comfortable out of here.

We have a motion second, but I did uh Mr.

Backwood asked for three minutes to comment so he had your time before vote.

And I appreciate that.

I'll probably be brief.

I mean a lot of topics came up.

Um, as you hit up on it.

Um, the comment real quick on that ethics rule says that the five government agency.

So they recognize that we've looked at that issue plenty of times.

We can't.

But it does highlight the fun part of my job.

It's representing the entire consolidated government.

And it's a mess.

It makes my job difficult.

But that's the job that I signed up for, whether I knew what the job was or not.

And it's also the version that you guys were put into by the state legislature.

Like it or not, I'm your chief legal officer.

I was a little disheartened to hear.

We've talked to our lawyers about the conflict of interest.

I'm afraid you had.

We're your lawyers.

And we have tried very hard to make sure we maintain that relationship.

I have not heard a call from you guys since I understood there was a Kumbaya on the date though that we since then.

I haven't heard anything.

My attorney, Miss Ross has to be.

There's been no communication.

Hey, we're concerned about that.

As Barnett mentioned there's confusion.

Ask me the question.

There's this assertion that I refuse to put something in writing.

I, to my knowledge, I never refused to put something in writing.

I will put it in writing.

I offer to do that now.

I offer to give JA's representative a seat at the table to discuss it to make sure we understand your viewpoint.

My goal is to get it to count.

So it's it's a little frustrating, but we can get an opinion on this.

We can lay out everything.

My job acts as an arbitrator.

You haven't signed up for it, but the legislature signed you up for arbitration.

And I, as your arbitrator, and they put you in consolidated time.

I hear your argument about consolidated government.

We've reviewed it.

We did not take it lightly the first time this came up.

And we've had a conversation with Lawson Hawk about this, and we've gone through that process.

And we do not take advisor.

But you are part of consolidated government.

So if there's confusion, if revenue diversion is driving this, let me make it perfectly clear.

Council, if they try to create revenue diversion, I'm going to say no, we can't do it.

You cannot force this board to spend a dime.

Mr.

Gullifert resided, that's what I said to me.

I'm happy to put that in mind.

As I put into my email to you last night or yesterday afternoon, give us an opportunity to answer the questions that you have instead of running off to a court and create an unnecessary confusion and potential for someone and advocacy to get in the way of a fishing government.

Mr.

Gulford, I respectfully disagree with some of the reasons drawing consolidated government.

A lot of it was litigation.

County government, sue and city government.

What they did, they created the Office of General Counsel.

But Franklin famously called it the glue that holds consolidated government in general.

I don't say this lightly, but you are chipping away at that clerk.

Respectfully request the opportunity to work with you.

Make sure you have your questions answers, your teaching cleaned up.

I would really have a couple more things I'd love to say.

So I appreciate it.

We know the matter because it's important issue.

Yeah, absolutely.

Absolutely.

Um factual assertions are correct.

Candidly, I don't think they are.

I did not authorize Boston Huck to look at the amendment that council may.

I specifically told the scope of services.

I crossed that out.

I did not ask for that.

Candidly, JAA went behind my back and did what wanted to.

So that is an incorrect assertion.

Happy to work with you on that, get an opinion out, but going behind my back was very troublesome.

But, and Mr.

Minchin is here.

We spent one Saturday morning, an hour and a half at first overview's up in Virginia at Hampton and Memory Serves discussing the issue.

I didn't take it lightly.

We worked really hard to make sure we're looking.

I listened, I read every case that he cited.

I appreciated his input, and you changed the importing that we did.

And so I want to make sure you know that that's not true.

I did not authorize that.

The final thing that's important for my role is I kept my confidences.

Absolutely.

I did not tell you what one of my clients is thinking of.

And I will continue to do that.

I will not tell you them the confidences you tell me.

I will not tell the mayor.

I will not tell what the mayor's talking to me about.

Ethan is involved until they're ready to go public.

So yes, that is correct.

I keep confidences.

I don't reveal it, and I will not.

That is not my job.

So that's another assertion in the resolution that I need to point out is just wrong.

So again, I re I don't want to get into a legal discussion.

I do think it's an interesting discussion back and forth.

I believe we are correct and happy to walk through and work through these issues.

The final thing I do want to say, and I do not say this lightly, it is not a threat in any way.

OGC does not determine whether there's personal liability, but as your hand, I'm advised to tell you that there is a potential for you to personality.

I'm not going to act on that threat.

It's not a threat, but as your attorney, I want to make sure you know that before you vote.

And I'm also, I know my time is up, but I'm your attorney.

If you have questions, please ask me now.

Anything you want to know about this resolution, ask me.

Can I ask a question?

Yes.

I have a few questions.

Thank you for being high interrupted here.

Part of the job, right?

But thank you.

I didn't travel as far as the chair, I understood three ways.

So Mr.

Teal mentioned our failure to accounts to administrative minutes.

Is that the requesting of opinions from your office on these very issues?

Yeah.

It's, I don't know if it's a requirement, it's an interesting analysis.

I think anything that we write from the office of general council is finding.

But I think we've got a problem with an exhausting remedy.

I don't think the answer is there.

For I have a bona fide dispute.

I think you understand what my position is.

So that's why I'm asking for extra time.

I think the other administrative issues.

I'm not following you.

Can you explain that?

Sure, you see a DEC action.

Yeah, a DAC action seats has to have two contrary positions.

It has to be a bone of V Day dispute.

If you don't know my position, and I don't think you've articulated it correctly in the company, although it was very well done.

I'm not sure what part of the legal team did, but it was very well done.

I don't think you have correctly captured my opinion on this.

Right, but it's not us versus you.

It's us versus you know, a body that is exerting pressure on the JA to do certain things.

And so we know what that dispute is and what that misunderstanding is of our respective roles.

But but you're suing the city that who speaks through various elected officials.

As a chief legal officer, it's my opinion as to what their legal position is.

I don't care what, no offense to Mr.

Howland, what he thinks recognition urgent is.

I don't really care what he thinks you guys should do.

Okay, but the mayor legally, she can also say what she thinks you should do.

But I am the one that articulates the legal position of the city of Jacksonville.

So I think this board means this is a tax people issue, I certainly do.

You've got budget hearings coming up, there's a lot going on.

Hypothetically, if you were to say, can your office give us an opinion on the specific issues that we've included in that deck action over the next 10 days?

Is that realistic?

I don't think in 10 days to get an accurate one.

I put in my email to you last night 30 days.

Am I willing to compromise?

I I also have some pushback on why's time sensitive, and that gets to another administrative one season before it issue.

But there's nothing's gonna happen between now and August 15th that I know of.

So happy dates with your office.

I think that's part of the concern.

If we call a law from hack and we say, hey, we need an opinion on this, we're gonna get it in 50 minutes, right?

For us to wait 30 days, I think having my own law firm respectfully, that's a really long time to wait for a legal thinker.

A couple of things.

One is I'm not advocating.

I'm not advocating for conception.

No, I understand.

OGC at this point will put on its judges' hat.

I do not want to rush for binding information.

Could I do it in 15 days?

Did I do it in 10 days?

Absolutely.

But if it's going to be a binding opinion, and it's going to be thoughtful and correct, I want to take the time.

I what I do is I circle up my team and we make sure that we analyze it from every perspective.

And you are right, it's an important issue.

It goes to part of the heart of consolidated government.

And I don't want to rush that and get it wrong.

So that's why I think 30 days is okay.

Bill, I think I got a question that solved fact where obviously I'm not an attorney like you in Spartan.

Yeah, I did watch very mason years ago, but maybe that qualified.

Um something that's been bouncing around in our mind ever since this started is the idea of remedy and your position, where I recognize general counsel can be give a binding opinion, and it is binding on all parties within the consolidated government and beyond.

But everybody has the right to remedy.

So my question is, and I guess a deck action is the only option that's available to some entity that seeks remedy.

How does that happen to general counsel's office?

What if we wanted to pursue that?

We don't agree.

Let's say we don't agree with your opinion.

We've got to have some ability for remedy to at least challenge it, and that's the deck action, what I understand, correct?

DEC Action is one way to resolve a dispute where money is not an issue.

Right.

It's a declaration of rights.

That's exactly right.

What I would say to you in regards to you have to have some remedy.

It's like for those of you who are in business and sign up for arbitration, an arbitrator, he decides, you're stuck with it.

You picked an arbitrary.

In essence, you signed up, not voluntarily, by the nature of the legislation that was passed to be bound by the binding opinions of 7.03 of the charter.

You are bound by my opinions.

So the answer to your question is your right your remedy is to work with me.

And if you don't like it, then you take it.

Fred Franklin, if your opinion could get the date, but he said, Mayor, you can't veto that.

Counsel can counsel you win in this time.

Mayor, you have no right of appeal.

Counsel at one, council would have no right of appeal.

But has that section in the charter ever been legally challenged?

Because it still seems unfair to me.

I mean, from a basic of basic uh fairness that the court cannot intercede in this and get involved in some type of decision that makes you and puts you in a position where you are Lord and Master and your opinion is totally binding and there is no option for remedy whatsoever, and I have a horrible problem with that.

I honestly do.

And you've explained it well, but I still don't accept it.

I think it may be part, as you say it is part of the charter, etc.

If you know everything is legal until somebody challenged it in a go to court, as you well know.

Yeah, two responses.

One is uh think of a large company that has a chief legal officer, Disney.

Disney has a theme park and they have a motion.

If they have a dispute, they they don't get to go to court and litigate it.

The chief legal officer says, okay, I'm sorry, Disney animation.

You win, you lose.

That's it.

I'm the chief legal officer.

I speak for the entire corporation and the entire consolidated government.

My other comment would be if you want to go to the legislature and take that out.

My job would be a lot easier.

I understand that.

But if the court did rule that it is binding by the court, is that not correct?

If in some situation, the court could find their decision regardless of what your decision was.

And I'll give you an example.

7.02 says it's binding unless it involves overruled by court.

And I saw that.

And that's and I'll tend to let me say how I interpret it.

We issued an opinion that council could not negotiate the rate for waste holidays.

That was binding on counsel.

And council did not like it at all.

And but I where you're going is but the third party who was impacted by that, they could have taken us to court.

Yeah, and I understand that.

But I think there's a uniqueness here with an independent authority versus your, and I don't necessarily buy your analogy about Disney.

Maybe you're partial to business of it, but I I mean I I understand what you're saying.

I existed under that scenario of binding legislation for eight years on the council.

I understand that fully, but I still think the uniqueness of our situation, I think it's totally different that if council had a problem, if council had a problem when you're buying the legislation and said, Oh, we have to have a rapid remedy.

No, they don't.

But in our case, it sure seems like we should be able to because of the independent nature of the of the authority.

But that's just, hey, that's a guy that's going to have a law degree.

It's got a law degree.

If I would love to answer that question, thank you.

Thank you for being here also.

And again, I just went to a trade school.

I didn't go to a law school.

So I seem to remember in January of 2020 that this circuit ruled that the school board could get outside council and that and that eventually ended up being uh appealed to the appeal labs from OGC because OGC basically ate the school board everything at one.

Uh and so uh so I look at the facts in our case being almost identical to all-kind of school work versus the city of Jacksonville, that uh that the ruling did say that that in the adverse party situation that the school board was entitled to outside counseling.

And I I would commend a judge Lomanski's order on that, which discusses that.

Is it I I always confuse who is it?

Judge Wilkinson.

Well, uh Judge Wilkinson I ordered guys.

Um if you look at his order, he says I'm ruling only as the school board.

As to the other independent agencies, they aren't in anything different without issues.

All right, Matt.

So I think but go about your Disney analogy.

Um if Disney theme parts was regulated by federal entity, and Disney motion pictures did not, and the dispute from motion pictures to theme parts is one that goes outside the federal regulations.

How does that chief legal officer yield good opinion?

Okay.

He he does an analysis of what one client bound by, and just so we're crystal clear.

But who but how can he give an opinion on a federal mandate?

He is giving an opinion as to advice as to his clients and what they can and can't do, or what they should and shouldn't do.

So in this case he's saying you shouldn't involve in revenue version, and just over crystal clear.

Do not do revenue diversion.

That's my advice to you guys.

Uh I can't be any clearer than that.

Council cannot make you do revenue diversion.

So I don't think I can be any clearer than that.

Um to your question, though, it's it's it's analysis.

You ask you what's best for the company.

What's best for the company is for Disney the theme part not to violate FAA's punishment for you.

So let me let me make so as my counsel.

What is your opinion?

On an FAA regulation versus a local statute.

Yeah.

Okay.

Call question.

So we have called for a vote from a member.

I will uh we have a motion.

We have a second.

We have a call to question.

Let me get the vote first.

I'm not on the board, so I don't think calling a question.

Yeah, okay.

We'll vote on the call of question.

All in favor of call the question, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed carries.

So we now have uh the mandate for the polls.

Is that correct?

Exactly.

Am I allowed to speak even though we call the question?

Since I'm not on the vote, we called the question.

We've called the question to move.

You will have your opportunity on the bottom of the agenda.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

We have a called question.

Give me just a second.

Let's get a vote here, and I will have some comments after the vote as well.

All in favor of resolution 2026-02S, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed motion carries.

Before we move on, I would um in the position of the chair.

But I would entertain a motion from any of the members for 30 days before filing this suit that we commit to work with the city on mediation and appoint one board member who I would appoint Michelle based on her legal background to approve before any suit was filed against the city if mediation were unsuccessful.

I would intertain that motion.

We have a motion.

Can I speak for the motion?

We have a motion.

Do we have a second reception?

Yeah.

We have a second with that.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

I would just offer our friendly amendment, and that's that I know our lawyers are sitting here who have advice us on this issue.

Um certainly there's been a lot of discussion today, and I suspect they may want to look at some of the issues that have been raised here today or consider that.

And so I um in agreement with the 30 days, and I would also um suggest that we evaluate whether the administrative remedy of having the general council's office provide the thing giving Mr.

Fackler's uh willingness to try to work with us on time.

30 days does seem like a long time for us to wait.

Uh but I would uh suggest that if we take that way out.

I agree.

We've got a technical question.

Sorry, and before I vote.

I don't understand one thing.

Uh, because every time we talk about federal government, everybody in this room says we understand revenue diversion.

But everything this airport authority does with regard to complying with FAA regulations, everything in our budget, every time we go out for a grant for matching funds, that's not a revenue diversion issue.

And when I hear the OCG claim they understand the airport, I think this is the same question you're asking.

I don't understand.

I I think we all understand revenue diversion, but if they want to review our budgets for 90 minutes, you have to work a year here to understand how we construct our budget.

You have to be on the finance committee.

So I honestly don't understand how the OGC for the city can understand the FAA requirements that go in to the makeup of our budget.

So that's gonna affect how a vote on arbitration versus outside.

Yes, I I uh thank you for the comment.

And uh I the motion is for a 30-day uh period before JA would file suit to work with the city on mutually agreed upon mediators, and we appoint we appoint Michelle Barnett as a member of this board uh to make the final call before we were file suit against the city about mediation work to break down a country and pass to put it in the final Chris uh in terms of Robert's rules.

I'll make your motion for you to be recorded if I offered it, and I think you do not offer it.

Okay, I mean nobody can I did not make the motion about the step out to do that.

When is our next regular skip report?

September.

I'm assuming we did say I belong to holding that because I think the schedule special.

I do think that um we should engage in mediation efforts.

This board uh deserves to hear the nuances of what that report may be or what the outcome may be before we get forward.

Yeah, well, I appreciate confidence and what do you mean?

I'm happy to do it.

I think that it merits the representation that is here.

It's a review again.

So we'll have to not reach resolution.

I would suggest that this board maybe to evaluate and your discussion in you.

I would say language motion almost requirement.

Mr.

Holland.

Yeah, thank you.

I'd like to speak on this motion before you call for a vote.

And I'd like to note that you didn't let me speak on the last one.

You could have easily uh called to reverse the call uh calling the question and let me speak on named 33 times on this complaint on president of city council and city council's name several times on the complaint and the resolution, and Mr.

Gullifer before you voted, named city council and the president of city council at least seven times during his comments.

Um I think everyone should have watched the hearing um before they voted on this resolution.

Uh I think it's irresponsible that you didn't.

If you were there, you should have watched it again if you weren't there and you voted on this resolution irresponsibly.

Um you'll note that we praise CISO efficiently and everything that's been accomplished there.

Um but we also noted in that hearing that there was more investment in Craig and Cecil and Zero for the spaceport.

So council was clear in its intent that those amendments were passed to help accelerate investment at Cecil.

What was also clear all throughout was that nothing had to be spent, no new line items were created, and we were seeking FA approval for anything.

The council was never compelling JAA to spend that money.

Revenue diversion never happened.

You could have easily asked a general counsel his opinion of revenue diversion happened.

I'm glad I'm pretty certain you would say the same thing.

No one ever forced you to spend that money.

And um, to your point about um Mr.

Gulfford, you're wondering why 90 minutes was allowed.

That's because HD 4045, passed by 129 of your State House and Senate leaders, demands that you produce an economic development plan for Cecil concurrent with your budget, and that went into effect when the governor signed it.

We're putting that 90 minutes so you can present your plan.

Um with regard to uh Mr.

Offmeyer saying you wish you would, I would leave you alone.

If you recall, we passed those budget amendments, then we passed uh the J Bill.

It became House Bill 4045, that went through the state house and state senate.

We never did anything.

However, JA came after us with a letter from Millionaire, two resolutions that this board passed, a letter from the FAA, state complaints, uh, and now this resolution and this complaint.

Um that's really interesting that you say uh we need to stop memory.

Um it's it's been JAA.

And the last thing I was going to say before the last vote is you don't just have to vote up or down 6006.

You could have deferred it, Mr.

Chair.

Um the board could have recommended a deferral if you truly wanted to um take more time to do this.

You um supportive since you did vote back to do the 30-day break.

You also could have amended it because I pointed out clearly there are at least four whereas clauses in the resolution that are false.

If you just watch the hearing, um one that says we move to create a new line's wholesale false, and the auditors here if you need to verify that.

One that says we unlawfully diverted revenue, uh cause you to divert revenue um breaking the FA rules false.

Um that says, and this is a very important one, I think is why whenever I was asking different people to reach out to different board members over the last week to consider a deferral here, and I was told no, this is going 7-0 by almost everybody, is because of the 27th whereas clause at the bottom of page four, which says that um what the city council has done to JAA is to cause the immediate danger to the health safety and welfare of the public.

And you needed a three-quarters vote of your board on that element of the resolution in order to bypass the conflict resolution parts of the state statute.

That's really what happened here.

That's why uh the JAA asks its board to vote on this 7-0 or 6-0.

Three quarters is 5.25.

You needed um six votes in order to enact that whereas clause.

Um, and that's crazy to think that $13 million moving from one part of your budget to another with 401 million dollars, which makes up just over 3% results in the immediate date health safety uh and danger to the public.

Uh and then finally, there's a big whereas clause number 29 in the middle of five where you're wrong on at least four set of counts.

Um you could have done that.

You could have amended those false ones out.

Instead, you just pass a group resolution that has that has untrue facts.

Um I hope we mediate this.

Uh that's the best option is a sand zone given that this is passed, so I hope you pass this amendment.

Um, but I'm extremely disappointed.

Thanks.

Thank you, I I'm I'm compelled to say this is a point of order.

There is no obligation, nor did in Robert's rule that you allow anyone from outside the actual board to have an opportunity to speak in the deliberations and consideration of a motion before the body.

And I take exception to his potential insistence on being involved at that.

And he's not a board member.

He's council president.

He do respect his council president, but as I said, he's not a board member and doesn't have a vote.

And frankly, here we're here today and involved in this because it is aggressive intrusion into JA activity in action over the last three years.

And it has to be said if that's the case.

So thank you, Bill.

And I do feel like it's warrants allowing outside.

That is your discretion as the as the board chair absolutely.

We do have a motion and a second for uh the 30-day uh mediation on future agreed upon uh team and Michelle serving as the board member to approve uh before a suit would be filed, and she has uh agreed to come back to this full board before that would happen.

Um so I would uh call for a vote all in favor of that motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Great.

Okay, we have the 30 days.

Um I don't think anybody's intention here is to sue the city.

What we're looking for is clarity, and we're hoping that 30 days will produce that clarity for us.

And we can all move forward because I think Jacksonville is an amazing city.

I think this airport is an amazing airport.

They win the boards, and I think there everybody in this potential conflict loves the city of Jacksonville.

Uh and I think that's the theme that we take through these mediation and we look for ways to to grow together.

So, Bill Mr.

Saul is going to meet out of London.

I got walked.

Martin is on the idea on the way.

We expect him to come back with something equal to or better than auto air.

I heard that definitely.

Yeah, he did it.

Mark is on the way to the air show, which he's got to catch the plan, so he is not uh objecting.

Mr.

Chairpoint of clarification that 30 days starts from today.

That's correct.

That's correct.

Okay, we do have council members, uh council president how city council update.

Anything further you'd like to add?

Yeah, I don't know why we're hustling to get out of here.

This is a really important topic of consolidated city of Jackson, but I'll just say this.

Government is a contract with the people, which is why the people through the state legislature chose to originally put JA within the consolidated government tax.

So the mayor and city council were elected.

And when we have an issue, the people often come to us.

So you approved a resolution today, but the lawsuit has not yet been filed, so there's still time to choose a different path and work together.

Like we did when the sheriff reached out to me and asked me to reverse the lease that you were putting on him in September 2024.

And like veterans did um in December 2024 when you move disabled battery and parking outs or remote lots, and they asked me to come help.

Um, like when uh former airport and JSO police officer asked me to see if I could help get the airport accreditation again since they lost it between 2020 and 2026.

Um, those are all examples of how the public comes to city council, so city council can help um get a resolution that the public's looking for.

Um, I've said before that the people have spoken, they don't want lawsuits, they want a safer city, efficient and affordable services, and they want jobs.

Let's move forward together and make Cecil Field the aerospace of it was meant to be.

Thanks.

Thank you, Council President.

I do understand and appreciate your comments, and thank you, Mr.

Backl for coming in uh to uh we are uh and for the record we're happy to work in whatever necessary to facilitate the mediation, play no role, play any role we want to.

So happy to be involved in that.

I've had some Titan statesmen reach out offering to help in this process, so I think we would uh we would be able to have plenty of folks to help with this.

Our goal is not to sue the city, our goal is to get clarity and hopefully use this third days to find a resolution so that we all can move forward.

I do want to remind the board members any conversations outside of this meeting would violate sunshine laws along one another, so please adhere to the sunshine laws fully, uh including once this meeting meeting is adjourned.

Uh any discussions on anything whatsoever to do with uh the business conducted today or any other JA business is off limits if they violate sunshine laws.

So we will uh uh Jason and myself will be available if any folks have questions.

I'm sure Council President Howland will be available immediately after questions as well as Mr.

Blackwood.

Any of the board members we can't stop from talking to the media, and uh we would we would encourage um everyone and I appreciate the fact that we handle this sibling.

There's a lot of things that could have gone awry here, and I just want to thank everyone in the room for the way in which they discussed this and gone through it, and let's get to a resolution of within 30 days.

I will adjourn the meeting as well.