Welcome to the City of St.

Petersburg City Council meeting.

Your elected officials are Mayor Ken Welch.

District 1, Copley Gurdis, District 2, Brandy Gabbert, District 3, Mike Harding, District 4, and Council Chair, Leseth Hanowitz.

District 5, Deborah Fake Sanders.

District 6, Gina Driscoll.

District 7, Corey Gibbons Jr.

And District 8 and Council Vice Chair, Richie Floyd.

26th council meeting.

Clerk, if I can have a roll call, please.

Here.

Curtis.

Here.

Abbott.

Here.

Harding.

Hannawitz.

Here.

Today we're going to have our invocation given by Reverend Ted Clarkson, Junior Vicar of the Catherine Cathedral of St.

Peter.

If you can please stand for that, and then remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for having me.

It's a delight to be here.

Let us pray.

Gracious and loving God, we give you thanks for this day and each new opportunity it affords us to serve you and your people.

We give thanks for the city of St.

Petersburg, for all who live and work here, and for those who have gone before us to make the city what it is today.

As we begin another Pride Month, we give thanks for the rich diversity of our community and for the contributions of our LGBTQ neighbors.

May we continue to grow as a city where all people are treated with respect, where differences are welcomed as gifts, and where every resident can live in peace and safety.

We ask your blessing upon this city council, upon our mayor and public servants, and upon all who have gathered here today for our community's well-being.

Guide them in the matters before them this afternoon.

Grant them wisdom and clarity as they steward our resources and plan for the future of our city.

Bless all their efforts which support our families, strengthen our neighborhoods, and improve the services which our residents enjoy and those upon which they depend.

Help all of us to listen respectfully to one another, even and especially when we disagree.

Teach us to value every voice and to recognize the dignity and worth of every person who calls this city home.

May every decision made in this chamber be marked by justice, courage, compassion, and a sincere desire to serve the people of St.

Petersburg.

All these things we ask for your glory and for the well-being of your people.

Amen.

Amen.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Maybe seated.

Thank you, Reverend, for that beautiful invocation.

Council members, we have an agenda before us.

I'll entertain a motion for approval.

Move to approval.

Second.

We have a motion, a second.

Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting.

Council members, please enter your votes, seeing that all present council members have voted.

Clerk, please tally announce the vote.

We have a consent agenda.

Clerk, do we have any cards?

We do not.

I'll entertain a motion for approval.

Second.

Have a motion and a second.

Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting.

Council members, please enter your votes.

Seeing that all present council members have voted.

Clerk, please tally announce the vote.

Thank you.

Now we move on to open forum.

I believe we have speakers, so if you can go ahead and read the rules.

If you wish to address city council subjects and public hearing or quasi-judicial items listed on the agenda, please sign up with the clerk.

Only the individuals wishing to speak may sign the open forum sheet.

Only city residents, owners of property, business owners in the city, or their employees may speak.

All issues discussed under open form must be limited to issues related to the city of St.

Petersburg government.

If you're speaking to an item on the agenda, you may only speak once during the open forum or when the item comes up on the agenda.

Applause is not permitted except in connection with awards and presentations.

In order to provide an opportunity for all citizens to address council, each individual will be given three minutes to speak, and after which the microphone will be muted.

If you wish to address city council through the Zoom meeting, you must use the raise hand feature button on the Zoom app or enter star nine on your phone at the time the agenda item is addressed.

When it is your turn to speak, you will be unmuted and asked to state your name and address.

At the conclusion of your comments, or when you have reached the three-minute time limit, you will be muted.

All raised hands will be lowered after each agenda item.

Regardless of the method of participation use, normal rules apply, including the three-minute time limit on comments.

The requirement that any presentation materials must be submitted in advance of the meeting and the rules of decorum.

If live public comment is disrupted by violations of the rules of decorum, the chair is authorized to accept public comments by alternate means, including by email only.

And Madam Chair, we do have some speakers.

Thank you.

So I know there are a lot of people here, they want to speak.

We have open forum for 30 minutes.

So we want to hear as from as many people as possible for the third 30 minutes.

I know people are very passionate about some of the issues they want to speak to us about, but what we ask is you maintain public decorum, obviously the clapping, everything else, because it really takes away from the time from the speakers.

I don't want to have to stop and then speak and remind people about the rules because then you're taking away from the speakers' time.

So the more people can speak during 30 minutes.

Some people can only stay here.

They have jobs or whatever, and they're not going to be able to stay here for the whole meeting.

So we want to assure that we hear from everyone.

The other thing is phones.

People forget that their phones are on, so just check your phones to make sure that they're not on.

Um so that way when someone's speaking, it they're not interrupted.

Clerk, if you can call the speakers, please.

Hi, my name's Elizabeth Winter.

I live at 8260 28th Avenue North.

And I have a personal horror story regarding Duke Energy and the Public Service Commission, but I'm not going to talk about that today.

I'll just say there's a serious uh lack of accountability there.

I've lived in this community for 40 years.

My son was born and raised here.

He and his wife own a home in North Lilman, and today I speak for them.

My grandchildren attend Mount Vernon Elementary School, and today I speak for them.

I have many longtime friends and neighbors who are dear to my heart, and today I speak for them.

I urge you to fund a feasibility study and to public power because for present and future generations in St.

Pete, the time to dump Duke Energy is now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Dominic Medina.

I'll just lean down.

I don't want to adjust that again.

Uh greetings, City Council members and my fellow citizens and people watching from home.

Hi.

Mr.

Medina, please state your name and I am here representing myself as someone who lives in.

I'm sorry.

I was trying to ask.

Oh, I am so sorry.

What is that?

And oh, name and address.

Sorry, Dominic Medino, 111, 6th Avenue North number 18, St.

Petersburg, Photo, 33701.

Um, I am here as a as representing myself, and I am someone who is very passionate about the Dump Duke campaign and urging you guys to move forward with the study.

People more knowledgeable than I are going to come up here in a little and tell you multiple reasons why we should seek municipal power for St.

Pete.

They'll give you hard numbers and facts and attempt to show you why this is best for us.

But I am here in an attempt to remind you that not only will this eventually be the best thing for us financially, but that moving in the direction of municipal power is a moral and just pursuit.

And as with education and health care, should ever be one of the things that a modern civilized government seeks to provide to its citizens at little to dare I say no cost.

Now, a lot of people want to instantly rail against such ideas, too expensive, inconceivable, as if solutions to problems like these could be made easy with one simple step.

Well, deep down we know that it cannot, right?

I feel obligated to remind everyone in this room that the things most worth doing are hard, and changing the system effectively will take years of effort.

That's why, even if municipal power doesn't save us much at first, we have to keep pushing for it.

Because the fact is that we as human beings do have the ability.

We do have the technology now, today, 2026, to create a world where power needs for basic citizens can come with little to no costs.

All you have to do is look at the decades of research into alternative and renewable energies.

People way smarter than anyone in this room.

They've already figured out various solutions, but they need time and real will to implement.

A hundred years ago, people were able to envision the world I am talking about right now.

They felt that it was within their grasp.

So what happened?

Innovation was corrupted by greed for personal gains.

Anyone who tries to tell you this better world is impossible is knowingly or unknowingly serving the money first.

Oh, 30 seconds.

Um, all I can say is that unfortunately, a company that has to, by its nature, as being private and for-profit will always have to worry first about the bottom line year-to-year.

And unfortunately, that kind of care cannot offer the best quality.

The eventuality of it is certain.

The best thing is to put power in the hands of the people.

So I beseech you to do the right thing.

We must continue to pursue the adoption of municipal power.

Thank you.

Next two speakers.

Okay.

Once you enter to the meeting space, unmute.

State your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address City Council.

Hello.

You there, Susan?

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Very good.

Excellent.

I'm Susan Glickman, and I'm a property owner in St.

Petersburg since 2001, 526 Fifth Street North.

And I wanted to share that it was the 1950s when franchise agreements came into play in Florida.

And when they were first established, they made a lot of sense because universal service was a challenge, especially in less populated areas.

So utilities were required to serve everyone, and in return, they were granted a guaranteed range of return on capital expenditures to build power plants and transmission lines.

But here we are now in 2026.

Things have changed a lot in the energy world.

Costs for solar, wind, and storage are down, and gas and coal are up.

And as we all know, we are in an affordability crisis.

Today's vote is a very important one.

It will affect our community for many decades.

I would encourage you to accept the proposal and improve the award with new gen strategies and solutions for a municipal electric utility feasibility study, because that is what's going to give you the rigorous analysis you need to understand what it would look like for the city of St.

Pete to control their own power.

The proposition is essentially a simple one because investor-owned utilities have a fiduciary relationship to their shareholders to return a profit.

If St.

Pete were to municipalize, the profit motive goes away.

And this could allow the city to pursue lower cost ways to meet the community's energy needs.

Clean energy solutions are largely cheaper now because fuel costs are eliminated.

And Duke's current energy generation mix is more than 90% polluting fossil fuels.

So bills are on the rise.

The regulatory structure that St.

Petersburg and Duke operate in rewards capital expenditures, building power plants, transmission lines with this guaranteed range of a rate of return.

But that system discourages reducing energy waste and increasing savings or cheaper options like solar.

For example, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, which ranks utilities nationally, offering conservation and efficiency program, Duke Energy Florida ranks 48 out of 53.

We can do so much better to help people save money, make homes more resilient, and reduce the pollution warming our climate, which is causing an array of negative negative impacts.

That's why you, the decision makers, and the city residents deserve to get unbiased data and analysis to make an informed decision as the current Duke Energy Florida and the city's franchise agreement comes to an end.

Thank you for your your time.

Thank you.

Next two speakers.

Next two speakers is Haley Osterhoff and Jorge.

Vasquez, please go to either podium, state your name and address for Cross Street for the record.

You'll have three minutes to address counsel.

Alright, Haley Osterhoff, 825 32nd Avenue South, St.

Pete, 33705.

So I'd like to start out by thanking you guys for your time and effort and what you do for this county.

I have about five quick short talking points.

For the past five and a half years, I have been a home health physical therapist assistant and a small business owner that functions in health and wellness, and my mission is to help people live their healthiest lives.

I see their continuous struggle to get to their doctor's appointments.

Over the course of living here, I've seen the expansion of the bus system, sunrunners, etc.

And I'm here to advocate for more PSTA medical transport bans and expansion of that that would suit our disabled residents or homebound patients.

If someone has a doctor's appointment and gets bad results, they often need to be seen same day.

As you know, people come to retire in this beautiful tropical paradise, and their families are not necessarily around to support them.

This is why I'm here today to advocate for this large issue that you may not be aware of that is still existing.

Every single day I work, it becomes such a burden that these patients ask me for rides or figure out how to get uh to their doctor's appointments because Uber Lyft or independent taxi drivers uh do not have same-day availability.

The private companies have their drivers leave them on the side of their houses and cancel rides, and they cannot get their health care.

Um, this large population of community members would never be able to sit at a bus stop or um if you expanded those systems, covered benches and sunshades are also not a solution.

These homebound patients are so disabled or critically ill, they are unable to tolerate Florida's heat for the majority of the year without becoming medically unstable.

I just want these individuals to be able to help and to you all to be aware of the continuing problem.

125 dollars for a transport van for one way out of pocket is not allowing them to seek health care.

As a community health advocate, I'd also like to greatly oppose any AI data centers located anywhere in the county or even in unincorporated areas like Gandhi Boulevard.

My hometown is next to Beaver Dam, Wisconsin.

If you need to see the environmental, economic or health impacts on how devastating this is to a community, please look it up.

I'd also like to see our water quality follow in Tampa's footsteps to get better water filtering and desalinization plant going.

On the same note, I like to also adamantly oppose further expansion of 5G to 6G as it's not good for anyone's health.

And I'd like to bury our electric equipment like Naples, Florida does.

Which brings me to my last talking point.

I'd like to support a feasibility study comparing public power to Duke Energy.

Um, Duke Energy should be better at trimming trees, burying power lines, and providing non-flickering power to my patients and supporting their community.

Instead, they are charging poor and disabled patients deposits and down payments just to restore services, forcing them to choose between getting health care and lights and or being homebound.

Patients should not have to choose between medications or their light bills or their homes or a ride to even just seek health care.

Thank you for your time and listening to my perspective as a Pinellas County health care employee.

Thank you.

Uh hi, my name is Jorge Vasquez.

I live in 532 68th Avenue North.

And I want to start off by thanking uh all of you, honorable councilmen and women for your time today.

I want to start off by saying that I've built a wonderful life in this great city.

I've met the love of my life and I've had the best career in the beer business that you could ever ask for.

In St.

Petersburg, I've met some of the most kind, jovial, compassionate, and neighborly people in my entire life.

These people deserve the best the world can provide.

However, despite these folks uh needing what they deserve, they are being thrusted into unprecedented times with a chaotic war in the Middle East that has radically made our lives more expensive.

All of you are in a unique position that most of us will never be in.

And that is to make a difference in the lives of those around you in a position to truly make a difference in our lives, make it easier, and work towards improving the state of our community and our neighborhoods.

That is why I'm here to speak to you today.

Duke Energy is a monopoly, and over the course of its 30-year contract has made our electricity more expensive.

There is no competition, and they know that.

That is why they have continued to raise our rates.

We are currently paying the highest rates in Florida history.

Why must we burden our neighbors with higher rates on electricity when so many counties in Florida have run their grids in city-owned and/or municipal utilities, saving sometimes 20 to 30 percent when compared to us?

In fact, Duke Energy is raising their rates in North Carolina, and they're currently trying to raise the 18% over the next two years.

This behavior is not isolated to us, it is a warning of what is to come.

We are not Florida Oranges for corporate ghouls to squeeze the juice out of us to drink in their cozy headquarters in North Carolina.

And this exploitation can end at the city's hands.

We are a thriving community of mothers, fathers, entrepreneurs, servicemen, police, firefighters, doctors, nurses, hospitality workers, teachers, and so much more.

We built this community and we deserve better.

I plead with you to find the compassion in your hearts to fund this study and let us find out if leaving Duke Energy is the best move for our community.

At the very least, exploring municipal energy would be the fiscally responsible thing to do.

Don't use this moment to stain the legacy of this body to ignore the needs of your people when they need it most.

St.

Petersburg is the best city in Florida, and I stand by that.

And I think leaving Duke Energy would make us better.

We'd be better off.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you, sir.

We're next to the next speaker is Chris Steinnacker.

Please go to either podium, sir.

And then we have five and zoom.

Good afternoon, counselor.

I'm Chris Steinaker, president and CEO of the St.

Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce, located at 1002nd Avenue North.

I come to you for this part of the agenda, not to speak on anything that you're they're speaking of today, but something you spoke about last week and you'll be speaking about next week.

That's carving out new code for a neighborhood uh resident-only parking permit.

Um boy, have you freaked out all of our businesses.

There's so little information about what you'll be voting on next week and how it's gonna affect all of our businesses.

That we had a meeting of 40-some businesses, uh 40 some restaurants on Tuesday, and that was one of the major points of conversation is the uncertainty that our city has created by talking about this permit and not understanding who and what is gonna control their destiny.

We have many of our businesses that have forever used neighborhood parking, and they're in all of your districts.

And I would urge you before next Thursday to go speak to them.

They're available to you, but they're worried.

This is another one of those kind of unforced errors that we could really create.

We just limited parking in our grand central area or our central corridor.

The 9th Street, Dr.

MLK Complete Streets Limited Parking on the streets.

I don't know where people are gonna park to do the business that we need to do to get the registers to go.

So as we as we approach next week's conversation, I hope we all speak to some of the businesses that will be affected that feel like they are part of the neighborhood and that it can become part of a target of not being part of that neighborhood that they helped build, establish, and make uh reputable for people to invest in.

So we ask that you all meet up with those folks, and if you need any help from us to show you some of those in your district, we'd love to show you those as well and have a conversation for you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We have some speakers through Zoom.

Brianna Good Gutierrez, once you enter to the meeting space, unmute yourself, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address City Council.

All right.

Can everyone hear me okay?

Yes, we can.

Alright, thank you.

Good afternoon, City Council members.

My name is Brianna Guterres, and I live on 2006th Avenue South St.

Pete, 33701.

And I'm a college student at USFCP campus.

And like many of my fellow college students, I hope to stay here after graduation, build my career here and contribute to this community.

But like many young people, I'm increasingly asking myself whether I'll be able to afford to do that.

And because of this, I'm here today in support of the feasibility study for the municipal electric utility.

I think this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for our city to take a closer look at our energy future before making decisions that could continue to impact our residents for decades.

It's critical that we have as much information as possible, and this study is a responsible step that allows us to better understand our options and make informed decisions based on our facts and data.

As a young person trying to live in this city, affordability is one of the biggest challenges my generation is facing right now.

The cost of our housing continues to rise, and our groceries and gas are getting more expensive.

We're crossing Pete, many residents are feeling the pressure of this crisis that affects nearly every aspect of our daily life.

And that's why I think it's important that we explore every opportunity to better understand how our essential services like electricity can serve residents in a way that prioritizes affordability, reliability, and our long-term community needs.

And I think today's vote is about knowledge and about doing our due diligence, ensuring that we as CP residents have the information needed to shape our future.

And because of this, I strongly support funding this feasibility study, and I hope you will too.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Brandy Stark.

Once you enter to the mean space, unmute yourself, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address City Council.

Brandy, you there?

Alright.

I'm here.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Okay.

My name is Brandy Stark.

I live at 755 26th Avenue North in St.

Petersburg.

I moved here in 1992.

And I have to say this changes in the city have been remarkable, but not in a positive way.

Uh Duke Energy, even when doing something positive like trimming the trees back, uh shows up unannounced, has actually caused me property damage and is held unaccountable.

Uh they also have poor customer service, and it's uh getting to be too expensive to live in this city.

The city that I grew up in, the city that I love.

Uh we also have out of control construction, a lack of parking, the mansions destroying neighborhoods like the one that's being built next to me.

Uh, and even the pier was up for discussion again, and I remember that the people voted for a different one than we what we got.

I really think it's time for city council to listen to the people, uh, to start the study of feasibility to dump Duke, bring in new construction, and stop the destruction of the city.

Thank you for your time.

Next speaker is Amanda.

Amanda, once you enter to the mean space, unmute yourself, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address city council.

Amanda, you there?

All right.

Next speaker is Ali.

Ali, once you enter to the meeting space, unmute yourself, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address City Council.

Hello, everybody.

My name is Ali Abdelkader, 345 Fifth Avenue, St.

Pete.

Uh I wanted to start off by saying I would like to have spoken uh on the agenda item for this, uh, but having to speak it open forum because I'm joining via Zoom because I'm uh working.

Uh, but like so many people, I am here uh because we are tired of spending so much of our income on the basic necessities and seeing the prices creep up and up and up.

Like so many people were tired of having to pay massive companies like Duke Energy to provide what is a basic necessity of living in modern life, which is electricity.

And it's more than that we're tired.

We know that there is another way to do this.

We don't have to be stuck in this situation where we're paying Duke, who's getting a guaranteed income from our basic needs, profiting off of our basic needs, and they can actually charge us for the investments that they make in our own power grid.

So what do they actually offer us when they can charge us to recoup the cost of storms when they can charge us to make our grids stormproof?

Uh, you know, what what one of the other uh citizens mentioned earlier?

The idea of taking our power lines and moving them underground.

Right now, Duke Energy wouldn't have to uh actually pay any of their money, they wouldn't have to invest any of their money in that.

They would be able to charge all of us to do that and then reprofit off of it.

There's no risk for them actually in this arrangement.

We are the ones that bear all the risk.

So why should this investor-owned utility be making profit off of us?

Especially when now we have the opportunity to have a public power grid to say that public power should be run like a utility, and it shouldn't be run for profit.

This is something that will benefit all people in St.

Petersburg.

We can take that money that is instead of going that right now is going to Duke, and we can invest it in our own communities, or we can keep it in our own wallets.

People are tired of living this way, people are tired of seeing their energy prices creep up and up and up and up, and there's another way to do it, and in order to get there, this feasibility study has to pass.

I urge city council members to stand with the people and not stand with profit.

Thank you.

Speakers.

Amanda, once you enter to the meeting space, unmute yourself, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address City Council.

Amanda, are you there?

Kelsey Powell, once you enter to the meeting space, unmute yourself, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address City Council.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you so much.

My name is Kelsey Powell.

I live at 3122 62nd Street North.

I am currently at work, so please excuse me if there's any background noise, but I just wanted to um state my feelings on the feasible feasibility study as well.

I am a lifelong resident, born and raised, born at St.

Pete General, and I would like to ask you guys, please proceed with the feasibility study.

Um I myself lost my a hundred and fifty dollar uh deposit to Duke Energy because I was late on one single monthly payment.

Um, and I have a lot of friends and family that are paying five, six, seven, eight hundred dollars a month for electricity, which as we all know.

Um, I think it's about half or over half of Americans are one miss paycheck away from financial devastation or homelessness.

And I know a lot of y'all really care about your residents, so I just would like to ask that you please take this into serious consideration, listen to.

I can see the room is packed with people, which is usually what happens when people are very passionate about an issue.

So that's all I wanted to say.

Please listen, we've got some great stories.

Um, and thank you guys.

Thank you.

AP, once you enter to the mean space, unmute yourself, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address city council.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

My name is Alexis Ballish.

I live at 4701 10th Avenue South.

My concerns with Duke Energy are not just about affordability and sustainability, it's about ethics.

Duke use storm damage is a ruse to rush into laying new lines which encroached onto our property rather than putting them in the easement.

Luckily, they removed the line on my property, but I had to put countless hours into advocating for this, and it doesn't appear they will be addressing anyone else's in the neighborhood.

Their early surveys showed they had encroachments and they chose not to inform us.

We had to find out on our own when we saw that where it was placed would greatly impede our billable space and the plans that we currently have for our property.

All of the changes are affecting the rest of the infrastructure projects happening in our neighborhood.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

We have a wildflower yard, and some of those plants were potentially endangered.

They didn't do surveys for those plants prior to digging the line the second time, despite having numerous conversations about it.

A significant part of my property outside of the easements has been disturbed by these infrastructure projects in combination with those of T-Mobile slash Loomis.

The city won't do anything to ensure that contractors are respecting people's property boundaries or repairing the damage.

And according to all the other agencies, there's nothing they can do to ensure they fix it aside from taking them to court.

The sidewalk is starting to sink, and the sand runoff from these utility projects has caused the storm drain to need pumped out.

I feel bad for the other property owners who are in my situation or will be finding themselves in my situation later on when they want to do something with their property.

I feel even worse for the others who will find out to do anything.

Some neighbors have easements for the visible equipment, but they played connect the dots, cutting through everybody else's property like mine instead of redirecting the line to the right of ways and easements in some areas.

I also think nicer neighborhoods get better help to address these neighborhood wide encroachments, but mine did not.

We have to speak up, we have to start holding them accountable, and this accountability to fix what they damage will need to remain even when they're hopefully gone.

I need options for my power, and I don't want to do business with this company when they do not respect the community that they serve.

We paid for the infrastructure they placed.

Shouldn't we already own it?

Why is the city allowing new permits when they haven't made them fix the ones they already have open?

And this goes for all the other contractors.

Why can't we consider other contractors for our energy, even when we're considering a municipality-owned utility company?

IGB is there.

That's all.

Thank you.

Last time through Amanda, once you enter to the meeting space, um mute yourself, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address city council.

I think Amanda's not there.

All right.

No more zone speakers, madam chair.

Okay.

We're done with the open forum.

Okay.

Open form is closed, and now we move on to reports.

F1 is a resolution accepting a proposal and approving the award of an agreement with Peer Events LLC for events management services and the amount of $750,000.

I believe Beth is with us today.

Sorry about that.

There's a little delay in the other room.

That's fine.

Hi, Bob.

Good afternoon, Chair Hanowitz, Vice Chair Floyd, members of City Council.

I am Beth Herendine, Managing Director for City Development.

And yes, I'm here this afternoon to request approval of an agreement with uh Peer Events LLC to recruit, produce, and manage all events and activations of all types and sizes at the St.

Pete Pier for a period of three years at a cost of 250,000 per year.

I'm sorry, I've got a little bit of a cold, so pardon me.

Alright, so first a little bit of background.

The city did quite a lot of work to create the new St.

Pete Pier, with several studies and working groups along the way, which you all know.

The last report, I believe, that was completed was the peer working group in 2014, and that informed the uh design competition that followed, which led us to the pier we have today.

Uh, in that peer report, the peer working group cited 10 required elements for the new peer, including observation areas, diverse dining options, walking and jogging paths, fishing, transportation options, courtesy and transient docks, an environmental education element, bike and watercraft rental, retail opportunities, and flexible, flexible event spaces and performance areas that include picnic areas and green space.

So I think we could agree that the current St.

Pete Pier checks off most, if not all of those required elements.

And today's item is about activating those event spaces and performance areas that were built into the design at the request of our community.

As you may know, the pier was first managed by Colliers Arnold, and they hired Peer Events LLC, then known as Big City Events, even before the Pier opened to begin planning activities and events throughout the district.

For a variety of reasons, the city took over management of the pier in 2022 and took over the peer events contract at a fee not to exceed $90,000 per year.

In August of 2024, we brought forward and city council approved a one-year extension of the term with a termination date of September 30th, 2025.

The scope of services for the agreement is fairly straightforward to program, coordinate, produce, and/or promote all events and activities throughout the 26-acre Pier.

Over the years, I believe Pier Events has done a good job delivering on that scope.

They self-produce a number of activities and events throughout the year at an estimated cost to them of approximately $800,000.

They do take on 100% of the financial risk, and they also assume liability for those events as well.

Some of the self-produced events, I won't go through everything, but they do include some of our annual events, such as the Spring Fest and Easter Egg Hunt, the Fall Fest and Pumpkin Patch, our costume dog parade, movies on the pier, which they did start after Preserve the Berg stopped their series.

The titles featured this past season were a Minecraft or Minecraft movie, I apologize, Wicked, Polar Express, How to Train Your Dragon, Soul, The Sand Lot, and the Lorax.

Those are free to the public.

You can purchase a VIP ticket, but those are free to the general public.

And for the more athletic than me, pickleball, putt-putt, and roller skating at the pier.

So those are just a few.

Those include everything from weddings and private parties, small handful of folks, to 13 ugly men's derby day at the pier, which unfortunately was impacted by rain this year.

The return of the nostalgic V dubs on the pier, which we originally had from 1996 to 2006, and that came back with a bang, I think last year.

Big events such as the Power Boat Races, and of course this weekend's Red Bull cliff diving series, which is estimated to bring thousands to our downtown.

Those visitors, you know, maybe not all, but but many will eat, shop, and pay to park here in downtown.

And in addition to that, we will receive international media attention as we are the only stop in North America.

We are joining cities in Indonesia, Denmark, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Italy, and Oman.

So I was told they were doing some practice dives out there today, and they will be diving competitively starting tomorrow.

Finally, we have our very regular monthly and perhaps more than monthly community partner events, which Peer Events does, recruit, produce, contract, coordinate, helps with audio visual, all of those things, all of the little details that are necessary to have these events happen.

Yoga with Body Electric, which my understanding is Sunset Yoga had a great turnout last night, stroller sculpt with the Mom Walk Company, Pilates, Bar, Boot Camp, and one of the relatively new ones, Movement Mondays, which started up sort of as a pop-up, but it is it builds itself as a free, sober, family-friendly weekly event that combines music, flow arts, dance, features local DJs to promote wellness and connection in a safe, positive, and high-energy atmosphere.

It takes place kind of near the St.

Pete Museum of History.

It's a really great event.

If you haven't seen it on a Monday, head out there.

And I like it does include two of my favorite things: light up hula hoops and glow sticks.

So if you like those things, head out there.

So that covers very quickly the scope of services.

So I do want to talk about how we got to today.

With the expiration of the agreement on the horizon, procurement issued an RFP in July 2025, and submittals were due in August.

We did receive three submittals following the city's standard procurement process.

An evaluation committee scored those submissions and selected peer events LLC with a score of 78.8 out of 100.

The other two firms receive scores of 52.61 and 26.04.

Following that selection, legal staff and enterprise facilities, thank you, Ben James, worked on negotiating an agreement, which was that was provided with the original council backup materials a couple of weeks ago after having the opportunity, and thank you very much for making time to meet with me individually.

We did alter the contract just a little bit.

So I apologize that that updated contract got to you just yesterday afternoon, but it was a red line version, it just had that one substantive change and one non-substantive substantive change.

So hopefully you're able to look at that.

So again, I want to be very transparent.

Specifically, this contract does raise peer events LLC fees from the 90,000 that they agreed to when they started several years ago to 240,000 dollars plus $10,000 for equipment that would be retained and will be retained by the city.

As I mentioned, the city does receive offsetting revenue in the form of peer space rental fees and ticket surcharges.

We're on track this year to receive approximately 165,000 in direct revenue, and with the revised version of the agreement that was shared yesterday, we do expect that number to increase in future years.

Additionally, a couple of the other changes to this agreement as to the prior agreements.

This agreement clearly makes peer use agreements subordinate to the city co-sponsored agreement.

So as we work through that agreement and as that agreement evolves and changes over time, that agreement will be the dominant agreement over the peer use, peer use agreement.

So it will reflect any changes that are made to that.

And then also I did want to make sure that it's clear that the agreement now does add an official marketing policy, it does add an official booking policy, and it adds an official reporting requirements policy to ensure that the city's investment is being well spent and provides us a solid return on that investment.

Finally, I would just really like to remind everyone that we are talking about a 26-acre year-round peer district and programming that 26 acres year round with events of all shapes, sizes, all of those things, and it is managed by six full-time staff members.

Again, that programming includes large-scale events, but more over, but moreover, it includes free activities for families and small rental events that are I believe truly born out of people's desire to have their most memorable moments like their wedding or their family reunion at the one and only Saint Pete Pier.

So while the increase in the contract amount is significant, it does not increase the subsidy or the operating deficit of the peer.

Like every other department, we did submit the requested reduction packages, and I want to assure council that we have thoughtfully examined the peer budget, and I am here to say that we have aligned expenses based on our current needs and goals.

Maintenance staff is getting certified in pool care so that we can take that in house.

And as I discussed with some of you in our individual meetings, we have an incredible marketing team here.

We have had an outside marketing and branding firm for the last few years, but we will be taking that in house as well.

We believe, you know, with the peer now coming up on its sixth anniversary, we can certainly retool that, look at that, and take that internally for a substantial savings to the peers budget.

And we do actively and continuously work on other efficiencies to assure the peer operations evolve with the needs and desires of our community.

The general fund subsidy for the peer in FY21 through FY23 was 1.997 million dollars.

And at that time, the peers operating expenses did not include some of the line items, such as property taxes, and a few internal charges, such as beach cleanup and fleet maintenance that were borne by the departments who were performing those duties.

But beginning with the FY24 budget, all peer related expenses have been and are being charged to the peer, including property taxes that are approximately $300,000 per year.

Also beginning in FY24, the general fund subsidy was lowered to 1.497 million, with the rest being made up from the peers fund balance.

So there has been a savings of about $2.5 million.

I'm doing my math right to the general fund subsidy.

But moreover, the peers actual operating loss since FY24 has been relatively consistent with the FY27 projected operating loss, just $39,000 more than the actual operating loss in FY25.

FY26 is a bit of a bit of an outlier, but with some of the repairs and things from the storms, but that's less than a 2% increase.

And at essentially the same level that was expected and shared publicly by the previous administration when the peer design was put forward.

So that was a $1.9 million dollar subsidy that was spoken about when that was in our operating losses at about $2 million expected to be.

So I say that just to demonstrate that I do we do realize that this is a significant increase, and we understand that, but we did look at that in relation to the entire peer budget, and we believe that investing in activity at the peer is the right thing to do, and what was envisioned for the peer all along.

Rogers Partners, the Peers Design Group, describes the St.

Pete Pier, even currently on their website, as an armature of rich local and destination-based programming, adaptable over time as recreation and quality of life grow and change with generations.

Activities are diversified through through flexible planning and programming that elevates and establishes a sustainable relationship between the natural and built environments.

And in our own application for our Urban Land Institute award, we wrote that the St.

Pete Pier is an entirely new model for waterfront cities.

The design emphasizes the magic of being in on and above the water, offering extraordinary programming throughout the year.

In building it, the city created an economic engine that serves the widest possible range of people with the broadest range of reasons to visit and enjoy the pier district.

The peer is an economic engine, and the activities and events programmed at the pier are a major part of that engine.

City staff could not duplicate the efforts of peer events LLC for either the gross or net expense that we are discussing today.

So with that, I know that was quick.

I will respect I respectfully request your approval of the revised agreement that was shared yesterday.

And I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Harding.

Oh, public coming.

I'm sorry, we have public comment.

Two speakers, madam chair, Logan DeVincent and Christian Obenshawn.

Approach either podium, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address city council.

Good afternoon.

My name's Logan De Vicente, 229 18th Avenue Northeast.

I serve currently as a president of the Waterfront Parks Foundation, and I appreciate the opportunity to address the council regarding the C Pete Pier contract.

While I don't have a position on the proposed contract, despite its significant increase in cost, I would like to highlight the broader context in which this discussion is taking place.

The underlying concern we continue to hear relates to how events are implemented within our parks.

As we evaluate these event focused contracts, it is important to recognize that there are multiple stakeholders, stakeholders with different priorities.

For example, I understand that the city administration views peer events LLC as a success in recruiting, producing, and managing events and activities at the pier.

However, what may be getting lost in the conversation is that efforts to activate and maximize activity at the pier are occurring within a public park setting, specifically Spa Beach.

Spa Beach is one of the city's premier waterfront parks and should be treated as such in our decision making.

I know the city and administration have been discussing co-sponsored events as well as potential improvements in how they are implemented.

I strongly encourage the council to take this opportunity to make meaningful improvements in how we administer large scale events.

This is an ideal time to establish and enforce best practices for managing events in our parks, including greater transparency through line item reporting of city-generated revenue and associated impact costs for each event.

Strict enforcement of events setup and takedown timelines, and improved structured revenue sharing model for nonprofits involved in co-sponsored events, clear and consistent policies for refundable and non-refundable deposits, formalized and enforceable standards addressing environmental impact, noise levels, and related concerns.

By implementing these measures, we can better balance activation efforts with responsible stewardship of our public spaces.

Over time, we have developed a strong working relationship with the city, particularly the parks department.

Uh, I want to reiterate that we stand ready to assist in updating and strengthening policies around co-sponsored events throughout our city.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Sorry, I was wiping it.

Getting disinfected.

Hey, guys, doing uh I can't get sick, I gotta drive a boat today.

Um, thank you for that.

So my name's Captain Christian Obenshayne, uh 5515 Pine Circle Northeast St.

Petersburg, Florida, 33703.

So currently I'm the owner of Pier Dolphin Cruises.

We are a tenant of the city and the marina.

Um, but previous to this, I was a tenant at the city.

I was involved with Johnny Reno's restaurant at the end of the old pier.

Difference between last pier and this pier, the last pier was a tourist attraction.

People would come down there to see the pier, to see the inverted pyramid.

The city decision makers, know y'all were in power at the time, decided to build an event space.

All right, so I drive my boat around the pier every day, three to four times a day, around Spa Beach Park, around Pier, uh around the uh the Vanoy Pier Park and all that stuff.

There's nobody on Spa Beach.

There's nobody at the end of the pier.

You build an event space, and uh the current peer peer events LLC has done a fantastic job.

Uh they they've got a good bead into the city.

And if you ever go to any of those events, or you have uh some of the most of the people are from out of town.

So they are drawing people from out of town.

And this is coming from somebody who during the St.

Pete Grand Prix, during Pride, um, during some of the other festivals and events that not my business gets shut down.

St.

Pete Grand Prix, we do a very, very low volume in the first weekend of spring.

Um, Reggae Rise Up, I formed a partnership with them where I have bands on the boat.

Um, Pride, we have the parade, so we don't have any tours that day.

So there's a lot of events that that will that will impede the progress of some of the um uh boating companies, but we still love it because we're St.

Pete, you know, we're St.

Pitians and it overall boosts the city.

And I've talked to Ferd, the head of Pier.

Ferd, are you here?

I don't know if he's here.

Oh, there he is.

And we've talked about co-marketing ideas and ways that that we can improve the partnership between the marina, um, the marina tenants, and the the commercial marine attendants.

Um, I know some people have a problem with sound.

Listen, if you get 62 or whatever I read or 100 complaints versus 7,500 people, all the I'm friends and and have uh cost groups with all the restaurant owners, some of our their biggest revenue nights are nights where these events happen.

So I do see an added um benefit to you guys increasing their budget.

And is you guys are good smart people, stewards of the city, you're gonna ask what the return on the investment is.

It sounds like it's a good uh return on investment.

Um but some of my slower days are from big major city events, but some of my busier days are the ice cream socials, the pumpkin patches and and all that stuff.

So I think this is a very easy thing, but I want you to keep in mind we do not have a tourist attraction, we have an event space.

And so we need to kind of look at that frame of mind and then see what you're investing in.

And uh my power bill went way up too, so no more speakers, ma'am, Chair.

Thank you.

Mike Harding.

Thank you, Chair.

But thank you very much.

Um I I think and and I'll preface this with uh I think that that you and your team are absolutely phenomenal.

Um I think Pier Events does a phenomenal job, and and I I wanna I want to start with that because I I have some questions of direction as we move as I move through this.

Um we have always done this, correct?

Correct.

And this is uh are there any other entities that that are part of the city enterprise functions or anything that that we do this for as well.

Do we do this for the Coliseum?

Do we do this for to your knowledge?

Like, do we have an event planning team of this magnitude or or we don't for any of ours?

For the smaller facilities, it's done in-house.

Okay, um, but those are typically rental events.

I mean, the the the sunken gardens does produce, I think two of their own events, Sarah's gonna kill me, uh uh flamingo festival, and I think there's another one, but I can't remember.

Uh but for the most of all, for the most part, we we rent uh we don't produce those events.

Understood.

And and just to be clear, a lot of these events, the the ones that you put up that that we are creating events for.

I'm not talking about the back end that who's utilizing the events or or or the community um benefit to knowing about this, but we're creating events for for for-profit companies.

Is that does that seem reasonable in what I'm saying?

We are renting the peer to folks to all of at all of our facilities to for-profit companies.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, so so here's my uh here's my concern.

It is it is a big increase in cost.

Um in a time when you noted in uh in your presentation that that we are looking at at how do we how do we shrink this footprint based on on what we're able to garner.

Um my fear is or my question is that the peer seems to be a pretty well utilized um component of the city, regardless of of whether we have an event that weekend or not.

And so I I question whether this is um and again parties that are participating notwithstanding, or everyone who's put in the efforts notwithstanding.

I I'm I am not clear on and this I'm now speaking to how as I think through my vote.

I don't know how we spend three quarters of a million dollars of the people's money on advertising for for-profit parts of our community, which is awesome for an event space or whatever you want to refer to it as or the the peer itself when it's already well attended.

Um I'm having trouble with how to how to uh how to how to how I'm having trouble with how to how to justify that that spending or that level of spending on on this project.

I'm not speaking directly to you, I'm speaking out loud to make my my decision a little bit uh a little bit understood.

Um speak a little bit about we went from 90,000 the what the ask is to go from 90,000 to 250,000.

Sure, and we and we talked about that quite a bit.

You know, the 90,000 uh dollars uh that figure was sort of when the peer was new, and and I I don't want to speak for for peer events, but I will go ahead that you know it was a little bit of an unknown um what level of of uh resources would be needed, what level of staff would be needed, and that 90 thousand dollars has been static over time.

Um I will say that you know, the the two hundred and fifty, again, it's two hundred and forty thousand in management, ten thousand in equipment, the net expense to the city, and it's that's per year.

So the 750,000 thousand dollars is a is a three-year total that uh we expect and based on previous uh history that net amount to the city would be under a hundred thousand dollars it would be anywhere from eighty five thousand to a hundred thousand dollars to create and manage that activity and I really want to remind everybody that the the large events are probably the smallest piece if we had to put the numbers down it's it's managing all of those other smaller activities the movies on the peer getting the rights to those movies getting the projection equipment putting up the sound and and uh maybe not lighting but you know what I mean all of those things it's making sure the yoga on the peer person has a microphone and is doing that it's making sure everything's set for the bride and groom that are having their wedding on the peer approach so yes it's the concerts but that's a very small piece and for that net expense for the gross expense I'll just say that for 250 thousand dollars or the net expense of under a hundred thousand dollars we would have to hire at least two city staff at least two city staff to do that and if we do want activity at the peer which we believe is what the peer is intended for we can talk about the types we can talk about the amounts we can talk about the levels but if we do want that that requires dedicated people to to do all of those it's all the little things are the insurance certificates in are they correct or is it all that it requires time and and people and um and so that is how we we um can justify this expense for in the peer budget.

Do any of the do any of the tenants in the in that footprint participate in the cost as well they do not they pay rent um but they do not participate in that cost that is the the concept of this discussed in any of the contracts that we have with any of the tenants the tenant contracts are 10 year contracts and they were signed before the peer was created so no we we we I think we've got about four years left on those contracts so no okay and the the the money that comes back from however that however it's worded um where does that money go it goes back into the peer operating peer operating budget and primarily that's two areas so um events of all sizes if they use the peer they they pay a peer use fee just depends on the location and the size so that can range anywhere from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand dollars and then for ticketed events um uh previously in the in the previous contract the city received 50 cents for tickets up to 24 dollars and ninety nine cents and a dollar for tickets 25 dollars and above no matter what that was and in the uh revised agreement you received yesterday um we've increased that um to uh to put a higher ticket value or a higher ticket return value on higher price tickets just so I understand the administration is asking for two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year from the general fund to the the peer enterprise facility whatever it's deemed the there is a return on that that investment in terms of ticket sales or whatever but that money will stay inside of that enterprise and not flow back to the general fund thank you good afternoon council um so first and foremost the resources from the general fund to the peer operating fund are consistent year over year for the last three years as Ms.

Arendine had indicated so we invest annually that 1.479 or 97 million from the general fund.

Now this expense is uh an expense in the peer operating fund so we'll not have any impact in that one point roughly 1.5 million general fund subsidy to the peer.

You've confused me a little bit more I'm sorry about that.

That's all right that um you the uh the so the two hundred and fifty thousand dollars that that we're talking about in in increase in in annual expense over the 90,000.

Where will that money?

If we approve it today, where will that money come from from?

From the peer operating fund.

Okay.

And is the peer operating fund subsidized or is it healthy to the level that it has this in it?

Will anything change coming from the general is is there an ask that anything changes in, I guess, in terms of what the what the city's general fund is subsidizing the peer operating fund?

There's no impact to the general fund subsidy planned from 26 to 27.

It's going to remain constant.

So that so you're saying that money is already in there.

We have that excess that excess uh resource in that fund already.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you very much.

I think that that puts it in perspective.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Driscoll.

Thank you.

Thank you, Beth, for the presentation.

Um at a time when we are looking at cutting back on just about everything.

It is a really tough thing to look at an increase of this size, almost triple.

And we are almost at the six-year mark since the pier opened.

When it first opened, I think we wanted to ensure its success and and hyperactivate it to make sure that there was something for everyone to do.

What we found over the years, um, well, right away, really, was how much the locals loved it as much as our visitors, even without events, and to this day you still have people who live in Shore Acres and get up on Saturday morning to ride their bikes and watch the sun come up at the at the end of the pier and then go and have a coffee.

You have families who come with their picnic and they use the playground and the splash pad and spa beach.

All of that is already built in, and it was built in for a reason, because of the thoughtfulness that went into the design, the architecture, every single detail.

There are still a few of us left who were there for all of that, and I was one of them since 2018, helping to create a place for everyone, whether you have $50 in your pocket or 50 cents, and I believe that we accomplished that with the peer.

During that time that the peer is constructed, I will never forget that.

I'll never forget being a part of that, having that stewardship over the construction, climbing scaffolding to go and look at the progress and sometimes look at a problem or a challenge that we needed to overcome so that I knew what I was voting on to make sure that things went on time, that things went as planned.

I was out there once at 10 30 at night with the crew as they tested the lights around the splash pad, which are higher than others, um, and we had a person at every on the top of every condo building within view of the pier to see if there was light intrusion if we angled it this way or that way.

And taking vote after vote after vote on every single element from the coastal thicket to the the tenants who have the restaurants there, to the chairs that you can pull around and and get the whatever view it is that you want.

Um, in the position to take the lead on the final um site of the Jana Eckelman sculpture because of all of that stewardship and because we had such an incredible city team working on the peer, it has gone on to win award after award, including the Urban Land Institute's Global Award for Excellence in 2022.

Only six places in the entire world won that award, and only two were from the United States, and our peer, our St.

Pete Pier, was one of them.

And I am quite certain that it wasn't because of a taco festival, and so I am asking us today to get back to the basics and to get back to what the real spirit of the pier is supposed to be about.

It's not supposed to be a big money-making machine.

We had those conversations, we had those conversations, but it's supposed to be a place where yes, you can have events, but I think we're at the point where we have over-programmed it and really lost that original vision that made it so special.

I think we should still have events there, absolutely.

But how many did you say we have over the course of a year in this?

Is it 65?

I think it's in that.

That's more than one a week.

But that's all sizes.

If you walk the pier like I did just a couple weeks ago and look around, you can see the wear and tear.

You can see that there is there is maintenance that has to be done now.

And a lot of it is because I think we've overprogrammed it.

We're asking for this to be someone's money-making machine, but it's not ours.

The numbers are here that show that.

I think about some of the events that take place out on the pier.

Um the yoga, the Easter egg hunt, the the movie nights, those are those are also done in our parks.

Our own staff does that.

You know what?

There are neighborhood associations that do a free movie night in the park.

Those are the kinds of activities that thankfully happen all around our city because of our parks and rec department, because of our neighborhood associations and other others who really care about creating experiences for everyone.

Concentrating all of it together has created um a lot of complaints, and not just about noise, a lot of complaints because this is part of my district, I might hear more than anyone else does.

But from those who have to deal with those who are running these events, they are told, they tell me that they have they do not feel that this group has any regard for the peer itself, for the tenants there, or for the neighbors, and I I've heard that from multiple, multiple people, not just our residents, and that concerns me greatly.

I don't think that our missions are aligned when it comes to what the pier was built for and what this group is out for.

Well, council member, council member Driscoll, I appreciate you saying that, and that's one of the things that's my job is to ensure that I'm communicating and we are communicating to whichever group we we bring in to correct those and to align their you know the activity with with our vision.

So that's something really on enterprise facilities and and my myself and my staff to to handle.

So thank you for I'm I'm glad that you agree that how important it is that those that we partner with are good neighbors, absolutely.

Um getting back to the money, I I do think, I I don't believe I see a path to support that that level of increase.

I would rather see us have fewer events and lower the cost at or close to what we currently have and see what we can get for that because I would still like to see uh some events at the pier, but we have no shortage of groups asking to do events at the pier.

So working with our parks and record with um leisure community enrichment, sorry, the name change.

Um I I think there is a way for them to do more, and just to take council member Harding's point, one of the points that he made about um our staff, you know, handling events at other venues.

I think we need to start looking at at something that's more like that for um for some of the events at the pier, and maybe have a third party that can help us with um, you know, the maybe like the special events or the um the uh sorry I don't have that in front of me.

You know what I mean?

They the pumpkin patch stuff, yes, the signature events signature events.

Um maybe just go to that and um see how Parks and Rec might be able to work on doing the yoga and the movies in the park and stuff.

You know, I'm always happy to um talk with the downtown neighborhood association to see how they might be able to do it, and they wouldn't charge us a thing.

So um I'd love to continue this conversation and and um and look at it in a different way.

Um, but if this does um move to a vote today, um I'll be voting no.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Council Member Gervis.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Beth, thank you for the presentation and thank you for the one-on-one.

I very much appreciated the the talk through.

Um, and I I look through a little bit of a different lens than um Councilmember Harding and Councilmember sorry, Driscoll.

I did I almost did it again.

I almost called her Gina.

I did that to you this morning.

No, I know I'm sorry.

Um sorry, Councilmember Trisco.

And so uh I I want to address a couple of different things that were talked about, and I I I appreciate Councilmember Harding where you were going, and I and again I look at this a little different.

I think we've heard very clearly, or at least I have in one-on-ones, and I I feel like I have today, is that if we were to take this in-house, it's more expensive.

That that's first and foremost.

And so, and and we are making adjustments to bring marketing in-house to save money, and I think um again the kind of the overlying question is is do we believe that the peer should be activated?

I am somebody that believes that it should be, and so and I and I appreciate all of the feedback you get, Councilmember Driscoll, and I'm sure you get the most direct, and so I I have empathy for a lot of that.

Um, but when I think about okay, we want it activated, and why you know, yes, it's welcoming and it's beautiful, and my family's there all the time.

And why do we want it activated?

And I I believe we want it activated because not only it was built to be activated, but we want the spillover of activation.

And I know it's very silly to use this analogy, so colleagues give me some leeway here, but as I was thinking about this because I thought this might come up, I thought about Disney.

And so Disney was built to bring people to have fun, you know, magic magical place on earth.

Disney in four parks has over a thousand activations outside of just being at Disney.

And why is that?

Because they know that there is spillover too.

That's why there are museums in Orlando.

I just went to I was at Disney and my son's obsessed with the Titanic.

We went to the Titanic Museum.

People go to the pier and then they go to the Dolly or they go to the Gino and the Peacock, and you get that spillover because of activation because people are going down there multiple times for other things.

Yes, I go for walks at the pier, I do that three times a year.

I go to the pier 10 other times because of the activation.

And so I again I think the the overarching question is is do we do you want activation?

Then yes.

How do we get it most efficiently?

We've been told that it's more expensive to bring it in-house.

Uh we're already dealing with all of uh a whole bunch of other things, and to bring it in-house is just gonna cause more chaos in my opinion.

The other council member Harding, you met you brought up a good point, and it didn't get mentioned is do we have a for-profit doing this for any of our assets?

Yes, we did for a really long time.

Big three at the Mahaffey.

And so we we have done this before, and by the way, the subsidy to the Mahaffe, significantly larger than what we're spending here.

And so, you know, I just think there's all of these things.

I don't want to bring it in-house because it's been more expensive.

I want to keep activating the peer.

I can't wait to go to Red Bull diving uh on Saturday and bring my kids down there.

Like we want these types of things.

Most of the time on a TDC ad, and I I know I'm fortunate enough I get to see pretty much all of them being the TDC member for the city, almost every single ad.

I won't say every because I'm not a hundred percent sure but almost every single ad either begins or ends with the peer.

And so we want people to go there and we want people to keep going there and you can only walk it so many times there has to be activation.

And so and I think if we want to get to where it's revenue neutral which Councilmember Harding I think this is where you were going the only way to do that is to activate it and continue to grab fees and make sure that we're sharing in some of that revenue that when we do activate the peer happens.

And so again Beth thank you so much for uh bringing this and uh I'll be supporting it.

Thank you madam chair thank you council member givens thank you chair and thank you Beth for all that you do.

But as it's been said it's a lot of money.

And for some reason I just I can't get it to make sense as they would say the math doesn't math.

I don't see how this revenue will balance out the subsidy.

So I have a lot of questions.

And I'll try to be very brief.

I do have a question for uh peer events and maybe you can answer it or they can answer it themselves but I I want to know um about their structure.

Can we speak a little to the the makeup of their team how many employees they have where are they based?

I I don't know specifically how many employees they have I know they're a small team Ferdian Jap is the owner.

I know he has another a full-time person uh dedicated to the peer he has a um group of part-time staff that come on board to work the events at the St.

Petersburg Pierdian I think is based in St.

Petersburg the the uh his company is based in Tampa he has done events in Tampa as well but he is a local uh a local person um and uh that's about I'm not sure if you want more information than that or I mean I think that's all you know um at this point so you give me to the best of your knowledge um and that's a little concerning because I'd like to know a little bit more about the dynamics of this organization before we you know agree to sign another you know extension here you know what what are we looking at?

Because I heard it said before that this is expensive to do in-house but we're talking 750 thousand dollars so how expensive would that seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars be for the city of St.

Pete to hire say hey two more people to do this job within our marketing department I'm just saying you know when we break down the cost is it costing us more or costing us less because it sounds to me like peer events you know is a one or two man show that's you know kind of there to support what we are are doing and to me I would much rather see us take this opportunity to revisit the agreement and make some improvements including when it comes to transparency because there's a lot of stakeholders here today and who aren't here I'm thinking about the Benoit our museums the chamber you know plenty of folks who we should be engaging in this process who I feel like we're overlooked.

Well I I would I to answer some of those questions um there are several things beyond staff that we would need to do so I do wholeheartedly believe it would be more expensive um peer events and and I and I uh will ask and I do have some more information I just don't have it I've got it in my phone and on my computer.

In addition to their staff they do have a full warehouse of equipment that we do not have sound and lighting equipment decor tables chairs the things if you go out to the peer tents all of those things that they own uh and those get put out that we don't have they have a ticketing uh system uh that they use for those ticketing events that if we were to do ticketed events we would have to invest in that I can't speak to however much that is I mean it could be as simple as an eventbrite uh system or something more complex than that but we would have to invest in that.

We would be taking on additional liability for those events.

I mean, we share that liability with peer events now.

We would uh I think we would have to hire at least two uh full-time people uh to manage this because it is you know a seven day a week operation with events happening from morning through night.

Um so at least two we would have to supplement that with, and it could certainly be part-time parks and recreation staff, that's not out of the question, but when you do have a Red Bull event or something like that, it's not just two people.

I mean, you've got and and probably less than the Red Bull event because that's a third party.

When you do have the fall festival or the Easter egg hunt, um, yes, I know it it it's it's more than just the Easter eggs, it's the the staging and the sound and the lighting and the games that come with that and the decor and all of those things, and so they have potentially uh a dozen or two dozen part-time staff people or other for uh peer event staff who are there to manage that crowd crowd management, um just you know, setting things up, doing those things, making sure that those events are executed properly.

So uh, you know, my my uh presentation might have been a little too short, but but I I firmly believe that we could not do it in-house for even the gross cost of 250,000 per year.

I mean, I'd have to defer to Tom, but you know, 250,000 per year.

If we're looking at um uh salaries and benefits and all of those things is it two to three people-ish, and we don't have to get into the week, but something along that those lines.

I appreciate that.

But my point is, and I don't mean to discredit the work that Peer Events does because I think they do a great job, but again, and this was said before, it is not the programs that make the peer, it is the people.

It is the spirit of St.

Pete that makes up that facility.

And I really want to be clear here because again, I I think a lot of emphasis is being placed on what peer events brings to the table, but we bring the table.

And I think there'd be no peer if it wasn't for the people, and so I don't know.

Do we have a peer advisory board or anything of that nature?

No, we do not.

I would recommend that we look at starting one because I'm thinking about the stakeholders within this community, the business owners, and the people who have a lot of insight and expertise that they bring, just like Peer Events brings, and they're local, St.

Pete Bread.

And I definitely think that is something that we should consider because that would eat some of the costs uh that could be exorbitant.

Um, and I don't want that cost to be handed to the city, which means taxpayers.

If there's free labor that's out there that we could rely on, that includes our downtown business association, the downtown neighborhood association.

There's a number of organizations that I think has the programming that could make this place a success.

And I just don't want us to put all of our eggs in one basket here because again, I think there's lots of opportunity for growth, and then lastly, um, it was brought up earlier about co-sp co-marketing.

I love that idea.

Um, and then also again, as we discuss this agreement, let's work out the kinks.

We have not addressed the noise concerns.

I want to make sure that that is brought up as well as we talk about this renewal because it's it's something that is important to our residents.

I don't represent that district, but I get the calls as well because the noise overflows into district seven.

And so I I just think it's important that we we manage this conversation again as we talk about how we can make that balance happen.

Let's look at increasing the peer use fee even more, as well as increasing the city's ticket revenue as well as uh the revenue for events.

I think there's a cost there that's associated with producing these events, and I feel like we eat more of that cost than we should, and if we raise that fee, that would help strike a balance.

And we could certainly uh raise that fee.

That's not we can do that even if you were we if even if you were to approve today's contract, because those fees are not specified directly in this contract administratively, we could uh increase those use fees.

The ticket fees were a part of the agreement that you saw, which was why we needed to amend that agreement and and and have that um before you before today's vote, but we could certainly look at that, and I and I'm not opposed to that at all.

Um as far as the noise, we uh again completely agree.

Uh we recognize that we belong here, we that noise was unacceptable.

Um we will not let that happen again, as far as you know I'm we're concerned.

Um, but that is, and I and I can't say this enough.

I mean, two things.

Those large events are a very are are a not the majority of what peer events is managing.

Many of those are through co-sponsorship, not with peer events, some are but some are not um the ones in Vinoy Park do not go through um peer events only if they're on spa beach so i i want to make sure that that's clear um and uh so so I think country fest was Vanoy Park Reggae Rise Up is Vinoy Park those don't go through peer events um and and you know I've spoken with Verdian at great length um he recognizes I recognize that that noise level from we belong here was completely unacceptable we uh you know we'll not let that happen again you know we will not have a 360 stage we will not have speakers uh pointing in that direction we will not do any of those things um we have learned our lesson um but I just want to make sure that we are not that peer events does a great deal more than those large events I appreciate that Beth and then lastly I have two more things um one how does this agreement fare in comparison to other metropolitan cities about similar size and demographics are there other uh event venues or facilities in other large cities that have an event management company that is helping to promote their events and if so how do we fare in comparison with our agreement when it comes to the price I'll be completely honest that I did not do that research some of that research was done for co-sponsored with what other how other cities manage their park events um I would say that this is a very unique structure this is not just this is recruiting events small medium large it's self-producing events so those Easter egg hunts and those and and the fall festivals and the fourth of July and those things that are complmed by FERD events if you see the patriotic band out there they've researched and hired those folks if there's a you know um uh I don't know that we have balloon animals but if you see those types of people out there those have all been hired by peer events all of that is is done by them so they they recruit third party events they produce their own events um and then of course they work with the city team on co-sponsored events so it's um I'm not saying it's the only place in America it probably isn't but I have just not done that research and I certainly can that's okay and I just say ask that to state this is you know if there are other facilities within our city that is you know doing the work on their own promoting their own events doing their own marketing and that sort of thing I don't see why the peer can't do it with the support of a peer advisory board in city staff.

That's just one statement that I wanted to make and we don't have to go back and forth on that.

But the last thing is is I I just want to know you said there were three proposals that we received for this is that correct?

That's correct.

And and I think this goes to a a frustration in the community which is the lack of efficiency with our city's RFP process.

And this is no fault of yours Beth but I I definitely think I don't know I mean I think there could have been more information put out there in the community um the word could have been broadcast a little bit better for folks to know that this opportunity was coming about because I can think of a number of organizations that would have been perfect um for submitting proposals had they known thank you chair thank you council member vice chair fully thank you I'll be quick um I just first off I want to say to council member Gertis I'm right there with you I agree with everything you said earlier uh I'm especially the points about subsidy for other city facilities and I want to start there on subsidy uh we keep saying the subsidy for the peer and I think everyone here knows my uh inclination towards reducing things like that but the peer in my mind is a park and we don't talk about how much we subsidize our city parks because it's a lot of money like if we are going to use the word subsidy to describe it and so uh it's a park that we want to activate and this is the lowest bid that we had brought back to us uh I haven't heard any other feasible options to bring uh what I view as a sufficient level of activation to the peer.

I've heard uh arguments for things that are more um that are less tangible uh but nothing solid.

And so uh, you know, I love taking things in-house if it's possible to do that.

Obviously, I like to do that, uh, but I haven't heard a plan laid out to do that right now.

Uh maybe in the future we could do some sort of look into it, maybe some to see its feasibility, maybe a study.

Uh uh here we do that sometimes.

I would be open to that kind of thing, uh, because I want to know uh what the financial implications are, but I'm not hearing anything right now that says financially it would be better if we did something different.

And uh as soon as we do, though, I will be right there with you.

Uh, but I think this also goes into a lot of the conversations we've had around events, and so I want to thank Seth for uh doing a really good job of hearing people out and trying to balance competing interests because this conversation has a lot of uh different conversation creeping in about do we want to activate the peer with events?

And uh I think you know we can have a debate elsewhere about it, but you know, I stand firmly on yes we do, and that uh there's gonna be a give and take always about that with uh people who live near a downtown core.

And so uh I think I'll leave it there.

Uh, I appreciate it.

I'm open to any sort of different conversations in the future, but for today I'm supportive.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Gabbard.

Thank you, madam chair, and thank you, Beth, for the presentation and all of your hard work on this.

Um, so I want to kind of look at the financials in its totality.

Um, I wish that the PowerPoint, you said I think my PowerPoint was too short.

What I think it was was quite frankly, didn't have enough meat on the total finances, if I'm being honest.

Um, because as part of our conversation one-on-ones and in committee, um, it came up about the marketing that we were currently doing for the peer, and that we are going to be bringing that in house.

Correct.

So I want to kind of break this down just a little bit, and make it Apple's tax.

Um, because, you know, we're talking about a difference between 90,000 now or 250,000.

But when we talk about the marketing piece, which is the other tier of making the activation at the pier, um, 292,800 per year.

Correct.

For the marketing alone.

Correct.

And we're bringing that in house.

Correct.

So now we're taking that off the line item.

We're not going to be taking that to the point of where is this money coming from?

That is now not coming out of that budget.

And so with that, we're also increasing from a hundred thousand to one sixty-five.

Correct.

So, really, at the end of the day, when you take the marketing off of it, and then you subtract the 165, we're looking at really spending 85,000 in total versus what we were spending, which was if you took the 100,000 off, like 282,000.

That's kind of a no-brainer to me.

I mean, it just seems like what I've seen you do here is recognizing that the cost have gone up, the cost for everything has gone up, right?

And so it is only to be expected that this bid would come in higher than what they had done back when I was here in 2018, 2020, right?

Whenever we opened the pier.

And um, you know, we had such a push to make sure that it was activated, that it was used, that it was really that tourist destination, because we recognize the economic impact of it if it was done right.

And has it been perfect?

Absolutely not.

Nothing you do the first time out is ever perfect.

Um, but I think overall, when you look at all the awards, when you look at the vibrancy that happens at the pier and what that does and that trickle out to Councilmember Gertis's point to all of those other businesses around.

I mean, even myself.

When we go downtown and we go to something at the pier, we always spend money somewhere else as well.

And if we're doing that and we live in the city, what are other people doing who are coming here for these events?

They're in our hotels.

I mean, they're eating in our restaurants, everything.

And so for me, it really comes down to the totality of the financial profile, and I think you've done a fantastic job at trying to make sure that you're being as prudent as possible, recognizing that costs in this arena have gone up.

Now bringing this in-house, I'm gonna be the first one to be critical of that idea, because quite frankly, we have already put too much on you.

I said this to you yesterday.

Like, I don't know how you do everything within your department and the few people that you have to get the work done.

And I want to go back to the Mahathi, because the Mahaffe should have never been dumped in your lap.

And now here we are.

How much are we spending on the Mahathi right now for us to take it in-house?

How much did we end up having?

We approved uh maybe a little over 500, 60 near 500, 600,000 for a staffing for a short period of time while we're trying to find somebody, a private entity, to come in to promote events.

So I just feel like it's not ideal to say 90,000 to 250,000, but it's also not ideal to not consider the total picture.

And so for me, when I look at the totality of it and also just being respectful of the bandwidth of our staff and our team and what you're all able to do.

Um, I think for me, I'm good today, and I'll be voting yes.

So thank you.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you.

Councilmember Fig Sanders.

Thank you.

Um, there's been a lot said today.

There's been a lot said on this today, but um, Beth, again, when we had our conversation, I didn't have an issue with the costs because I do know that costs go up.

My issue was with professionalism of the organization, and I know professionalism is not indicated in the RFP process, but that was the only issue that I had with this company.

So when I hear, you know, a couple of other things that were made, if I depended, if we depended on free labor, we would never get anything done.

Because that's just that free.

If I'm not getting paid for it, I don't have to show up.

I don't have that same level of commitment of getting it done.

So I wouldn't want to leave this in the hands of free labor.

It's too important to leave it in the hands of free labor.

The noise, that was a one and done.

That was a lesson learned.

Nobody could have ever expected that.

Um, and so I've never put that on the responsibility of the city that that happened.

It happened.

We all make mistakes, that's why they call them mistakes.

The RFPs for this, it was posted, and I've had this conversation with other organizations that say I didn't know.

You didn't look, and I'm not sure how we can be more evasive and sharing opportunities that the city has out there.

If you are diligent and wanting to access RFPs with the city of St.

Petersburg, you will be proactive.

You have to be.

So I I'm even stepping outside of the box in a bigger um when I think about this.

I agree that we need to have people come and visit the city of St.

Petersburg.

That was the whole premise of the pier.

When we have conversations about housing, and we keep saying that the more we have the people to occupy the units that we have, it'll eventually go down, right?

I'm trying to get baby boy out of my house.

So if we can actually have more move into the city, because I I listen and I record what people say, and it all depends on what we're talking about as to the perspectives that they have.

So when we say we built the pier and we're okay with it, no, we built the pier to attract people to the city of St.

Petersburg, and so I want to make sure that we still stay on that course.

Now, as far as doing a lot of people may think hosting an event or or putting an event together is easy, it is not an easy job.

Everybody can't do events, and the question that I had for you in our 101 is that with the cost, did it come at a how do I be politically correct?

The other ones could not do what Pier 1 is that what it is.

Pure events, what they can do.

The cost that they're asking us is equitable to the amount of work and authority that they're going to actually be doing.

It's not because they're the only ones that are able to do it.

And you did clear that up for me.

So again, the money wasn't an issue for me.

Mine was professionalism.

Mine was, you know, if you're going to be contracted and work for the city of St.

Petersburg, we are to be your number one commitment, and you don't go out on social media and you don't talk against your employer.

Correct.

There's something that you don't do.

Right.

So the money part of it, I am in full support of this because I want us to continue to bring events to the city of St.

Petersburg.

I want us to continue to entice people to actually move here so that we can have that steady flow, that steady economic impact on that.

So I am gonna support this, but again, my only issue is this was not with the money because we talked about that marketing piece, and I was so happy when you told me we were taking that in house, and you're right, that's $292,000 that we are keeping in-house.

So I will be supporting this, but again, I'm gonna say it over and over again.

My thing is professionalism and the relationship that we have with the organization, and if we need to look at some of the events, um, if they are troublesome to the community around that, we still have the opportunity to do that, correct?

Absolutely.

Okay, that's what I want to say.

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you.

Okay, um, you know, young folks say the math isn't mathing, and here's the thing our choice isn't whether we give it to them at this contract or bring it in house, it's just not because the reality is, and if y'all have businesses there, imagine hiring somebody and paying them 250,000, and your return is 165,000.

That's what we're talking about, and then it's like, well, there's this nebulous economic impact to others, but not to your bank account.

Not to ours, not to our general funds.

That's what we're talking about.

And so now it's like, well, we can't do it in-house.

Well, it's amazing how contracts work because contracts is where you capture the money that you can get back from whatever you're putting out, it's part of negotiation.

So when we had a meeting, and I asked, well, why do we decide on increasing whatever fee on on, you know, tickets to one dollar?

There was no real analysis to that, it was just 50 cents before, correct?

No analysis.

We just decide we're gonna charge one dollar.

We don't look at what we're paying out, we just think okay, we're gonna shoot one dollar.

Businesses don't do that.

You know what they do?

They collect whatever the fees are to pay for whatever this is.

This is how you do business, and these are private companies guaranteed, none of these folks are going home poor.

When I see this and I and I look, they have production expensive of more than $800,000.

It's not because they're not making money.

That money is being shifted, and somebody else is paying for it.

When you go to a we belong here concert or whatever, you know what happens?

You get charged a hundred something dollars for a ticket, and then they add user fees, and then the smart people actually get paid for their costs.

We on the other hand decide we're gonna take a loss and we're gonna subsidize it, and it's everyone else that pays for it because this is where we're at when council member Arden was asking about the subsidy and if it goes up or not, we have a flat subsidy of 1.497, and that's just an arbitrary number that we came up with based on some expense that we decided at some point in time, this is the right number.

That doesn't mean that number can't go down, that does not mean it can't go down, and when you cut the expenses on your advertising contract, which chances are we didn't need it because that's why we're bringing it in-house, that was $300,000.

You don't use that as an excuse to raise your expense somewhere else.

This is where we're at.

So it's now it's like, well, you know, it's kind of not moving anywhere, so therefore, this is okay.

No, the analysis is this contract for the city.

Are we capturing what we should be getting?

And that's part of the negotiation.

I'm sorry, and we spoke about it.

You know, you know.

I think it's a good start.

It's amazing how you have those conversations, and then you get a contract that changed that we that it's increased.

And I give you kudos for that.

This happened Monday.

Here's the thing.

Do I think that you should have been stuck with Mahaffey?

No.

There are lots of things that can be planned for.

These contracts, these negotiations, things should have happened a long time ago.

We should have been covering these things and figuring out what our costs are and what we can pay for.

And we are gonna be having some tough times regarding our budget.

And you know what?

This is a guaranteed.

Imagine $20,000 a month for this that we're gonna be paying for, right?

No matter what happens, right?

Yeah, we have a hundred and eighty degree, a hundred and eighty-day option to get out of the contract, but no matter what the economy is, we're stuck with it.

That's a guarantee.

I wish I had that guarantee.

I wish I had it.

Why wouldn't their cost or whatever we're paying be tied to whatever we're getting?

And if we don't get that, then their fee gets reduced.

Because we could do that.

We're not doing that.

We could uh we can have some sort of performance that's required, and we're just not doing it.

I am not, I'm with council member Driscoll.

I'm sorry, like we are people go to the pier, they want to go to the peer, all these self-performed, you know, produced events, Easter egg hunt, pumpkin patch, dog parade, whatever.

Yes, they take time, and you know what?

People do it in our community for free, not 250,000, and I'm sorry.

Like, to me, it is insane when we're asking departments to cut 3% and 5%, and this is a hundred and sixty-seven percent increase, a hundred and sixty seven percent increase that at the end of the day is subsidized by taxpayers, and and it's going to pro uh for profit companies, and none of them are taking losses.

They're just not.

And I'm sorry, if it costs an extra three, four, five, whatever it is a ticket, and we need to make sure that we're collecting every cent that we're putting out on this, that's what we should be doing.

That's a responsible thing that we should all be doing.

I love the events, I think it's great.

I just think it's very short-sighted to not really negotiate this the way we should be negotiating.

I want to ask something because it was brought up by a resident and pointed out, and you said that they were local.

One of the residents pointed out that peer events shows in some biz their current place of business is 600 second Avenue Northeast.

600 2nd Avenue Northeast.

What is 600 2nd Avenue Northeast?

That's the pier.

Are there offices there?

They run out of they have an office space, but not no, but that's not where their corporate offices are.

That's what it says in the state of Florida corporations page, that's the address, not the Tampa address where they're at.

It says 600 2nd Avenue Northeast.

As their prints as their principal address, and by the way, that or before it was the Tampa address that it got changed to the St.

Pete address.

So with these companies, if it would have been, I don't know, whatever the other proposers that would have come in.

Should they also have the same address as 600 second Avenue Northeast?

Because they're not the city.

These are people, these are promoters that we are that they're not completely housed there.

They're in there somewhere else.

Correct, but I would say big three entertainment used 400,000.

I'll be happy to talk about it.

Absolutely.

They actually ran the Mahaffey on a daily basis.

They actually put in money into the Mahaffey.

Are they are they actually fixing the peer and and putting money into the peer to fix some of the foot traffic?

Because my understanding is they actually put in money.

Bill Edwards did put in money into the Mahaffey.

He did when he came, that's I there are there are so many differences between that contract, and we could if if there are gonna be comparisons, maybe we should pull up both contracts to see the scope of services.

I do know that I looked at the scope of services, there was not much that changed from the 90,000 to the 250 that they're requiring now, correct?

Okay, and and and we've discussed this, and so there's not much change in terms of scope of services, and there is a difference of scope of services between whatever the Mahaffey has and with Bill Edwards and whatever they put in.

And to me, that's just a red editory.

Because at the end of the day, we're looking at a contract, and what we're having to decide is is this fair to the taxpayers here and to the residents, and are they subsidizing something that other people are making money off of?

And you know what?

For me, that is at the end of the day what's important, and you know, I will tell you the other thing.

You know, we are um, and and I don't want to dump another thing on your lap.

To me, this isn't that about taking it in-house or whatever.

That is not the conversation.

The conversation is we can have a much better contract, and we're selling ourselves short.

So and I would like to share after our one-on-one, I completely agreed with what you said about uh revenue, as I mentioned earlier with council member givens.

We the ticket portion is within the contract, which was why we amended the contract to to increase that.

We are we have over the last two or three days, we have looked at and have proposed.

Um I have some proposed uh rental fee increases again to bring that subsidy hopefully to zero, but not the not the peer subsidy.

I don't wanna, but the subsidy for this particular um contract.

Beth, I absolutely appreciate it's a right step in the it's a right step in the right direction.

Um, but frankly, like we should have been doing that to capture our monies, that we're paying.

And and I'm just I don't like to be put in a rock in the horror place and now I'm gonna have to say yes because oh what happens if now we do this or whatever.

No, we should this is something we should be have have been taken care of, and we were paying for advertising as well as three hundred thousand dollars, that should have stopped years ago.

You take out that three hundred thousand dollars, you cover this.

Our peer subsidy to council member Harding's question goes down from one point four something to a lot less number, and that's money in our general fund, and that's money that pays other things.

The other things that we don't have enough money to pay for.

To me, that's low-hanging fruit, and we have to find every low-hanging fruit that we can nowadays.

We just do.

So that's where I'm at with that.

I can't support this.

We're going in the right direction, but I need more of a guarantee of how we're gonna be getting that money back somehow and covering the cost of the contract, and I think that should be easily done.

And I will mention, because it was talked about, there were lots of issues with the peer and the festivals that were brought and all that.

There were also misrepresentations that were made.

Okay, and that has been discussed in other meetings.

The fact that I see that the principal address is listed on the state of Florida as 600 second Avenue Northeast bothers me.

This is not the first time that there has been misrepresentation about something.

And that goes from saying representing and warranting that they were conform with all the requirements of law in the contract and noise and ordinances and all that, then gaslighting us.

I will say this.

In the Tampa Bay Times article that was recently um written about this, the owner of the company said, we believe the 250,000 dollars is a fair number that everybody could get paid.

I want the city of St.

Petersburg to get paid.

250 is not enough for us to get paid in full, it's for other people to get paid in full.

I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

Council member Vice Chair Floyd.

Thank you.

Uh I just want to ask when is uh when's this contract expire?

It expired at the end of September 2025.

Okay.

So uh the timing.

How did this well?

Good question, and I and I think we've got procurement here as well.

But when it was expiring, we did uh put it out to bid before it expired.

We got the uh the selection before it expired, we went uh we started negotiating.

Um, I I was not part of the negotiating team, so I can't speak to the timeline on that, but it it's the timeline that we have.

Well, having heard that, I'm uh gonna ask administration in general if they feel like uh now I got peer one in my head, peer LLC.

Um, peer events, if you know, peer events, uh, you know, if they watch this meeting, uh, if they might have feedback if you feel like you could go back to them and say to them, uh, hear the concerns that the council has, or uh, you know, if that's even possible, uh, possible or feasible.

Uh, because I think based off of hearing from a lot of us today that uh they'd probably acknowledge that there's, you know, at best a lot of discontent with this situation.

I well, I I would say it's certainly possible.

They have been working without a contract for or under the previous contract for quite some time.

Um, you know, we'd have to talk with them, but uh, it it's certainly possible.

Well, I'll leave it there.

Thanks.

I can count.

Motion to defer.

Second.

We have a motion to defer.

Council um clerk, if you could please open the machine for voting.

Council member, please enter your votes.

Seeing that all present council members have voted, Clerk, please tally announce the vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Beth.

Okay.

I think there were people downstairs.

We're gonna take a quick ten minute break, uh, because I know there are gonna be people speaking to give everyone a chance to gather, and we will be back in ten minutes.

Welcome to China.

Hi, guys, I'm scary.

So much in EA.

Okay, the meeting is going to be back in recess.

We actually went a little bit over 10 minutes.

But I want to make sure everybody got a little break.

So we're back in session.

And we are next item up is F2.

Resolution accepting a proposal approving the award of an agreement with New Gen Strategies and Solutions LC for a municipal electric utility feasibility study for amount not to exceed 590,000.

We have Claude Tankersley here, head of PubEtWorks.

Good afternoon, Claude.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Chair, Council, and good to be here.

Hold on a second.

The security is trying to get everyone seated.

So there's some seats inside those that are coming in.

For the meeting, you they're gonna ask for you to make sure that you're seated and find the seat.

There should be seats for everyone in here.

Okay.

Thank you, madam chair.

Yep.

A very brief presentation.

So uh we'll just start with what this is.

This is a feasibility feasibility study.

It is a high-level feasibility study, recognizing that um uh as we move forward.

There'll be there'll be more work after this if we choose to go this route.

Uh, but this just gives us that first blush look as to whether it might be feasible for the city of St.

Petersburg to own an municipal electric utility.

The procurement process started back in late January.

We advertised an RFP and we received six teams submitted proposals.

We reviewed those proposals and scored them.

Part of the scoring at that point did include the proposed fee that the teams uh submitted, as well as their qualifications.

Based off of that scoring, we decided to short list four of the six teams to go to further uh go through further uh interviews as well as answer additional questions.

We submitted those additional questions in writing to those four teams.

Uh, and they they provided their answers in writing, and then we met with them and interviewed each team.

We then had a follow-up uh uh committee team, uh selection team review, uh a final ranking, and from that final ranking, new gen strategies and solutions LLC received the highest score.

So during the final the during the next month, during the month of May, we negotiated a project scope and fee with new gen, and this the MEU feasibility study will include financial technical, operational regulatory, and legal implications of transitioning to an MEU.

The project is being administered by the Office of Sustainability and Resilience in collaboration with Engineering and Capital Improvements.

Of course, both of those departments are within the public works administration.

The total cost for the study that we're bringing to you today is five hundred and ninety thousand dollars, but that does include fifty thousand dollars owners contingency that will not be used unless we necessarily have to.

There is a portion of stakeholder engagement as part of this initial feasibility study, and so the project team will do some interviews to gather input from the community and from community stakeholders as to the objectives, concerns, and priorities related to a potential MEU.

We will also have three community meetings, as well as uh we're gonna have an online survey available, and we're gonna and the team is gonna help us put together informational materials that we can share with the public.

And with that, we bring you the scope of work and fee for your consideration.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Public comment.

I'll call the first two speakers.

It's Bob, Rom Met, and uh Todd, I think it's Fountain.

Please go to either podium, state your name and address, or Cross Street for the record.

You only have three minutes to address counsel.

Before we start, I want to make sure because some people may have not been here earlier during open forum.

Same rules apply, you know, in terms of decorum, clapping, all that.

There is no clapping.

I understand everybody feels very passionate about this, but we want to make sure we hear from all the speakers.

There are a lot of people here.

I don't even know how many cars are here.

It also kind of interrupts everything.

So and the other thing is it also would be good to appreciate what the good reverence said earlier today about respecting other points of view.

You're gonna probably hear from people that may not have the same opinion as you, and vice versa.

We're still in democracy.

Last time I checked, so we're gonna have lots of differences of opinions, and we try to respect those opinions.

So this is what we're doing.

We're listening to everyone, and that's what city council's role is right now, and I that's what I expect from the audience, too.

So, with that said, there is another speaker that goes to the other podium.

You could stand at the other podium, sir.

Sir, can you go ahead and state your name and address?

Good afternoon, Todd Fountain.

I'm the storm director for Duke Energy Florida 299 First Avenue North St.

Pete.

I've been with Duke Energy for 35 years, all 35 years been here in Florida.

I was born and raised in Pinellas County, and my office today stands about two blocks from where I stand today.

Throughout my career, I've responded to numerous hurricanes from Hurricane Andrew in 1992 as a lineman apprentice to Hurricane Milton in 2024 as a regional incident commander for Duke Energy.

I've held different roles within Duke Energy, but there's one thing that has not changed, and that's the focus on St.

Pete and Pinellas County when it comes to storm response.

We've been nationally recognized for our storm response in recent years, and the 2024 hurricane season was definitely one of the most memorable.

We work closely with our EOCs, meet with them each year prior to storm season.

We conduct numerous training sessions and closely work with our first responders who we couldn't do what we do without their support.

We'll actually be participating in a two-day training session later this month with Pinellas County Sheriffs and the adjoining municipalities as we do high water rescue training and other training with them for Live Line.

As one of the largest electric utilities in the nation, we have the ability to mobilize resources from across the country.

During the 2024 hurricane season, we mobilized over 26,000 resources in response to hurricanes, Debbie, Helena Milton.

Similar to the ability to mobilize resources, we also have the ability to acquire inventory through multiple states and suppliers across the country.

This includes transformers, wire poles, all the material that's in high demand during a crisis.

So although we anticipate an L need new year this year, I mind everybody, 1992 is also an LNE new year.

We went at Hurricane Andrew make landfall in South Florida's Cat 5 hurricane.

So no matter what Mother Nature sends our way this year, please know we stand with you ready to respond and take great pride in serving the city of St.

Petersburg.

Thank you for your time this afternoon.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name's uh Bob Romel.

I'm uh the business manager of local 682, address 299, 1st Avenue North St.

Pete 33701.

I represent the men and women who keep the lights on in St.

Petersburg.

Uh I've I've spent the years as linemen working all the poles and wires in this panel in Pinellas County.

I'm asking you to vote no on this feasibility study.

For some people, this may sound just like study, just another step in the process, but for the workers I represent for their families and the neighborhoods who depend on the system every day, it's just not that simple.

The people I represent live here, they work here, they've served this community for generations.

They are line workers, operators, technicians, plant workers who show up when the weather turns bad, when the power goes out, and when this community needs them the most.

When the hurricane comes through, these are the men and women out there in the wind and the rain, restoring the power.

When families are waiting in the dark, when the hospitals, the schools, and the businesses and the emergency service and the electricity back, these are the workers who answer that call.

That kind of work takes years of training and experience and trust and people who know the system and know how to under pressure who know the job and to do it safely and at night.

And why this matters, a vote for the study is just not just about spending $600,000.

It is a vote that creates uncertainty around a system people rely on every day and around the workforce that keeps it running.

St.

Petersburg can keep moving forward on resiliency and underground and infrastructure up improvements without taking taking this risky step.

For the workers who serve this city and for the residents who count on them, I respectfully ask you to vote no.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

State your name and address across the street for the record.

Ma'am, you can start.

Good afternoon, council members.

Crystal Pruitt, representing Duke Energy, address 299 First Avenue North here in St.

Petersburg.

As someone who was born and raised here in St.

Petersburg, this community is deeply personal to me.

I've contributed countless hours of impactful service to this community through various civic organizations, seeing firsthand the growth, resilience, and the spirit that makes this city so special.

And I'm super proud to represent Duke Energy Florida as we continue investing not only in infrastructure projects, but in the people and the organizations that make St.

Pete thrive.

Since 2023, Duke Energy Florida has invested more than 2.8 million dollars in St.

Petersburg organizations, supporting local charities, educational programs, workforce development initiatives, and community-based nonprofits that strengthen our city.

Our commitment goes beyond corporate giving.

More than 1,500 Duke Energy retirees call St.

Petersburg home.

Since 2020, these retirees have donated over 193,000 and contributed more than 4300 volunteer hours to many local organizations.

They're actively serving and strengthening the community they love.

In 2025 alone, nearly $650,000 was provided to community partners through contributions from Duke Energy employees, customers, and the Duke Energy Foundation.

To maximize the impact, the foundation matches customer donations dollar for dollar, up to $500,000, helping neighbors support neighbors when assistance is needed the most.

Earlier this year, we partnered with the local organization in the Jordan Park community to connect our customers directly with available energy assistant resources as well as support services.

Across Pinellas County and in St.

Petersburg, we are proud to support organizations, many of them you know, Pinellas County Urban League, Pinellas Education Foundation, St.

Petersburg College, the Connor G.

Woodson Museum, St.

Pete Pride, St.

Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce, the NAACP, the uh Mount Zion Human Services, and the Cross and Anvil Human Services, among so many more.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Michael Gordon, and I have the privilege of serving as the manager of Duke Energy Florida's energy efficiency team.

My office is also located in St.

Petersburg Headquarters building at 299 First Avenue North.

This year marks my 26th year with Duke Energy, and I am deeply honored to be part of a company that truly cares about its employees, its customers, and the communities that we serve.

Our energy efficiency team is made up of a dedicated group of office staff, field advisors, and business assessors who come to work each day with one shared purpose to make a meaningful difference for our customers in St.

Pete.

If you asked any one of them, why do you do this work?

They would tell you it's because we genuinely care and we're committed to helping our customers that we can.

In 2025, we had an opportunity to support both residents and business customers from St.

Petersburg in impactful ways.

Our residential team helped more than 3,000 customers through our free home energy check, and over 2,800 of those customers received their free energy efficiency kit to help them make their home more comfortable and efficient.

In addition, more than 340 residential customers participated in our residential rebate programs receiving approximately 104,000 in rebates, making their home more energy efficient.

For our business customers, nearly 30 commercial customers participated in our business energy check program and qualified to receive a free commercial energy savings kit.

Additionally, nine business customers participated in our smart saver rebates incentive program, receiving more than 160,000 in incentives.

We're also proud that approximately 45,000 St.

Petersburg residential customers participated in our energy-wise home program, receiving more than 1.8 million dollars in credits.

On the business side, 32 St.

Petersburg businesses enrolled in our interruptible, cartellable, and standby generation programs, receiving a combined total of 2.8 million dollars in bill credits in 2025.

Included in that total, the City of St.

Petersburg received 448,000 across three municipal accounts.

And beyond these programs and incentives, we also lowered rates three times this year.

Today, rates are approximately 25% lower than they were in January, which means real savings for the families and businesses that we serve.

We've also completed upgrades to our power plants that save customers more than $340 million in fuel cost in 2025.

That's $10 off every bill every month.

We also pass on our solar credits to customers with shave off another $2.50.

Thank you.

Next two speakers is Gerlin Evans and Drixie Smith.

Ms.

Smith does not wish to speak, and she's four.

Okay, thank you.

And then if you could call the other speaker.

Pamela O'Connor.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Good afternoon, counseling guests.

My name is Jerry Lynn Evans, 3254 23rd Street North, representing myself.

I'm a lifelong resident of the city of St.

Petersburg.

I'm here to speak against the proposed expenditure of $590,000 for a feasibility study regarding the electric grid in the city of St.

Petersburg.

As a lifelong resident, Duke Energy or its prior subsidiaries have been my power company my entire life.

I am concerned that the city over time has failed to properly maintain, update, and secure the one utility that it has always run, which is our city water department.

I am also concerned that if there is another major storm with major power outages, that the city will not have the same infrastructure in place for repairs as the current energy provider.

Duke Energy, with its multitude of locations throughout the country, has the ability to have tens of thousands of line workers and other necessary personnel on the ground ready when it's safe.

If Duke Energy is calling these people in to assist with the surrounding communities.

Who will the city of St.

Petersburg call in?

I am also concerned that under the new proposal proposed property tax amendment that will be up for vote in November, that if it's passed, this will place a financial gain throughout the continued increases for services.

I believe that the administration has good thoughts, good intentions, but unfortunately, you all will not always be here.

Each administration brings its own ideas, thoughts, and downfalls.

I do not believe that it is in the best interest of the residents of the city of St.

Petersburg for council to approve just over a half million dollars of taxpayer dollars towards a feasibility study.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Good afternoon.

My name is Pimel Connor, and I live at 1452nd Avenue Northeast.

As a citizen and voter, I struggle to understand how Duke's overriding commitment to increasing shareholder value and having a monopoly can ever serve the interests of St.

Pete consumers.

In the case of the city's contract with Duke Energy, I believe the city owes its residents an investigation into a public option.

We know that Florida cities with public utilities pay less, often considerably less for power.

We also know these public run utilities have been more successful in hardening their infrastructure against extreme weather events.

These two facts alone would make it imperative to green light the feasibility study.

Personally, I can think of many better things I'd like to do with the six or seven hundred dollars a year I'd save than lining the pockets of Duke shareholders.

Please vote for the feasibility study, the facts require it.

Thank you.

Next two speakers.

Next is Jason Mathis and Chloe McKenna.

Please go to either podium, state your name and address or cross street for the record, please.

My name is Jason Mathis, and I'm the CEO of the St.

Petersburg Downtown Partnership, located at 244 2nd Ave North.

It is a pleasure to spend some time with you all today, and thank you as always for your service to our city.

I appreciate the complexity of the question in front of you today, and I know that this is not an easy decision.

Our city is facing significant financial burdens right now.

We are asking departments to cut three to five percent.

Thanks to our friends in Tallahassee, we face the possible loss of tens of millions of dollars in property tax revenue.

And this fall, voters will likely be asked to increase their own tax burdens by hundreds of millions of dollars in a general obligation bond to repair an existing city-owned utility, our woefully outdated water system.

We just heard a very spirited discussion about costs for the peer events.

And today, you're being asked to spend almost $600,000 for a study.

Now, if it were $50,000 or $60,000, this might be a different question.

If this were a different year, a time when we had more discretionary funds available, it might be a different question.

But today in the city of St.

Petersburg on June 4th, 2026, $600,000 is a lot of money.

And it's worth asking how would this be materially different from the Clearwater study that was just completed?

Can't we extrapolate data from that?

Do we need to pay full price for our own St.

Pete version?

During a time when every penny counts and we face, when we may face reducing city services or raising taxes, that's a legitimate question.

If the city has an extra $600,000 available, may I suggest some other ways to spend it?

We could help 6,000 households cover their electric bills for three months this summer.

We could hire three social workers to help move people from homelessness back into our community.

We could provide 200,000 free lunches to elementary school students who need help during the school year.

We could support four new affordable housing units for families, or we could develop a land use plan for Riviera Bay and Shore Acres to help property owners address flooding and reclaim their homes.

There is an opportunity cost to moving forward with this study.

It means that other city services may not be provided.

If we end up in a financial crisis and have to cut essential programs or lay off city employees, it will be hard to look them in the eye and justify this expense, especially when Clearwater just finished their own study.

I encourage you not to fund the study.

Use the results from Clearwater to negotiate to negotiate with Duke about renewing their service contract.

Ask for lower rates, more community benefits, or shorter service contract links, or enhanced environmental stewardship, or all of the above.

$600,000 is simply very hard to justify right now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next two speakers.

Chloe McKenna.

She's four.

Okay.

Next two speakers, AJ Mew and Sarah Lancaster approach either podium, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address City Council.

Whoever gets the podium first can start.

You don't have to wait for the other phrase.

Good afternoon to the council.

My name is Sarah Lancaster.

My address is 1534 Southeast 54th Street.

I work with Margaret Lind Duggar and Associates consulting firm, and their primary focus is working with nonprofit organizations and associations on aging issues and services throughout the state of Florida.

I'm here to urge you to take a hard look at the proposal to spend approximately $590,000 on this feasibility study.

For older adults living on fixed incomes, affordability is absolutely crucial.

It determines whether they can afford groceries, fill prescriptions, their homes are cool in the summer and warm in the winter.

Every public dollar matters, especially when so many residents residents are already struggling to keep up with continued rising costs in this current economy.

Before the city commits more than half a million dollars for a study, I believe the council owes owes residents a clear answer to one fundamental question.

What problem are we trying to solve?

Duke Energy is a committed partner that provides more than just electricity to the community.

The company has supported seniors in the St.

Pete area for many years by providing hurricane storm kits, meal assistance, grocery and holiday gift cards, real help for real people when they need it the most.

Duke Energy works hard to connect people to resources to assist with billing support concerns and provide other energy conservation options and assessments, free in many cases, which was already discussed, to do customers.

They are a true community partner.

If the city is prepared to spend this kind of money, then it should invest in priorities that directly improve the life of residents.

Priorities like affordable housing, senior services, and other immediate community needs.

Those are the kinds of investments that produce tangible, economic, and meaningful results to the most vulnerable citizens in our community.

At a time when the rest of us are watching every dollar, the city needs to do the same and be judicious in how its resources are being spent.

We should also be very cautious about launching an effort that could introduce a large degree of uncertainty concerning electric rates, service reliability, and the city's financial future.

That is not a risk older adults and taxpayers can easily absorb.

I respectfully ask the council to focus on practical solutions that can have direct, measurable benefits to residents, especially the aging population today.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Go ahead, sir.

Good afternoon.

My name is AJ Meal.

I'm at 2501 25th Street North.

I serve as Duke Energy's engineering manager here in St.

Petersburg.

I've been with the company almost 11 years, and I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of Florida.

I'm here today to share how much infrastructure work is already underway in St.

Pete to strengthen the reliability and resilience for the community we are proud to serve.

Duke Energy has nearly 500 million in planned future capital investment through 2030 to improve reliability for St.

Petersburg customers.

These are improvements are planned for 67 distribution circuits across the city, and upgrades are planned for 13 substations serving St.

Pete.

We are continuously working to make the grid more resilient, and much of this investment is being made through our storm protection plan.

That work is designed to reduce both the frequency of outages and the time it takes to restore service when an outage does occur.

This is being done through underground hardening, overhead hardening of feeders and laterals, pole and structure hardening, and substation hardening and modernization.

For our underground hardening, we are taking our overhead lines that are in our most outage-prone, most outage vulnerable areas and proactively burying them underground.

For our overhead hardening, we're installing larger pole classes that are stronger, can withstand higher wind speed.

We're increasing load capacity to better withstand system demands.

We are adding increased protection for to reduce wildlife-related outages.

We're also conducting poll inspections every eight years.

Since 2022 alone, more than 3,000 poles have been replaced from the poll inspections.

Following the 2024 storm season, none of our hardened polls were reported to have any damage.

We are reducing the impact of outages also by limiting how many customers are affected when interruption occurs.

This is being done by our self-optimizing grid, sometimes referred to as self-healing technology and commonly referred to as the smart grid.

St.

Petersburg was home to Duke Energy's first self-optimized grid in the company.

In 2024, self-healing technology helped St.

Petersburg customers avoid 95,000 outages and saved more than 81 million outage minutes.

In 2025, St.

Petersburg customers experienced the lowest average outage duration in more than 20 years.

Over the course of the full calendar year, the average outage duration was approximately 64 minutes.

That progress reflects sustained long-term investment in a stronger grid and our continued commitment to serve this community well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next two speakers.

Next two speakers, madam chair.

Teresa De Rickis does not wish to speak, and she is for Derek Gotstall and Nancy Ferretti.

Please approach either podium, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address City Council.

Hello, I'm Nancy Fernetti.

I'm the owner of the Electric Marina.

I brought um electric boats to St.

Petersburg in 2003 for our boat rental.

But uh also I am a um a homeowner in Kokina Key.

I um I I tried to maintain my home in a sustainable way.

I also brought my neighbor Stacey with me, who also is trying to convert her home to sustainability, but our electric bills have doubled, and I'm not for that.

And uh so I'm imploring you please to do this study and let us let us find a feasible way to make um St.

Petersburg Electric better.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead, sir.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Derek Godshaw.

I live at 1001 22nd Avenue North St.

Pete in District 4.

I'm representing myself, and I'm asking you to vote yes on this study.

I moved to St.

Pete in 2012 as a freshman at Eckard College.

And after I graduated, my wife and I kind of set off in a little jet setting adventure of our lives.

We lived in just outside of Philadelphia, we lived in Montreal, we moved to West Africa and Wagadougou.

Uh we even lived in Ithaca, New York.

But when we had a chance to settle down and buy a house, we chose to move to St.

Petersburg.

We did not choose to move to St.

Pete because of expensive activations at the pier or anything like that.

We chose to move to St.

Pete because of the thriving community in St.

Pete because of our artists, our urban agriculturalists, things that you can't really spend money on.

But I fear that those types of communities start to wilt when costs start to increase.

We moved back to St.

Pete because it's a dynamic city.

And we simply need to explore more options for our city.

I think I'll skip over the rest of this and um just ask you to vote yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next two speakers.

Next two speakers, Celine Belgins and Alicia Esperson.

Please approach either podium, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address City Council.

Alright.

I own Valhalla Bakery in Valkyrie Donuts in downtown St.

Pete, and I reside at 233 96th Avenue North, St.

Petersburg, Florida.

So I'm not here with corporate talking points, and I'm just here as a human that lives and resides and pays a lot of taxes in St.

Pete.

Um, our American systems aren't set up for us as we're really seeing clearly right now.

Um, and just because things have always been done a certain way, it doesn't mean it's the best interest of the people.

It's time to start changing things, and it's time to start taking back our own power as well as anything we can clot back from the government.

Um, we're also asking for this feasibility study as we the residents of St.

Pete aren't gonna accept paying increased power bills for more corporate grifts.

Um, and honestly, it sounds like the city could use the revenue from a city-run powered grid.

We can fill up so that other deficit issues.

Um, the feasibility study uh costs approximately six hundred thousand dollars, which equals about five dollars based on a hundred and twenty thousand resident homes in the city of St.

Petersburg.

Uh that would would equal a substantial benefit to the residents if we're looking at a 500 to 700 decrease in our power bills over the years.

Um the primary reason I'm here though is the data centers.

Data centers, I live off of Gandhi.

I live by the Greyhound track, and we've all kind of come to understand that that's what we're looking at, potentially, and if we allow data centers, we're gonna destroy the ecosystem in Florida.

I'm not willing to listen to the sound of a vacuum cleaner outside of my house and destroying our water resources, increasing our water temperatures, potentially leading to more red tide events in our area.

I'm not willing to accept that, and I don't think anybody else is here.

I think that we need to vote yes on the feasibility study.

We need to stop Duke Energy from be allowing any data centers into our towns, and we need to take this all back.

We need our city back.

We need our rights within our cities, and we need to be able to make decisions that work for the city and not for corporate greed.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Go ahead, ma'am.

Thank you for allowing me to speak today.

My name's Alika Esperson.

Address is uh 5300 Dr.

M L K Street South.

I am very grateful to live in this city.

I hear all the time from my friends that it's the best place to live, and there's truly nowhere else I'd rather be.

And part of that is your leadership to make this a very creative, inclusive, and progressive place to live.

So I thank you.

It makes me really proud to know that St.

Pete has ambitious goals of 100% renewable energy for city operations by 2035, and that's why I'm here to speak in support of the feasibility study today, because we can simply not reach that goal if we continue our relationship with Duke Energy.

They rely heavily on Zerti fossil fuels, 80% coming from methane gas, and some still coming from coal in 2026.

I find that ridiculous.

With a city-run utility, residents can save money since we are not paying for profits, and we have a chance to uh get our energy from solar, which has been competitive compared to fossil fuel costs.

We know that Winter Park broke away from Duke Energy, known as Progress Energy at the time in 2005 and created OUC.

And the proof is in the pudding that residents now pay 30% less on their bills.

Clearwater's feasibility study also proved savings for residents.

And so I would be very surprised to see if St.

Pete's results came back with that we wouldn't have savings if we started our own utility company.

The last franchise agreement was signed before I was even a thought in my mom's mind.

And this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to look into an alternative from Duke Energy.

It has been said before, but it's important to note we are paying some of the highest rates in the state with charges hidden in very clever ways on our Duke bill, not listed as line items.

The only way to know for sure if we're gonna save money is to fund this study.

It's the first step that any municipality takes across the nation.

So please vote yes in funding the study and continue to lead this beautiful city to progress and show not only Florida but the nation that another way is possible.

I'll end by sharing that Duke is not popular among residents.

And if you don't believe me, check out their Google reviews to see all the ways they've wronged customers they claim to serve.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next two speakers.

Next two speakers, John Cannon, Peyton Holy, approach other podium, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address city council.

Hello, my name is John Cannon.

I live at 1452nd Avenue Northeast.

I'm also a small business owner on First Avenue South up on the 2500 block.

I publish books about St.

Pete in Florida, and I'm a Navy vet.

My dad worked for ATT uh when ATT was replaced.

Um and there was a big fear of unemployment, and there was a law and a big fear of loss of service.

So, of course, today, our phones work fine.

Keep in mind that.

No one wants a wild speculative bet, and no one wants a decision based on fear.

Fact.

The following cities operate municipal utilities rather than rely on investor owned utilities.

Seattle, San Antonio, Jacksonville, Nashville, Sacramento, Georgetown, Orlando, Tallahassee, and Winter Park.

So this has been done before.

So the decision is really kind of simple, a simple based on facts, or a decision based on fear and guesswork.

Good governance.

Which you are known for, and we appreciate here, we really do, because you base your decision on facts.

Is $590,000 and cost of starting it up and cost of running it worth the return on investment?

Winter Park has as has been said, bills are down 28%.

That's millions.

That's a lot more than 590,000.

I know we're in tight times.

This is a lot of money, but there's enormous potential, and this takes courage.

So I repeat Seattle, San Antonio, Jacksonville, Nashville, Sacramento, Georgetown, Orlando, Tallahassee, Winter Park.

This has been done successfully by other countries, and this is going to take courage, but let's find out.

So vote yes, thank you.

Peyton Hoey, 6373 21st Avenue North.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Peyton Hoey, and I'm here to join the many community members and residents today to speak in favor of funding the feasibility study.

In the agenda today, questions about how St.

Pete compares to other cities in event management was brought forth.

We see on power bills directly how St.

Pete compares.

Duke Energy customers pay some of the highest rates in the entire state of Florida.

They are they also pay $40 higher per month than cities with public power.

We know Duke Energy is massively overcharging us, and we are here to ask this body to take action with a clear path forward.

Support a feasibility study.

Energy is a basic human right, and these rising rates, led by Duke Energy's profit motive, is not sustainable for the people who work and live here.

The people of St.

Pete deserve to know how much we would save with publicly owned power, where the interest would be guided to truly serve the people, not lining the pockets of a corporation.

In addition to affordability, Duke Energy has not invested in reliable infrastructure to withstand the impacts of climate change, resulting in extended outages.

Many of us here saw the impacts of Hurricane Helene and Milton firsthand and the way our communities were devastated.

I still remember seeing the gutted homes in Gulfport talking and handing out aid to people where we could smell the expired food and the rotten drywall.

I spoke with people in our communities whose livelihoods were washed away, and Duke Energy is still charging those same residents for hurricane damages on their monthly bill in order to guarantee their own profit.

That's not right.

We are paying for these intensifying weather effects in two-fold, as they are also driven by fossil fuels, which includes is included in more than 80% of Duke Energy's fuel mix.

As someone who works in the environmental field, every day I see the price of volatile fossil fuels skyrocketing and the same fuels accelerating our warming planet, leaving working people behind.

Currently, St.

Pete has a goal to achieve 100% clean renewable energy across its city operations by 2030, and citywide by 2035.

Currently, Duke Energy does not offer a pathway to this goal.

St.

Pete's 30-year agreement with Duke Energy is ending, and right now we can choose for a better future with affordable, accountable, and energy-efficient, local, publicly owned power.

The people of St.

Pete do not want another 30-year contract.

I urge you today to support the feasibility study.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next two speakers.

Next two speakers.

Chelsea Grice and David Hurtlocker approach on the podium.

State your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address city council.

Go ahead, sir.

Good afternoon.

My name is David Herlocker, and I'm the business manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, System Council U8.

My address, I'm a Duke of Energy employee on leave of absence right now.

Addresses 299 First Avenue North St.

Petersburg.

I represent the Union men and women who keep the lights on in the city of St.

Petersburg and throughout this region.

I am here today to respectfully ask you to vote no on the proposed $590,000 feasibility study to separate St.

Petersburg from the system of Duke Energy.

While some may view this as simply a study, it is not a cost-free or consequent consequence free first step.

It commits nearly $600,000 in taxpayer money and begins moving the city down a path that creates uncertainty for a system that residents, businesses, hospitals, and emergency services depend on every day.

The workers I represent live here, work here, and have served this community for generations.

One of our local unions that Brother Romel spoke about, local 682, was chartered right here in St.

Petersburg in 1935.

Our members are line workers, system operators, technicians, mechanics, and plant employees who generate power 365 days a year and respond 24 hours a day, seven days a week, especially when the conditions are at their worst.

After hurricanes, storms, and other emergencies, they are the people who work around the clock to restore power and keep this community functioning.

Operating an electric system is not simply a matter of owning infrastructure.

It requires a highly skilled workforce, years of training, extensive safety programs, specialized equipment, and access to resources that have been built up over the decades.

These capabilities cannot be recreated overnight.

And there is intense competition nationwide for qualified electrical utility workers.

Moving towards municipalization introduces uncertainty at a time when reliability and resiliency should remain the priority.

It raises questions about future costs, workforce retention, operational responsibilities, and long-term liabilities that are currently borne by Duke Energy and not by the taxpayers of St.

Petersburg.

The city can continue pursuing resiliency improvements, undergrounding projects, infrastructure investments, and enhanced customer service without spending $600,000 to begin exploring a risky and uncertain transition.

I respectfully ask you to protect ratepayers, protect reliability, and protect public safety by voting no on this proposal.

Thank you for your consideration.

Good afternoon.

My name is Chelsea Grice.

Address 305 Dr.

Martin Lutheran, your street south, representing myself.

And I am here asking that you approve the feasibility study.

It is so counterintuitive to our free market American values that a single company should be able to hold a monopoly over one of the largest driving factors of our daily lives: electricity.

It affects everything we do, and Duke has been allowed to go unchecked and without competition for 30 years.

Duke has offset their business expenses on us, the customer, and continue to raise prices, and what is to stop them.

The only argument I've heard from them is that they serve the community as if they don't get funded and paid for the work that they do.

We know that Duke's interest is and always has been profit and its shareholders and not the people of St.

Petersburg.

We know that there are workable alternatives, and other communities in Florida have made the same crucial choice and are thriving, so we know it can be done.

There's a large turnout today of people who are ready to move on from Duke, and I'm asking you to vote for the people and support the feasibility study.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next two speakers is Todd Randolph and Leo Gonzalez.

Please go to either podium, state your name and address or cross street for the record.

You'll have three minutes to address council.

You can go, sir.

Hey, my name is Todd Randolph.

I live at 207 North Matanzas in Tampa, Florida, 33609.

I am here representing Sierra Club.

I'm a member of the executive committee with Tampa Bay Group.

And also the viewpoints of the Pinellus Group, Sierra Club, which has been particularly vocal in uh pursuing public power.

Um, state and uh nationally, uh, this is something that Sierra Club believes in.

Uh Sierra Club also is interested in Duke Energy so much that they released a uh document uh titled Duke Energy Pollute to Profit.

It uh begins by stating Duke claims to provide affordable, safe and clean energy.

It's accidents and environmental disasters suggest otherwise, and concludes by stating Duke has shown time and again that it will continue to build dangerous, dirty fossil fuel infrastructure disregarding the health and safety of the communities and ecosystems in its way.

Uh so on behalf of Sierra Club, I am asking that you uh approve this item, F2 and perform a feasibility study.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Go ahead.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Leo Gonzalez.

Uh, uh one 14854 Alcarim Place Lots Freuda.

Uh, and I am a former Duke employee, and I want to give you my opinion on why the city should proceed with this feasibility study for a public utility.

After my years working for Duke Energy, I do not see the value of having a for profit corporation in charge of St.

Pete's electricity.

Not only for the customers, like it has been said here today, but also because it prevents good paying stable jobs from being here in the city.

Duke Energy utilizes a two-tier system of employment.

A lot of the workforce that they use uh are actually contractors that they get no benefits, no time off, no maternity leave.

Um, contractors, I add instead of utility or contractors, but they are supposed to be temporary workers that you hire to do a temporary job.

However, uh Duke has contractors that have been working there for many years without any benefits and stability.

In my opinion, a corporation that publicly reported five billion dollars in profit last year, can afford to permanently hire their workers, give them benefits and a livable wage.

Not only does Duke rely on contractors here in the US, but if you work for them or you do some research online, you will find out that they use the practice of offshoring jobs to places like the Philippines or Mexico.

That way they can cut costs on salaries, pay offshore employees a fraction of the federal minimum wage salary that they are required to pay here.

Public power is not only feasible, but also is extremely beneficial to the city.

Uh the money that St.

Pede residents pay for the electricity should stay here and not not go to Duke executives up in North Carolina.

I think the people in uh the people that run our grid should be in St.

Pede, uh, not in another country or another state.

I encourage you to proceed with this feasibility study and not think of this as Duke leaving us, but rather an opportunity for the people in St.

Pede to gain power.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next two speakers is Thomas Gross and Josh Sprout.

Please go to either podium, state your name and address across the street for the record, please.

I call the other speaker.

Josh Sprout.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Thomas.

Thomas, and there's the next speaker because there's the other one's not here.

So Kristen.

Okay.

Hello, my name is uh Thomas Gross.

I am a resident at uh 4927 13th Avenue North, south of Distant Heights in uh District 8 with my lovely City Council member Richie Floyd.

Um and I want to thank City Council for uh listening to me and all these people in the room uh coming out here to speak out against Duke Energy's exploitation of the same people of St.

Petersburg.

I'm speaking in favor of this feasibility study because in our time of need during these hurricanes, unlike what a lot of people from Duke Energy have said, they were not there for us.

I'm I remember only a couple years ago when thousands of people fled from St.

Petersburg during a dahlia in Milton when I was afraid I was gonna lose my home.

When I drove back from South Tampa, all I could see were blocked roads, flooded homes, and broken families.

My home went out of power for almost over two weeks, during which my home was practically inhabitable and I had to live out of my car for most of the day.

I depended on Duke Energy to step in and lift me up.

That's what we're all supposed to be paying them for, paying the highest rates in the entire state.

And all and the only thing I got from Duke Energy was a higher bill rate hikes, charging us a billion dollars to pay for the to pay to repair St.

Petersburg, like they're supposed to be doing.

That's the risk they're supposed to be taking on as a private corporation or they claim.

Duke Energy is pushing all the risk onto the consumer.

40% of my energy charge is hidden fees covering up their messes like the Crystal River plant from 2009.

The people taking on the actual risk, the people I can depend on in St.

Petersburg are not Duke Energy executives who allegedly spend more time uh stalking outside of bone marrow donation clinics trying to find people to spread their propaganda through Clearwater Energy Alliance and St.

Petersburg Energy Alliance throughout the city.

The people I can depend on were the people were my neighbors, the people who open their doors for me during the hurricane, like during the hurricane damage, while Duke Energy shut their door in my face.

The people who lent me water and ice, while Duke Energy could only be found if they want an extra dollar.

The people of St.

Petersburg are the only people that we can trust to control our own grid.

They're the people who actually put people before profit and not shareholders before people.

It's about time we actually put people before profit.

And this is our only time in a generation.

I wasn't even alive when they signed this agreement that we can actually take charge of our own energy.

It's we can take power over our power.

We are depending on all of you and city council to make the right choice.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Who was the speaker?

He's four.

Okay.

And Kristen Langson.

Kristen?

Doesn't seem to like she's here.

She's four?

Okay.

Zachary Shura?

And then the next one.

The next one is Wesley.

Yeah, I make out the last name.

But does it, how do you can you spell it?

Okay.

He's he, he's here, obviously.

Okay, go ahead, sir.

Hi, my name is Zach.

I live at 3872 7th Avenue North here in St.

Pete, and I work professionally with energy data, so it's important to me that my position on this issue is founded in that data.

Uh so when I first started looking into this, I decided to look at a few things.

I looked at the uh reliability and the resiliency of Duke Energy compared to the average municipal utility.

And despite what Duke employees here are saying about their improvements, they're not better than the average municipal utility.

But what we can say for sure is they are charging the highest rates in the state.

We can say that they are bringing in billions of dollars in profit every year, and their rate of profit is also increasing year over year.

And that's just money that's being sucked up out of our economy away from local residents who would otherwise spend it at local businesses.

Uh, and it's going to pad the portfolios of Duke's big investors like BlackRock.

Um, we can also say in the period since uh 2020, Duke's rates have been rising almost exponentially, whereas the average municipal utility has had almost flat rates in that same period.

And that's the difference between a municipal utility and in IOU.

Uh, even when we were seeing inflation rates of 9 or 10% after COVID, municipal rates were not rising anywhere near that.

Well, Duke was often outpacing inflation.

Um, so that's really the difference of a utility that is focused on the well-being of the citizens and providing providing um reliable power versus a utility whose primary incentive is the uh profit motives of their shareholders.

And we're about to enter a period in the next 20 to 30 years where our grid will change fundamentally.

It's gonna look nothing like it is today.

Uh so we're deciding in this process not just if we want the cheaper rates that we've seen Clearwater, their study say they would get almost immediately, but we're also talking about do we want a utility focused on continuing to provide reliable power to the citizens while we are going through this uh complete fundamental change of our grid, or do we want a utility that's gonna look for every opportunity to profit off of us as they build new infrastructure that we might not need, like data centers that they will spend dark money to get approved and force down our throats, even if nobody actually needs uh that infrastructure.

So I request that you all support this feasibility study.

Let's at least do our bare due diligence.

Uh, it just does not make sense to keep paying more for a product that is the same or worse.

That's just basic common sense.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh hello.

My name is Wesley Collette, and we'll be giving my neighborhood be fine for an interest.

Yes.

Well, I live in MyVokes neighborhood, and I am speaking to support the feasibility study.

My grandfather was a lineman and he worked on their Florida Power.

Who was this deal was originally signed?

The current deal is originally signed under the four, eventually became part of Duke Energy.

The possibility of public power has much promise and costs very little.

About half of one-tenth of a single percent of the 2026 budget for the city of St.

Pete, this should be a no-brainer.

The current deadline in for total switch to in energy is 2035, and Duke Energy has shown no indication that they're working towards a future that preserves our wonderful shorelines from rising waters and incoming hurricanes.

This decision will impact every person here, but being a 16-year-old, I will have to live through the consequences of this decision, be it clean power or expensive energy that's slowly washing away the peninsula and a very limited say in that decision.

Looking out into the crowd, I there's very few people who look to be about my age of like a teenager, so, but despite that, we are the people, we're carrying on the costs, and many of us do not have a say in this in the voting booth, for example.

I urge the eight members of the St.

Petersburg City Council to approve this study so we can save as we've seen with many other municipal run electrical grids that is at about 20% savings on the power boat and energy that is not a threat to our homes here in St.

Petersburg.

That is all.

Thank you.

Next to speakers, Andrew Hernandez, Daniel Collette, approach either podium, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address city council.

Go ahead.

Go ahead, sir.

Good afternoon.

My name is Andrew Hernandez.

I live at 1618 Burlington Avenue North.

Um, this afternoon I voluntarily left work early to come here.

I work in commercial plumbing.

This is very important to me.

Um I wish I got paid to be here.

Um Duke Energy.

I'm here for it, so please do look into the study.

Uh this afternoon, actually, I was just talking to a uh City of Largo worker who uh was just talking about his bill and how Duke Energy will be burying their lines in for his neighborhood, which is great.

But you know what else?

They're charging him for it.

Talk about definition of a grift.

We've been doing your dirty for so long, now we'll do the right thing, but we're gonna charge you for it.

That's something else.

City council, 30-year contract.

I was 13 years old when this contract was first went into place.

I'll be 73 if another 30-year contract goes into way.

This is absurd.

I don't think any of you would really agree to the sort of nonsense.

Um, Lakeland, Florida, winter garden.

I mean, two examples of public utility that pay 20 to 40% less than we do.

Um, this is pretty common knowledge.

Thank you so much.

Have a good day.

Hello, my name is Daniel Collette.

I live at 5314 Fifth Avenue North, and uh thank you, City Council for your public service and for your time today.

I've lived in St.

Petersburg for 22 years.

I'm very proud to call it home.

I'm a homeowner and a professor of ethics and critical thinking, where I'm also a proud union steward.

I have two children that I am grateful to be raising here.

One, a recent graduate of Lakewood High School, uh Mr.

Gibbons gave the beautiful speech at the banquet last year.

Um, and also the other enrolled at St.

Pete High School.

I'm here today to strongly urge each of you to vote yes on the feasibility study for municipal public utility.

It's June and Florida Heat is here.

As I look at my electric bill, it's obscene.

Rates are higher than ever, and with Duke, we are paying higher energy fees than most other cities in Florida.

We're also paying fees for things like Duke's failed nuclear power plant.

I teach my children to own up and to learn from their mistakes.

Why does Duke get a pass?

Their failures have become our electric bill.

It is also obscene that our energy provider, a public good and natural monopoly, is guaranteed 11% profit.

We the people of St.

Pete are not guaranteed as much.

Duke is also a North Carolina corporation, so their profit doesn't even stay in our community.

Profit gained from our basic needs is siphoned away.

The last Duke contract was for 30 years.

During that time, we have seen half-hearted efforts when it comes to making our city more storm resilient with infrastructure like underground power lines.

We are in the sunshine city of the sunshine state, yet we have seen lackluster effort to meet the existential urgency of climate change with renewable energy like solar power.

These are decisions that not only affect us today, but will affect the next generation.

Meanwhile, Duke's responsibility is to their shareholders, not the people of St.

Pete.

But today's vote isn't to dump Duke.

It is simply for a feasibility study.

When people make an important decision, they gather as much info as possible.

The last contract was for 30 years.

If I am buying a home, a house inspection might cost a few hundred dollars, but no one says they don't have the budget for a home inspection.

The alternative is to risk a 30-year mortgage on a home that might have structural damage.

Why would wouldn't we do the same with something as important as our city's utilities?

If a realtor insisted I get a loan without a home inspection, I'd have a right to be suspicious.

Why would Duke be so opposed to us making an informed decision?

It doesn't add up.

All that to say it is only responsible as a city to gather all relevant data before rushing into a decision.

Is the fiscally responsible, environmentally necessary, resilient, and ethical thing to do.

The alternative is rushing into a decades-long decision to no one's benefit except Duke.

I emphatically urge each of you to vote yes for the feasibility study.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next two speakers, Christian Williams, Anthony Attech.

Approach our podium, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address City Council.

Good afternoon, Council.

Christian Williams, 30th Avenue North, right here in St.

Pete.

This is actually my first time speaking at one of these, so I'm a little bit nervous, but um honestly, I don't know as much as I should about the energy grid.

Um I'm not aware of the subtleties of political influence within the um the energy sector.

I can barely even read my own power bill, honestly.

Um, but I do know that there's a better path forward than staying with a company that is far more concerned in their profits than they are the community they serve.

That's coming from a pretty average guy, too.

I mean, I enjoy watching movies.

I enjoy going out to eat.

Um, I like having a few beers and and grilling out with my friends, and lately all anyone wants to talk about are their power bills, um, Duke Energy and what you all are doing about it.

The other night, one of my buddies, Will, he told me he said that Duke made four point nine billion dollars in profit last year.

That's an eight percent increase up from 2024 while most of us are struggling.

He was pissed.

Um, then if that wasn't enough, he said that near the end of the year, Duke asked for an additional 1.7 billion dollars in revenue, and that's directly from us, Duke customers.

I need you to know that the guy who told me that is a regular dude.

He draws a Ford F 150.

This guy drinks natty light.

Like he watches golf on TV.

I'm serious.

This is a normal dude, and he's concerned about what's going on with his power bill, Duke Energy, uh, and he's talking to his friends about it.

My other friend Kayla, she sent me that Duke predicts data centers will drive 75% of their development by 2030, that they don't anticipate any of these projects to back out, and that the cost of serving those data centers will be put on us, Duke customers.

She literally said to me, I didn't ask for that.

This is also a very normal person.

Her favorite restaurant is Chick-fil-A.

This girl watches Disney movies on repeat.

These aren't activists.

These typically aren't even people that you would expect to come vote, and yet here they are sitting around talking about leaving a private energy company because they've realized that collectively we possibly can have something better.

I think that's kind of my point that everyday people are sitting around talking about what needs to happen to make this a better future, not just for us in a few years from now, but from our kids, you know, down the line to keep this a beautiful, healthy, inclusive, and affordable community.

Uh it's clear that Duke Corporation Energy, they don't care about that.

Maybe their employees do, but Duke does not.

They don't care about our community, they don't care about your family, they only care about their profits.

And I came here today really just to let you know that normal people like me that don't know a lot about what's going on.

We're sitting down and we're talking about these things, and we're looking at you all to make the right decisions.

When it comes to making decisions that show you individually care about the people of St.

Pete, this feasibility study to me, it's like a layup.

Um, super simple.

So to sum it up, we're asking you to find solutions that have the best interest of our community in mind.

We're asking you to approve the feasibility study, and I'm asking you for bigger seating because it's really narrow.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll add that to the budget.

Hey, how's it going?

Uh, I'm Anthony Atique.

I live at 1526 37th Street North in beautiful St.

Petersburg, Florida.

Um, I first and foremost want to say I am wholeheartedly in favor of um of uh you all voting in favor of a feasibility study.

Uh a vote in favor of the feasibility study wouldn't commit the city to any particular course of action.

It would simply allow us to examine whether there is a viable path toward greater local control of an essential public resource, our electric grid.

If municipal power proves feasible, it could provide residents with a meaningful voice and decisions that directly affect our daily lives, our rates, and our resilience for our future.

At minimum, the study would give us the opportunity to explore whether St.

Pete could reclaim a measure of democratic control over a system that every resident depends upon.

This opportunity alone is worth pursuing.

On the other hand, if we stay the course with Duke Energy, we should expect more of the same steadily rising rates, even for residents like my wife and me, who have invested in solar energy and continued concerns about the maintenance of critical infrastructure.

For example, there's still a downed power line in an alleyway near a house between 13th and 14th Avenues and 39th Street North.

It's been tied to a fence.

It's been that way since 2024.

When utility rates continue to increase while basic maintenance issues remain unresolved, it's a reasonable to question whether customers are receiving the level of service, accountability, and value we deserve.

Beyond those concerns, there's also the issue of democratic oversight.

Residents have little little meaningful say in major decisions that affect our community, including whether energy-intensive developments such as data centers should be welcomed and supported through our utility system.

It is my hope that you will take these concerns into consideration and vote in the best interests of the people who live here, not on behalf of Duke, whose primary interest is in preserving the control over our wallets.

After all, it's no coincidence that Duke chose to seemingly out of nowhere to temporarily reduce the rates just before the primaries and this meeting today, and those reductions are set to go back to reverse back to what they were after the primary elections.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Next two speakers.

Next two speakers, Adam Shields and Allie Shetner.

Please approach either podium, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address city council.

Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Council.

Good afternoon.

I'm not going to need my whole three minutes here.

Oh, Adam Schells, 275 First Avenue South in St.

Petersburg.

I'm not going to need my whole three minutes here today.

Because I want to make just one point.

That point is this.

Go through the finances of Duke Energy.

Take away the money that is spent on operating expenses, on plant and equipment.

Take away the well-deserved wages for the hard workers of Duke Energy.

And you will see a figure set between 9.3 and 11.3% guaranteed for profit.

Averaging out at 10.3% guaranteed for the profit of stakeholders.

If we were to take that 10.3% off the table by having a municipally owned utility, then that 10.3% could be used for improvements in infrastructure, for lowering customer bills, and for generally improving the life of the people of St.

Petersburg.

We have to ask the question.

Which works out as hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If that was used for the benefit of the people of St.

Petersburg and electricity provision here in St.

Petersburg, then going to the line the pockets of the uh shareholders of Duke Energy.

So that's the question.

Use that money to serve the people of St.

Petersburg.

In doing, we address the affordability crisis the people have spoken so well about.

At least it's worth checking out by a feasibility study whether this is the indicated course of action.

That's why I'm quite confident that the council is going to approve the proposal for a feasibility study.

So thank you, Council.

Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon.

My name is Alex Schechter, 5034 32nd Avenue North.

Um I'm here to voice my support for uh the feasible for funding a feasibility study for publicly owned power.

I was born and raised in Largo, Florida.

Growing up, we had Duke Energy.

Uh, at the age of 18, I signed my life away, joined the US Air Force for six years, stationed in Goldsboro, North Carolina.

I had Duke Energy.

Um, and then upon separation from the military in 2022, I moved back to Pinellas, and now I live in St.

Pete, and of course I still have Duke Energy.

I always thought of Duke Energy as a necessary evil.

So upon hearing uh that another option is possible, and not just possible, but likely better, more affordable, and more reliant uh for the working class residents.

I immediately jumped on board.

Towards the end of my contract in the military, I had to make a decision.

Do I extend?

Do I re-enlist?

Do I separate?

I ultimately landed on separation, but I did my due diligence.

That is what we're asking you to do today.

To do your due diligence.

At the end of at the end of a contract, you assess all your options.

And funding the study will provide the necessary answers that we desperately need.

I have knocked countless doors as part of the Dump Duke campaign.

And so many others that I've taught I've spoken to at their door at their house have the same realization as me.

That there are other options.

We aren't stuck with Duke Energy.

This is by this is bipartisan, especially in a time where power bills are an all-time high and affordability is at all time low.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next two speakers.

Next to speakers, Madam Chair Lily Cannon, Carol Apollo Apollonia.

Approach either podium, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address city council.

Hi, my name is Lily Cannon.

I live at 145 22nd Avenue Northeast.

Uh I'm speaking in support of the feasibility study simply because I find it hard to believe that Duke Energy cares about affordability or sustainability when time and time again they fail to meet the goalposts of providing clear data on renewable energy energy, especially with the coming of data centers.

As one of the younger generations, I'm going to be here.

I'm going to be here as we see more and more extreme weather events, and Duke has made it clear that they will not protect community members during those events like hurricanes.

Um I don't trust them after seeing them push out my community members as someone who went to USF St.

Pete.

No one my age can really afford to live here.

So I thank you guys for considering this, and I think St.

Pete needs to do its duty to at least find more information on alternatives to this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, uh, thank you, Counsel, for having me.

Uh, my name is Carol Apollonio, and I live at 750 Burlington Avenue North, representing myself.

Uh I paid for this t-shirt myself, but if I had a free t-shirt given to me, the slogan would say local citizen, lover of St.

Petersburg, and a regular person who pays utility bills.

All you I've heard so many compelling arguments suggesting that municipal power would be great for St.

Pete.

As people have said, we're not voting.

You are not making that decision today, whether or not Duke Power.

You're making a decision as to whether or not to do your due diligence, collect the facts, study carefully, and decide whether it makes sense to make a uh a switch to municipal power.

Of course, I tend to support that as many of us do.

Um this is a rare opportunity, again, as other speakers have said, once in 30 years opportunity, once in a lifetime for me, certainly once in a lifetime for some of the others.

I think I hope maybe more opportunities will come up to establish a strong basis for a uh a reasonable, wise, economical and efficient energy system that serves the people of St.

Petersburg here, um, managed here, controlled here, and not by a corporation somewhere else whose primary purpose is to make profits and maybe give out free t-shirts.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Will the court please call the next two speakers?

Next to speakers' vice chair, Shay Roth, Abigail DeGregio.

Please approach either podium, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address City Council.

I'm nervous enough to let her go first.

Hello, my name is Abigail DiGregorio.

I live at 1315 34th Avenue North.

Um I'm here to ask you to vote in favor of the feasibility study.

I was born in St.

Pete.

I grew up in Allendale, and I currently live in Magnolia Heights.

I'm 29 years old, and I plan to stay here and start a family in St.

Pete in the coming years.

Voting yes for this study will initiate a process where you will acquire the necessary knowledge as decision makers and leaders in our community to properly assess the potential of this opportunity that has been placed before the city to negotiate with Duke Energy.

This is an act of due diligence, and I see it as your responsibility to equip yourselves with this knowledge.

I also understand and sympathetic to the concerns of the union representative who spoke before me, and that is why I reiterate my first point.

Go through with the feasibility study to learn what you need to know so that you can adequately navigate this potential change.

I trust that you will make the right decision today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I live at 1029th Street North.

Um, and I would I wanted to make it perfect.

I'm gonna go off script a little bit here.

I am not an anti-capitalist.

I'm I have nothing but respect for y'all's integrity and dedication as workers in your field.

I mean, it's not a uh nothing personal in this.

But I am here to express my strong support for a feasibility study regarding a transition from a corporate-run power or power provider to a municipally run um utility.

Is concerning the Duke Energy negotiates rates in Tallahassee rather than with the city of St.

Petersburg.

As a large corporation, Duke is ultimately accountable to its shareholders rather than the communities that it serves.

That's not to say that they don't do some things on the side, but their bottom line is to serve their shareholders.

Furthermore, the fact that the Florida Public Service Commission is appointed rather than elected creates a system vulnerable to undo political influence.

Moving toward a municipal model would ensure greater local accountability and transparency.

Transparency.

I urge you to support the initiation of this study to explore more equitable energy options in our community.

Thank you.

Next two speakers.

Next to speakers, Madam Chair Dalty Ray.

Allison Barlow, please approach on the podium.

State your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address City Council.

Good evening, City Council members.

My name is Alison Barlow.

I am a lifelong resident here in St.

Petersburg at 242 for Andalusia Wayne Northeast.

Given the significant financial, operational and regulatory complexities associated with establishing a municipal electric utility, I do not believe that the city of St.

Petersburg should proceed with the formal study.

Allocating public funds to a study would divert limited resources, many of which we heard about earlier today, both funds and staff attention from other critical city priorities, including infrastructure improvements, resiliency initiatives, and quality of life projects that provide more immediate and tangible benefit to residents.

Converting to a municipal utility will be a substantial cost to the city.

It will require infrastructure, development of operational capabilities, including hiring staff at appropriate salaries with the needed expertise, establishing a support infrastructure including emergency management operations, and those important reciprocal agreements that we all rely on during disaster support.

It will also assume that our city will take on the long-term maintenance and reliability responsibilities.

At a time when our city is facing potential reduction in tax-generated revenue and hoping to initiate a significant bond initiative for resiliency infrastructure, the financial ability of our city to establish a cost-effective municipality utility is murky at best.

Instead, the shit city should leverage this opportunity to advance energy resilience, manage the risk of future energy markets, and address affordability through collaboration without assuming the risk and liability associated with utility ownership and operation.

Considering the numerous competing municipal priorities, city resources would be better invested in products and projects with clearer outcomes and more direct community impact.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Dalty Ray.

I live on 16th Street and 20th Avenue North.

And I'm speaking today to ask that the council please vote yes to support the feasibility study.

I moved to St.

Pete five years ago for my first full-time job as a new college grad after living in Jacksonville my entire life.

I love St.

Pete for a lot of reasons, the beautiful parks, the walkability, all the stuff to do.

But all the things that make St.

Pete a wonderful place to live come with a cost.

This is something I took for granted until April 2022 when my dad, who covered about a third of my living expenses, suddenly died.

For the first time in my life, I was completely on my own financially, making only 14 dollars per hour.

Phrases like severely rent burdened that I'd once understood in the abstract were now my own material reality.

Instead of processing the grief from losing my father, I found myself frantically calculating how I'd pay for basic necessities.

When I lived in Jacksonville, which has a city-owned power company, I never lost sleep over my power bill.

But my Duke energy bill was sometimes double what I paid in Jacksonville and could vary significantly month to month.

For someone living paycheck to paycheck, that unpredictability could be the difference between building a safety net or dipping into my savings.

I'm lucky to be in a better place financially now, a big part of that being uh living in a house that has solar, and so my landlords don't charge me for electricity.

But when I talk to my friends or neighbors about Duke, I see in their eyes the same exhaustion that I experienced.

Affordability is a crucial topic in St.

Pete, and for the first time in 30 years, our electric grid gets to be a part of it.

This feasibility study is just the beginning of that conversation about who holds the keys to our energy and how we can invest in an affordable and resilient St.

Petersburg.

So, council, please do the right thing and give the people of this city the once in a generation opportunity to see what else is possible and vote yes to approve the feasibility study.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next two speakers, Madam Chair.

Nancy Miller, Barbara Mellon.

Approach on the podium, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address city council.

I don't see anyone standing.

Nancy Millard and Barbara Mellon.

He's got she's gonna check outside if you could put those to the side and that ask for the next two speakers.

Nick Carey, Michelle Lindsay, approach other podium.

State your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address City Council.

Hi everyone, Nick Carey, Euclid Heights, 10th Street, North St.

Petersburg.

Um, when I walked in today, I wasn't thrilled to see the number of Duke employees in here because all I could think about is how much of my power bill is going for them to lobby against our interests.

Um that's exactly why I wanted to come to speak today, because the money that we pay is actively being used to spread misinformation about what's actually going on.

Like earlier today, I heard storm response.

Public power has just as good, if not better, response time during storms.

Philanthropy, that's also possible with public power.

We should also mention that uh even with problems with our water system, Duke also issues bonds that we pay for as well to upgrade infrastructure.

And finally, these studies are just not plug and play.

You can't just take data from another city.

That's why it costs as much as it does.

There's a lot of experts that have to um put their expertise and time into it.

And fundamentally, we have a bunch of folks that are being paid by Duke Energy telling us all what a great job they're doing, and then all of us who consume the energy telling them what a terrible job they're doing and how we are desperate for another option.

Um I think it's telling that if Duke Energy thought they did a better job or had more affordable rates, they wouldn't be fighting this hard.

They'd say, go ahead, do the study because it'll show that our service and our affordability is better.

They're not doing that, and that's for a reason.

Um, the least you can do is your due diligence.

Uh, I've heard a lot about um city making cuts, and like I I understand that a lot of us are struggling right now with affordability.

The city's actually doing pretty well with revenue right now, and we should be investing that money into long-term options.

I mean, with this insane plan to eliminate property taxes, we need all the streams of revenue we can get.

Um, not to mention that none of this would be paid for by property taxes.

So that shouldn't be a concern for anyone here.

Um, yeah, so uh obviously I'm in favor of the study and uh hope that you vote to fund it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

My name is Michelle Lindsay.

I live off 49th Street and Fifth Avenue North.

I was born and raised in St.

Pete.

I have family and friends in all the city's districts.

I'm a member of the League of Women Voters, St.

Pete Area Chapter, and Central Oak Park Neighborhood Association.

I addressed the council last year in support of the public power feasibility study, and I'm here to do so again.

Like many in our city, I live with serious chronic health issues, multiple progressive lung diseases are what I battle daily.

So as I said last year, if I sound out of breath, I am.

Because of my health, I live on a fixed income, so affordability is critical, and reliable power is a necessity for my daily lung treatments.

Duke Energy has failed St.

Pete and its residents on affordability and reliability, and its so-called affordability programs are insufficient.

Too many of your residents are struggling to make ends meet.

It's shameful we pay some of the highest rates in Florida for electricity and essential service.

We haven't had a choice, but today you have the chance to make a difference for the city and its residents.

I respectfully ask all council members to vote yes to accept the feasibility study proposal and fund the project.

It's the responsibility of the city and the council to do its due diligence before entering into any agreement or contract.

This is how good business is done.

St.

Pete residents deserve this.

I continue to speak with many residents in all of your districts about our unaffordable and unreliable electricity.

Everyone I speak with is in favor of examining our options, and that's an understatement.

The countless stories I hear about outrageously high bills and frequent outages are beyond disturbing and heartbreaking.

This is a wake-up call to the council and city.

This is and will become a voting issue for many in St.

Pete.

You have a chance today to show the residents of St.

Pete that we matter more than Duke Energy's profit by voting yes to move forward with the feasibility study.

We vote for officials who do what's right by the residents, not ones who put prof who put corporations and their profits over our well-being.

Thank you for your time and for voting yes on the feasibility study.

Thank you.

Next two speakers.

Barbara Mellon, Nancy Millart.

They both have four, madam chair.

Okay.

Next two speakers is Chris Steinnocker and Caroline or Maddock.

Please go to either podium, state your name and address or cross street for the record.

You'll have three minutes to address council.

Good afternoon again, Chris City Council.

Chris Steinocker, President and CEO of the St.

Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce.

Thank you guys for listening to all of us tonight.

Thank you to all of our residents who obviously have shown the passion and care and have the stories to make sure that everybody has heard, and many of us have those stories.

And I also want to thank all the employees from Duke and the unions that have showed up as well.

It must be hard to hear things about your business, and we know how much you care.

So please, I hope nobody's taking this personal, and I hope we're not lobbying personal comments about people's motives about St.

Pete.

I think we all love St.

Pete, and I think that's why we're all here.

I think what we all want right now is relief.

That's all I've heard is relief now.

Relief today.

I hear you all saying we're gonna cut tax or we're gonna cut uh expenses by five, three to five percent because we don't have enough money, they don't have enough money, nobody's got enough money.

So now we're we're gonna okay.

What how will we get through relief now?

I would tell you the best suggestion for relief now isn't a feasibility study.

Oh, by the way, I know cities are different, but Pinellas County just did one with Clearwater and Florida Tax Watch just gave us the results of what their feasibility said were the concerns.

I didn't hear even Claude mention how are we gonna address any of the concerns that Clearwater found in their feasibility study because it's the same company.

So the company's making a million dollars in Pinellas County, and none of it may even go into uh benefit.

I don't believe we have six hundred thousand dollars to do it, but I also do believe you can get relief right now.

First of all, I want everybody to understand I heard nine to eleven percent for Duke profit.

You know, City of St.

Pete gets ten percent profit.

Did y'all know that?

You do.

Because did you know that you pay a 10% right off the top tax on Duke energy that goes to these guys?

So, Mr.

Steinhocker, if you can direct, but I'm just I'm making sure everybody understands that what I really believe is you've got a good partnership.

You've got to have a second, I just it's not just you, I just because it's happened with other speakers.

Got it.

Stop the clock.

I just want to make sure whatever comments we have, we direct it here.

A couple of other speakers have done it, and I just want to make sure it's you okay.

I apologize.

Yes, got it.

Um, so I I think first of all, we got to know all the facts.

The feasibility study that I saw in the Florida Tax Watch Study, which works for the taxpayers of our state, indicate a lot of concerns about it.

But if we want to go to feasibility right now, all you need to do is start negotiating right now with Duke Energy.

That today you can start today by getting relief.

You can come up, you can have your staff present a new negotiation from Duke Energy and present it and vote on it now.

But why aren't we doing that?

If you sign and say you're gonna do a feasibility study tonight, I believe that negotiation becomes harder or does not happen.

Why would it why would a company come to the table in full and full knowledge that you guys may never use them again or you're gonna gig them for what they are?

So I really don't believe the relief now will happen from a feasibility study because it really indicates that it's probably 10 years of eminent domain legal battles that you all have to pay, not Duke Energy.

So you're gonna increase your costs, and in 10 years you still won't have relief now.

You won't even have started relief now for your city.

These folks who said they weren't even alive won't make necessarily even be here because they say they're on the margins right now.

We need relief now.

Let's get a new agreement.

You heard that the people want uh sustainability agreements, they want uh rate agreements, they don't want 30 years.

Yes, ma'am.

Caroline, Chromanic.

She's four.

Okay.

Uh William Kilgore and Justin Marlin.

Please go to either podium, state your name and address or cross street for the record, please.

Hi, thank you, Chair.

Uh William Kilgore, uh 2550 28th Avenue North.

Um, with the St.

Petersburg Tenants Union.

Um I just wanted to uh uh talk about uh Duke Energy.

You know, first I got I just I really have to address uh, you know, I think it's important that you all know, uh, you know, with the St.

Pete Chamber, the St.

Pete EDC, the downtown partnership, these big business leagues.

Uh Duke is a uh uh uh investor level member of these business leagues.

So uh, you know, when they're speaking about this kind of stuff, uh you you gotta keep that in mind.

Uh they they bankroll these organizations, Duke Energy does, um, actually alongside the city of St.

Petersburg, which is very weird.

It makes these negotiations very weird, all these things where you have people lobbying uh and stuff like that.

Um, you know, but the uh the city, I've seen the city spend uh hundreds of thousands of dollars every year in corporate handouts, uh, things that actually like the chamber likes to uh promote these growth smarter job creation talent attraction incentives.

Um, as I recall, there was a business item that was very similar to the cost of this, about a half million dollars, uh, that was a subsidy for footlocker.

Uh, you know, and that never came into fruition.

Obviously, they didn't move here, but if there was no questions asked, there was no worrying about that uh from that end, or it I and I'm not criticizing council, but you know, there was there wasn't a huge uh debate over that.

You all fund things like that all the time, and this is the fact of the matter.

Uh whether or not you support municipal power, you owe it to yourselves and your constituents uh, you know, to get all the facts before making a decision on whether or not uh to renew a franchise agreement with Duke or to go a different direction.

Um I just want to share, you know, with the St.

Pete Tenants Union.

Obviously, landlords the biggest issue, but I tell you, tenants have a big issue with Duke Energy.

That's probably the biggest boogeyman we've dealt with.

Uh, you know, in talking to tenants, I recall a couple years back.

Uh there was a there was a young mom and her uh her newborn, and they were they were in the sweltering apartment in the middle of the summer.

I'm telling you, it was hot.

Those apartments are not designed for cooling with windows and everything like that.

And uh we we went back and forth for hours on the phone with their customer service.

Uh, you know, and she was expressing concern about the health of her baby, you know.

Uh obviously it's hot, I've got a baby.

She was trying to make a partial payment, and they said you need to make the payment in full.

She was offering we had money right there to make like half the payment.

They said no, in full and we don't turn it on.

She expressed concern about the health of her baby.

Uh, and they they told us uh uh it was right on speaker phone.

Well, if the baby gets sick uh from the heat, you can just take it to the hospital.

I mean, this is the kind of thing, and we persisted and persisted and finally got her power uh turned back on.

But that's the thing, these inconsistent policies, it's not transparent.

If I've got an issue with city council or what the city's doing, it's our municipal services aren't perfect, but hey, we can come here.

This is a democracy.

We vote for y'all, and we can do records requests, all that.

So thank you so much.

I appreciate your time.

Go ahead, sir.

Uh hey, my name is uh Justin Marlin.

Um addresses 7130 76th Street North.

Uh yeah, so uh yeah, I just want to say I'm speaking in four of the feasibility study.

Uh yeah, I mean, I just think it's kind of absurd that uh we wouldn't do it because I mean, like other people mentioned before, I mean, there's there's only um Duke is a monopoly.

If uh St.

Pete had its own power company, whatever like that, then uh it could save the profits and use the stuff for uh the residents, whether that's like investing in the future or um, you know, going toward other things or saving money.

And I personally uh not to mention uh and then in addition, all the uh like a bunch of these people, these Duke people came in and talk about how they're how much they care about the community and stuff like that.

But the thing about it is just kind of like or how much Duke cares about the community.

But the thing is that if you talk to I've noticed that there's like not anybody here who doesn't work for Duke who has good things to say about them, as someone else mentioned their guru, who's if they if they were if what's if they were doing so great by the people here, then everybody wouldn't be coming out speaking out against them.

I mean, everybody else would be like, This is absurd, why would we do that?

The services are so great.

If their services are great, we wouldn't be people wouldn't be this pissed about what's going on.

Everybody I know has some horror story involving Duke.

Us personally, like me, my brother, in individual households, uh, her friends and stuff like that, all have some sort of pending lawsuits or whatever against Duke.

I mean, it's just horror story after horror story.

So, I mean, the idea that they care about their customers and all this kind of stuff is laughable, and then uh now as far as the individual employees who like live in the community, that may be true, but certainly the company the company as a whole doesn't.

Um yeah, I mean, you know, other people mentioned, I mean, they're for a North Carolina corporation, that money's going to, you know, BlackRock and stuff out of state.

I mean, it doesn't make any sense.

Um, someone else mentioned uh being able to do uh uh solar power and sustainability initiatives on their home.

They're like against that.

We have solar power too, and it's like doesn't, you know, like doesn't help.

They give you like so much bullshit about that.

And why are we on the hook for their uh investments and stuff like that?

Let me stop a second.

Let's not curse.

That's part of maintain maintaining the quorum.

Okay, go ahead.

Children do watch.

Uh I mean, I think that's just about it, actually.

I mean, yeah, so just oh, and then yeah, I mean, so I think that you guys have a responsibility to it.

Like I said, to like other people said, do the due diligence and you know, at least do the study because you know, as other people mentioned before, the other municipal things around the country have worked out great.

So thank you.

Next two speakers are Natalia Kurvo and Anoush Mosin.

Please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record.

And again, just a reminder, you're talking to city council, not to the audience.

That's where your comments are directed.

And part of the quorum is also no cursing.

Okay, go ahead.

Good afternoon, or now good evening.

I'm Anush Mosen, address 111, 2nd Avenue, Northeast St.

Pete.

I started my adult life in St.

Pete at Eckert College.

I'm a part of this city as much as this city is a proud part of me.

And this is why I humbly request the esteemed council members, and I really encourage you to please go ahead with this feasibility study.

The residents of St.

Pete already face the highest electricity cost in the state.

Also, just to mention a fact, a lot of those other cities also get storms and also get hurricanes.

Well, the cost of housing, insurance, groceries, and other essentials continue to rise, and when so many families are struggling to make their ends meet, it would be responsible not to explore every viable option to that could potentially provide relief to us.

A feasibility study is not a commitment to a particular course of action, but it is a commitment to gathering facts, evaluating possibilities, and making informed decisions in public interest.

Refusing to even examine alternatives would deny the transparency, diligence, and accountability to the people of St.

Pete.

So the esteemed council members, you hold your positions because your constituents trust you to represent them, advocate for them, and work to improve their quality of life.

With that trust comes a responsibility to explore solutions to challenges your community face every single day.

As you know that the role of local government is to serve the public and seek opportunities that make life more affordable, sustainable, and secure.

Exploring whether a public-owned utility could provide greater affordability, accountability, local control, and long-term benefits is non-negotiable and necessary stuff.

So I urge you to support this feasibility study and give residents the opportunity to understand what options exist for lowering costs and a sustainable future.

The public deserves facts, and this study is the first step towards providing them that.

And since the Duke Energy is really concerned about how expensive this half a million dollar study is, and they really care about the city of St.

Petersburg and its people, then maybe we can ask them to provide us that funds from their five billion dollar profits since they're very confident that they are better choice for the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead, man.

Hi, good afternoon or good evening.

My name is Natalia.

Um I live off of 14th Street South and 16th Avenue.

Um I will be keeping it short and sweet because I'll be reiterating a lot of the points that a lot of others have made.

So I strongly encourage you all to vote yes for the feasibility study.

Voting to allow the feasibility study at its simplest uh prevents St.

Pete from going into the next 30 years of our utility contract with Duke Blind and at Duke's complete will.

Voting yes is voting to fund the city's due diligence to its residents related to our utility services.

Voting yes gives you as our leaders the ability to make an informed decision and have leverage when deciding on our city's utility future.

Leverage that you will deny if you vote no.

Our community on either side of the argument over public power versus private both agree on at least one thing.

Our rates are too high as they are the highest rates in the state, and we can no longer afford this.

We can no longer afford Duke Energy.

I heard a few other citizens' concerns about the half million dollar cost.

However, if the city does not spend this now, it guarantees that the community will pay to Duke's pockets that amount over and over for at least 30 years.

So I urge you to vote yes for the feasibility study, and your constituents will be grateful if you do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next two speakers.

Hello, um, Marley Price, 5034 32nd Avenue.

First, thank you all so much to the council and a lot of thanks to the administration for all the work that's been done so far.

I've been really impressed with the research Claude has done while evaluating the feasibility study.

Um I think the way local government functions is really special.

I know people don't always appreciate all of you, and I think it really gets taken for granted.

You all operate under a microscope.

While I may have my disagreements, I always hear back when I reach out to my council member, Councilmember Gerdas.

And I have to say how impressed I am that literally every single email I've sent to Joa has been answered, and it is a lot.

Um so even when the city it can be like frustrating with the things going on, I've had so many experiences where I can see the city staff is genuinely hearing me out.

I don't know if any of you have tried to reach out to the public service commission.

They do not want to hear from us, they are supposed to be the people keeping Duke in check, and also Duke's Scapegoat for why they won't even negotiate lower rates with this contract.

It's not even a question.

So we've tried, they really don't want to hear from us, and let alone when was last time they denied a rate increase.

It's like 20 years ago.

Um for everything else, you all basically agree that you don't want to lose local control to the state.

This is that too.

And I think that matters even more right now when there are these really serious conversations going on about cutting property taxes, which would put even more pressure on the city, which raises a real question.

How do we become more self-sufficient, more resilient, and uh less dependent on decisions made outside of our community?

And don't even get me started about the six billion dollars that Duke got from Brookfield Asset Management, a data center company last year.

So local control is really, really important right now.

And you all know this vote is not asking for a decision today.

And regardless of how today goes, I really want to say to you, I am more dedicated to this than ever before.

So I um I will not be dropping this after today.

And I really just want to have the unbiased data to know will this work.

Um, and the way, mostly because the way Duke has responded is really appalling.

Florida Tax Watch, um, the president of Duke Energy is on the board.

So the reason they sent out this report is not because they care about the taxes, it's because Duke is on the board.

So, and that's one of the many things they've been doing.

There we are saying rates are too high, and what happens and all out media blitz with a big fancy agency out of DC and a top dollar consultant from Maine with social media TV ads, paid canvasers and matching t shirts, and all Duke has Duke has all the power, all the money, and we're supposed to have this room, and we're supposed to have you all.

So please vote yes, because I really really want to keep leaving.

That's true.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Hi.

Um, I just wanted to reiterate um some of Marley's points.

I'm oh, I'm Amber Hurley.

I live at 1500 11th Avenue North.

Um, I'm also a lifelong Floridian.

I was born and raised in Tallahassee, um, which also has public utilities, and um my parents are very involved in local politics, and so when we were talking about this, they said, wait, St.

Pete doesn't have public utilities.

That's so interesting.

I've never even thought about that.

Because in Tallahassee, it's the norm.

Um, and I think when you start to talk to folks, you realize it really is such a no-brainer.

Um, but what's even more of a no-brainer is that we should at least explore the possibility.

Um, you know, I'm really saddened to see so many people here who are employed by Duke and being paid uh to be here.

Um there, you know, I I took off work to come and share my opinion, which is that we should very much, I would very much appreciate you all um agreeing to fund the feasibility study.

Um, but the reason I'm saddened to see so many Duke's people here is because that's all they've I mean that's actually makes me happy.

That's all they've got.

They're paying people to be here.

You're hearing from your constituents, you're hearing from your neighbors.

I hear from there were so many of my neighbors that wanted to be here today.

Um, because everyone wants to at least at the very least explore an alternative.

We're not asking for a decision today, but we are asking for an opportunity to make a decision.

Um I'm really disturbed by so many of the facts that have been shared here today, and within a minute of 39 seconds, I'll share some of the most disturbing ones.

Duke made five billion dollars last year.

Six billion dollars was received from a data center company.

Um, I'm also really uh you brought up um earlier uh one of you brought up that the folks talking about some of the folks for the St.

Pete events contracts or whatever were using a fraudulent address.

I just want to throw out there that there were several people today who spoke from Duke using uh an address that is an office building as their residence.

Um that's 299 first Av North was several of them.

And I think that's a problem.

You're hearing from local residents.

I live right here in Euclid St.

Paul, and um we know that locals are upset with Duke, they've been upset for a long time, and a lot of people don't even know that this could be an alternative.

So let's give it back to the people.

Um, listen to us, and thank you so much for your time.

I feel the same way about city council.

I'm so grateful for each of you and for all the replies I get, and even when you don't reply, I'm grateful that I have someone to reach out to.

So thanks.

Thank you.

Next two speakers, madam chair, Emily, to choke, does not wish to speak, and she is for Jason Matlin, Jason Scott, approach either podium, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address city council.

Hello, City Council.

Uh Jason Scott, 4636 Redfish Lane.

I work as a planning engineer for Rural Electric Cooperatives, and I'm very passionate about public power.

Not only because my work, but also because I am a Duke Energy customer here in St.

Pete.

Don't you love your residents that the fact that they believe in you so much that they took off from work and came here in person telling their stories?

Because really it comes down to this has been a long journey for everyone.

This is the very first step towards seeing our options and having transparency.

So we need to take our due diligence as a city and see all the options on the table.

So during your discussion, I hope I don't hear that we need to learn more because this study is exactly what that is.

When it comes to the pricing and the study itself, I went to the evaluation meetings and I read through the proposals, and New Gen's bid was better than I could expect.

Dedicated over $600,000 towards looking into their options.

We're a city twice the size.

And I want to put it in the frame of the franchise agreement.

Like Chris said, we get $24 million a year through the franchise fee for Duke to operate in our right-of-way.

If you look over the term of the franchise agreement, which is 30 years, that's over $600 million in value.

So this is less than one percent of the value of the franchise agreement that you guys will be reviewing.

So I just want to put that into perspective in the scope on why the cost is so much, because it's our energy future here in St.

Pete.

My final suggestion to the council is to approve the funding.

If you have a real um issue with the cost, I know when they came in with the initial bid, it came around 475,000, a little bit less.

But I also see the importance in having public engagement.

I also want to um recognize some of the misinformation we heard today.

If you're overlooking the Florida Tax Watch documents, I've seen a couple printouts today.

I want to make it clear that Melissa's on the uh board of trustees for the Florida Tax Watch.

So please take that in consideration.

Inside that own report, it has a few mistakes, but I'm out of time, so thank you.

He is for.

So obviously I agree with a lot of points of the people who are for the feasibility, but we take a minute.

Um I agree with a lot of the points of the people who spoke who are for the feasibility study.

I am also for it.

I encourage you guys to vote yes.

Um, I would like to point out that you know, many of the people who spoke against it are on Duke's payroll.

Um, and that makes sense, and I have compassion for those people.

It is very scary to think that you might be out of a job if something like this happens.

But that's not what we're saying.

We care about those people.

We don't want them to be fired.

Those jobs are still going to exist.

It's just going to be somebody else signing those paychecks.

So that's not the point.

Anyway, what I want to say too is that I don't think that it's okay for Duke Energy to have a monopoly.

I think that's completely un-American.

I mean, we are built on the free market capitalism.

If I'm unhappy with my phone provider, I can shop around.

I can get a better deal.

I can say who's going to offer me a better rate and better services.

You know, I can do that with just about anything else.

Public utility utilities like electricity don't work that way.

It's just not structured that way, and that's fine.

But that means that we don't get a say in what they do.

We're a captive market.

They can do whatever, they can raise their rates however they want.

They can provide subpar services, and there's nothing stopping them.

At least I know if the utilities are publicly owned and they are operated by elected officials that we um have sway over.

We vote for if we're unhappy with the job you're doing, we have a say in coming to meetings like this or voting you out.

If you're, you know, we have some modicum of power, and we just don't have that with Duke.

They they literally can do whatever they want without any accountability.

So I am definitely for just moving forward the with the feasibility study, knowing what our options are.

If it comes back that like, hey, this isn't gonna work, it's just not possible.

Then fine, we go from there, we explore the next step.

But just saying no and shutting it down and just saying, like, oh, we're just gonna stick with what we've been doing because it's the easiest solution.

I mean, that's just not in my opinion, the way to go.

Um sorry that was a little rambling and all over the place.

I appreciate everyone's time, and thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead, sir.

Hello.

Um, hello, council.

My name is Jerome King.

I reside at um 4546 10th Avenue South in St.

Petersburg, and I strongly urge you to approve the funding for the um feasibility study.

For far too long, residents have been at the mercy of compounded interest interest rates from Duke Energy, leaving working families to shoulder the burden of skyrocketing bills.

But this isn't just the issue of affordability, it is a fundamental issue of safety, equipment, and local control.

Right now, the city of um the city has zero authority over the very utility poles lining our city streets.

When polls are decaying or um lines are vulnerable, our local government hands are tied.

We see consistent um lack of authority, most sharply in the south side of St.

Petersburg.

Um, our communities rarely, if ever get scheduled routine trimming, or proactive grid maintenance.

We are left waiting for the next major storm to hit before our infrastructure really gets any attention.

Equity means every neighborhood in St.

Petersburg should receive the exact same standards of infrastructure safety and reliability.

We cannot achieve true equity of equity across the city when a private investor owned utility gets to decide which neighborhoods are worth protecting and which ones can wait.

Our current French house agreement is expiring.

This is a historic window of opportunity.

Approving a feasibility study is the first step in a true radical change.

It is the responsibility and it is responsible and necessary step to um gather the information that the city truly deserves to make a decision about a city-led utility.

Um we can offer our residents lower rates, better maintenance, and public utility that is directly accountable to the people of St.

Petersburg and not a corporation.

Electricity is a necessity, not a luxury.

Um utility um corporations are profiting while everyday people are visibly struggling.

And the city hands have been tied up into now.

Power to the people, not just the power lines.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next two speakers, Madam Chair, Amy Sowers, Nadia Jafar.

Approach either podium, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address City Council.

Good evening, Council.

I'm Amy Sowers.

I served our community as a professor at St.

Petersburg College for more than a decade.

And my husband and I, we've raised our family out on Gandhi and in Brighton Bay.

So that's 879 Addison Drive Brighton Bay.

And we raised our family kayaking Wheaton Island for 25 years, you know.

And that's how we that's how we did it.

But of course, with the talk of data centers out there, I'm just terrified.

I mean, I'm just so worried about the discretion of our fragile ecosystem.

And the watershed there with the profiteering of Duke Energy, serving AI data centers.

And they've actually already stated their plan to serve AI data centers.

And they had to submit it to the state.

And this is just absolutely unacceptable in terms of the wildlife and the water and the ecosystem we have here in St.

Petersburg that we love so much.

So therefore, I urge you and all my all my family and all my friends in Brighton Bay and all the neighbors.

Okay, talk to them all.

They're very interested in this.

And we all urge you to vote yes on the feasibility study.

Thank you.

Nadia Jafar.

She's for Madam Chair.

And then final two speakers, Jamika Williams, Rowan Russell.

Approach either podium, state your name and address.

You'll have three minutes to address City Council.

You can go ahead, whoever's ready.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Jamika Williams, and I want to thank you all for allowing us to come out to make public comment today.

I'm here to speak in support of the feasible uh feasibility study to end St.

Petersburg relationship.

Oh, sorry, so sorry.

10 10 Crescent Lake Drive to end um St.

Petersburg relationship with Duke Energy.

We have heard countless testimony of outrageous power bills in a time of economic distress.

I myself have just had to make the decision between um paying my power bill and going to the grocery store for the first time.

Um I don't share this for pity, but just to illustrate how much how many people are um being affected by these high rates.

But further, as we head into hurricane season, I want to bring your memories back to Milton and Helene.

Whilst our city was recovering from horrific storm damage, Duke openly stated that they would hold customers accountable for profit loss due to outages.

I'm also here to talk about public safety.

Um just last week I was walking down 9th Avenue North, and there was a wire hanging from a power line on the ground.

On my street at Crescent Lake, there are lines constantly rubbing against uh trees, which leads to constant outages and surges during storms.

Um the placement of these lines are both dangerous and have great potential to cause devastation to many.

Um speaking with other residents as a part of the Dump Duke uh campaign and my own campaign for City Council.

Public safety is of huge concern to residents, especially in South St.

Pete, where wires are even more precarious.

At the very least, corporations should be good partners to our cities.

They should not be left unchecked and should be accountable to the cities that they operate in.

It is of my opinion that Duke has not been that for the city, which is why I'm asking you all to explore this study and not readily enter another 30-year contract with Duke Energy.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Hello, and thank you all for hearing us out today.

Um I'm gonna try and be quick.

Sorry.

I'm Rowan Rosal.

I live at 4461 Crestwood Drive North.

Um I'm gonna try and be quick, and you'll all have to have pardon me that I'm probably not going to be quite as eloquent in explaining um as some of the previous speakers have as to why the citizens of St.

Petersburg should be able to hold a sense of accountability over a utility that's so critical to our daily lives and in Florida is often the difference between life and death.

I would just like to say that it would be completely and absolutely absurd for this council to agree to any multi-million dollar contract with any contractor for decades upon decades without thoroughly investigating the alternative options.

In what situation would you all agree to offering any contract that'll ultimately monetarily affect your citizens in the measure of billions of dollars to a corporation that we as a city and you all as a council would agree to without investigating the alternatives, especially in a situation where we're basically unable to enforce certain standards upon them as a contractor, like ecological impact goals and hurricane preparedness?

So regardless of the decision that's made after reviewing this feasibility study, a feasibility study will ultimately result in infinitely more bargaining power than if we do end up going with a private utility.

What are we supposed to use as a bargaining chip if we have no alternatives beyond selling this biddy off to the most city off to the most convenient seller or bidder, rather?

It's going to be really obvious, or at least it's obvious to me that Duke wants this contract, regardless of if we get a feasibility study.

Of course, they don't want us to be able to come to the table with an alternative.

What contractor would want their customer to shop around unless they were actually confident that they're the best option.

So regardless of if we end up transitioning to a public utility, we're gonna have to negotiate with Duke Energy and Interim.

Why would we go into any potential negotiation with a multi-billion dollar corporation with no alternative options on our side?

We should plan for the future with as much information as possible.

I would hope that any decision that you all make, especially one that affects us all so dearly, and especially extra so people on fixed incomes, I I would hope that you all would want to make sure that you have the most thorough possible understanding of the options in front of us.

Um thank you all for your time today.

I'm sure it's been a very long day.

More speakers.

Okay.

Um before we move on to council member um comments and questions.

I have number one, I know there was a speaker that said that Duke Energy employees use their address.

They can, because if you work in the city and whatever the company, it could be Duke in this in this instance, it could be another company.

You can speak here because you're an employee and employed in the city and use it.

So that's very different than a company who used a specific address that is doing business under a different scenario.

So I just wanted to clear that up because we always take that every time when employees are speaking in the city.

I don't want them to be attributed that they did something wrong, which we do.

I mean, employees speak all the time and they use the employer.

Um the other thing I wanted to ask is before we go to comments is administration did a PowerPoint presentation, and I'm curious what is administration's position on going forward with a feasibility study, notwithstanding the city council resolution that was passed.

Thank you, Chair.

So uh good evening, city council.

So, you know, this process started as a new business item uh from city council.

There was a discussion at city council previously.

Uh there was a resolution prepared that city council voted on, um, respectfully requesting the mayor to go through this procurement process.

So the mayor respectfully uh has gone through that procurement process.

Um this is what we're we uh got out of that procurement process.

We're bringing it forward to you this evening.

So at this point, in response to the original new business item, it's really council's decision if you want to go forward with this study or not.

Okay, so and I'm just so administration has no position whatsoever in terms of whether in a lot of of a lot of comments have been made in terms of whether this is something we should do or not do.

Do you just don't, you're just basically saying we're doing this because you asked us to do it and have no position on it?

Well, you respectfully requested it, we respectfully obliged, and here it is in front of you.

Okay.

I just wanted to put that out there before we start comments from city council members.

Okay, Councilmember Floyd, Vice Chair Floyd.

Thank you.

Thanks to everyone who came out today.

I really appreciate it.

Uh, it's nice to hear from uh so many residents and people who have a stake in this community.

Uh I think in my time here, uh there's been a handful of meetings that have defined uh what uh has been accomplished uh during my time on city council, and I think this is one of them.

Uh I don't uh actually I also want to thank administration.

Yes, this was not anything that they brought forward.

Uh, this is something that originated from a new business item that I put in, and I'm grateful for them doing uh what appears to be a really good job uh going through the procurement process and bringing us a legitimate proposal.

So I'm grateful for that.

Uh you know, there's not much to be said after we listen to uh numerous hours of public comment.

I think uh anything I say uh will likely be repetitive as well.

Uh and that probably goes the same for a lot of people up here.

Uh so I'm gonna keep it short.

I think this is a pretty simple situation that we're in right now.

We've been locked into an agreement with an organization for 30 years, and uh that agreement expires this year, and uh the next agreement will be a minimum of another decade with likely extensions added on to it.

Uh so we're negotiating another decade plus long agreement, and this is our chance to look at other options.

This is our only opportunity.

Like many people said, some people weren't born.

I was four years old when this got signed last time.

I would like to see uh us do everything we can to look at our options, and this is our opportunity right now.

Uh so I feel strongly that it's our duty to do our due diligence and study this issue, especially when it's something that has so much precedent within our state.

We have a number of cities Tallahassee, Jacksonville, Lakeland, Gainesville, Winter Park, Orlando.

Honestly, I think we might be in the minority and an exception when it comes to major metros in our state as to how power is provided.

Uh I could go into all the reasons why power may be better for us, but that's not that's not for me to say.

I'm not a professional, I'm not an expert on this.

What we're doing today is considering hiring an expert to tell us tell us if this is the right thing to do.

So uh I'm gonna leave it there with one last point of contention.

Uh that I do think it would be appropriate for us to have a conversation about uh the original scope.

I'm uh grateful for what administration brought us forward, but um, you know, the uh I think that the things that were added to the current scope are still possibilities for later phases.

So uh I would just say uh one speaker brought it up, and so I thought I'd mention if there was a fiscal concern that that was a one way to alleviate it.

And I see it looks like Claude, you might have something to say about that.

Well, I just wanted to clarify that that the scope of work proposed by New Gen and their fee is different than what we've final negotiated scope.

We wanted more public engagement, and that's the majority of the additional scope in here is is just more robust uh stakeholder engagement.

We felt it was it was what we needed to do.

So that's what we negotiated.

And I that's fair, and I agree with you, and I think it's what we should do as well.

I'm just offering people who might have concerns about the fiscal impact.

So I'll leave it there for now.

Uh love to hear more from my colleagues.

I'm sure uh we might all press this button more than one time, so I'll stop now.

Thank you.

Councilmember Curtis.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, Claude, thanks for the presentation.

Thank you to administration.

Um, very thorough, and thank you for everybody coming out uh this evening.

We we understand it can be long, and so um I appreciate all the feedback.

Um, also, just right off the bat, I'll say I am usually the one that is trying to bring this body together.

Not the only one, but it's my usual strategy.

And so it's not fun being in any case dissenting.

And so I don't think it surprises anybody.

We've had this conversation before.

I've been very vocal about my concern and what we're voting on.

I mean, the way I look at it is we're voting on using $590,000 of contingency money to do a study in which I think we're gonna have an outcome that I just can't find a different uh avenue when it comes to what it's gonna cost us to stand this up.

I mean, I appreciate some of the comments about um, you know, it's not the the study from Clearwater is not plug and play.

That I actually agree with that.

Uh I think our study would be significantly more complicated because we have more people and we spread out over significantly more square miles.

And so, you know, just quick math tells you uh Clearwaters was $9,000 per resident.

If you do that for us, that's somewhere in between 2.5 and 3 billion dollars.