Right. Good morning. Good morning, everybody. We are not at a quorum as we speak, so I'm going to cover some processes and everything. And then hopefully we've got Johnson on the way and I believe Freeman is ready to is on his way and Who's the third one? Paloose I don't know where Paloose is Can someone call Paloose? Okay, well let's start off with introductions starting with Joe Carlucci. All right, good morning Joe Carlucci district five. I gay district two the do's. Good morning, raw areas district 11. Morning Kenna Mar or City Council district one. Good morning Nick Howland at large group three. Randy White district 12. Ron Nick Howland at large, group three. Randy White, District 12. Ron Salem, group two at large. Kim Carco, District four. Good morning, Jacobi Pittman, District 10. Well, Wayne and District three. Matt Carloot, she group four of the great city of Jacksonville. Good morning, original gardening. Junior District eight. Good morning, I run a clock, Marie. District nine. Councilman, I see you brought your coat. Thinking it would still be cold. I've got one upstairs, so I hear you. Okay. That's okay. Floor amendments, Tuesday night, please have any floor amendments that you would want to offer on Tuesday night to Mary by noon on Monday, June 24th. She will circulate the list by the close of business on Monday. We now have a quorum. I see Pluso. Correct? Okay. there any, we now have a quorum, I see Pluso. Correct? Okay, I'm gonna call for a quorum. Council President, we have quorum with 14 present. Thank you. Okay, June 25th, as I've stated, and I've informed the Jaguars of this as well, that the stating will be the last item on the agenda so we can get through all our other business. I do not see any significant bills that will be coming up Tuesday night that will cause a lot of discussion watching all the committees and sets. So I think it will move fairly quickly but you never know. 3 p.m. start time. No counsels into item schedule for public hearings or public participation will take in prior to 5 p.m. At 10 a.m. the board of a business has been published. I think all of you have seen that. Public comment will be held prior to 5 p.m. anyone who wishes to speak during public comment will need held prior to 5 p.m. Anyone who wishes to speak during public comment will need to have their cards submitted to legislative services by 4 p.m. Prior to taking up 2024-904, okay, that's for conflicts. Okay, what? Yes. No one can leave the bias. Okay. What? Yes. If we need to take a bathroom break or something like every hour or so I'm happy to take five minutes and do that until we get some additional numbers. Yes. Councilmember Gaffney. Yeah, thank you. Do we know how long this may go take today? And I'm only asking because I do it. No, seriously. For lunch, and I got a few phone calls. I did not schedule lunch. I was hopeful that we would need that. It just depends on the discussion, Councilmember. I just can't tell you. I think other than a couple of amendments, I think it will go fairly quickly. But there's a couple that might spur some discussion, okay? Sure, you want to do it now? Okay, no, I was getting ready. Well, let me make another comment. Here's the order of business that I'd like to do today. We'll take it the auditor's technical amendments first, and I envision that being one vote on all their technical amendments to, we'll take up the auditor's recommendation of amendments in probably two groups. One is the first group is all the amendments that everybody has agreed to. The second part will be those that the Jaguars did not agree to. If we decide just to move on from those we can. Three, we will go to this blue sheet of all these amendments. And there's nine on that page, and we will take those up individually. And then fourth will be amendments that have been developed over the last 24 hours or so. I have one that everyone has agreed to. I think Councilmember Gay may have one. I think Councilmember Johnson may have one. And I think President Designit might may have one. So, and I'm sorry, and Councilmember Carlucci has one for sure. And all of them have signed. So some of those I think will go very quickly because everyone signed off on them. So with that, let me turn the microphone over to Council President Designet White. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I'd like to thank everybody last night. That was quite the show I had never seen anything like that. And if some of y'all was in part of my speech where I flipped over two or three pages, I apologize, but I just didn't think I could get through saying what I needed to say was seeing all those policemen environment here. But that being said, there's been some, a little bit of confusion that I probably caused when I, and this is for the future I should we come back from break. And if Mr. Dornell Smith wants to come up I'm just a huge confusion that I probably caused when I, and this is for the future I just we come back from break. And if Mr. Darnell Smith wants to come up, when I pulled the amendment, pulling the, the parks back out of the package that was to hopefully make the stadium deal go correctly and then we'd have more time to vet this. It's kind of got stripped further than I thought it would. And what I propose or would like to do, my original conversations with the administration and what going around the president, I was going at it as an individual counsel person with some concerns I had. And we'd kind of agreed on something they could live with with a 56 million pulling that out, but keeping everything packaged, and I'd ask them the East Side package was 30 million, if they'd take five million of that, and give a million to each at large, along with the million they had in for each council district, then I'd ask them that they could live with the spread in three years over that 25 million. That seemed to work for them and Dornell can verify that, but since I probably got it confused what I proposed after we come back from break, I would like to, if everybody's amenable, maybe have a council as a whole on the 17th. So we can just talk about this piece and get the pieces back in or whatever the committee wants. And that's my suggestion. I know you might have some different thoughts and I respect that. But Mr. Smith, can you come up? I apologize if I got it confused and I got this out of whack, but hopefully that if people would after the break, if you all are amenable to a committee of the whole, we can just talk about this piece here and then if you all or we decide as a committee to hold that they go on to break it off and have a special committee of four or five people. But I'd like to keep it on track as much as we could. That's my thought and everybody has her own vote but I'm hoping for suggestions from there. Through the president to council vice president or council president Designant White. So the one nuance to that that I just want to put on the record is the bill would not be introduced until July 23rd. So therefore what I would recommend is if you want to meet to discuss the bill prior to that you do it as just a workshop because it can't be before the committee of the whole until it's introduced and assigned. And so the next introduction date, the first introduction date in the new council year is July 23rd at that council meeting. You may recall that we did this for this 904 legislation. The president scheduled a workshop so you could still begin working through things and discussing it. But that had, because it occurred prior to the introduction, that's why it was treated as just a workshop. Could I suggest maybe if the president is amenable to this, that maybe you and him and Dornel could get together and figure out what's the best way to handle it because you still have this seat and I respect that. Would that work for you? Absolutely, sir. Thank you for the opportunity. were very open to the idea brought forth by Council President Desingot White, which was quite frankly because of several of our members here on the day as quite frankly having a conflict in voting. And to be able to move forward and make certain that we could focus on the stadium while at the same time never lose thought and focus on the CBA. That focus was to remove the conflicts for the vote to move forward with the stadium and the parks. With that, we're of the opinion that the focus on out east and on the county-wide effort do not go away. As you heard from Councilman Desiadet, President Desiadet, white, we are focusing on getting the entire CBA across. Approving the Parks component is not approving the entire CBA. And the way it's written right now and the way it comes across is that all of this is going away, at least the out east and the county-wide component, and that we start all over with whatever the remaining dollars are. And that simply will not work. I know that's not what Council President Desmond White had intended. We think we might have in all of our haste, gotten ahead of ourselves, no one person not pointing any fingers. We just simply want to make certain we got it back on track. We are committed to the entire CBA being all three components. We did not agree to make this a part of the budget. I want to be clear. That was not our agreement. We believe this is standalone and have its own focus and get worked but outside of creating a conflict for our team members. But get this across the finish line. We will have a budget to balance and we will balance the budget. Every year our mayor will be in office. That is our promise. So for those who are concerned about that, I appreciate your concern. But we will not be the first mayor or mayoral office to not get it right. But we want to focus on what's best for this city and the way of this stadium, and the way of what's best for the people and the way of this CBA. And we ask you for your support in being able to get both across the line. We see it as one. I want to make it clear. We only see it as one deal, but we agreed to have it broken out so that others could be able to vote. And we don't think that people should pay as a result of that. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Okay, we've welcomed Councilmember Freeman. So we have a little, and councilmember Pemme, you're leaving at some point? 950. Okay. Let's try to, so we have a little flexibility until she leaves. Then we're down to 14. Councilmember Carlucci. Question just procedurally are we as a committee or as a council? Where are committee of the whole? Committee of the whole. Secondly, I just feel compelled to say this. I completely agree with the Vice President's approach along with the administration. I believe that to be one of the greatest statesmen attempts in a long time. The very reason that I supported the Vice President's amendment was because my understanding was the rest would come on next because I have a commitment to the East side and I'm not about to turn my back on that. But anyway, I just wanted to thank our president for his working through this process and also wanted to thank our vice president coming in and working with the administration and that statesmanship. The statesmanship takes care of future generations. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Okay. I'd like to get started with the amendments. I have Councilmember Paloso then I'd like to move on. I think what's the president, through the president to vice president, why I just want to make sure sir. So the 56,000, 56 million is still in the stadium deal now. We will be voting on that on the 25th. However, now for the other portions of the 30 million that was committed by the city in the CBA draft, we're taking 5 million out of that to give to the out largest, correct? Sure. Yeah. to the out largest correct. Sure. That was my original intention, yes. And spread in that 25 million over three years. Starting in this budget year, is that correct? I don't think none of them come to our set for 27 budget years. So it would, it's not even a next budget year, correct? It's the 25, 26 year. Yeah, so it's not, It was just big three years instead of all at once. Was my intention. But that's why, and I know we need to get the business. That's why I was considering how to come back from break first to do the committee as a whole just to hammer this out and get it on track like I intended it to be or wanted it to be but everybody will have their own opinion and it will go from where it goes there. I don't know where we'll go from there but that was my intention. And I said thank you. Thank you. Council members, we'll take a look at the Council auditor's office, technical amendments. These have all been agreed to. There are technical changes to the document. Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. Council member Keriko. All right, thank you, Mr. President. Before I get to my abstention, let me just echo what President Desin said about last night was a great event and across the park with all those first responders Just one of the coolest things I think I've ever done But I am on the queue here to just remind everybody of my abstention and that do the advice of My attorney and continual looking into the conflict that I have I will not be able to participate in any of Today's actions. I will be remaining to abstain. Councilmember Pitman. Erra, as well, being that I am the CEO and President of the Claire White Mission that served the population of the homeless and training programs, I will be abstaining today as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember C as well. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Kaphne. Thank you, through the Chair. I will also like to abstain from this legislation as well. My father, employee, community rehabilitation center, provide service system in the health and homelessness as well. So I want to go ahead and abstain from my bundles of caution. Thank you. Councilmember Freeman. Good morning, Mr. President. My apologies for my tartness. I too would like to declare a conflict. My employer begrudgingly declare a conflict. My employer in Miller Electric may be doing some work in this project. But I have been informed by General Counselor D. I am able to participate in debate today or discussions, so I am somewhat excited about that. Thank you. Okay. I think you're aware of all that? Okay. Council members, these are the technical amendments by the auditors. It would be my goal to move these as one amendment. They've all been agreed to. The auditors have reviewed them with the administration, with the Jaguars. And if there's a motion to move them as one, I would sure accept that. I have a motion in a second to move these as one. Any discussion on this? Seeing none. Verbal. All those in favor of removing the technical amendments by the auditors, please indicate by saying aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Okay, technical amendments are passed. Next, I would ask you to look at the auditor's technical amendments. That's a separate page that I suffered hand out. At the top of it, it says Council auditor's office bill 2224904 technical amendments based on filed version. Is everybody have one of those in front of them? I'm sorry. Oh, I grabbed the wrong one. I've got two copies. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It says Council auditor's office, Council auditor recommendations, Bill 2224904 amendments. If you'll look at this, everything on page one and page two other than the bottom two amendments have been agreed to by all parties. Everybody with me? Page one and page two up through the community benefits agreement where it says require city council approved for any substantive and or financial amendments. All of those have been agreed to by the parties. I'm just saying that I like to get nods of heads and everything and everybody's nodding their heads. I'd like to move those as one vote. Do I have a motion? I have a motion in a second on those. As agreed to by the parties, I see no one in the queue. All those in favor of passing those amendments, please indicate by saying aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Okay, those passed. Now at the bottom of page two are the amendments, the auditors recommended, but there was not a consensus on these two. We had considerable discussion on these two. We had considerable discussion on these yesterday. So we can just simply ignore those and move on. I just want to make sure that we give those adequate and adequate hearing if the Council wanted to have any further discussion, but those of you that were here yesterday know we discussed those pretty much at length and there was no consensus. I see no one in the queue and I see no one wanting to take those up, so we will move on from those two. Okay. Now we are going to the now to the spreadsheet. I'm just making sure I'm in the right posture. These are with the blue up at the top. Okay. There are nine here. Do we have consensus from all parties on any of these, Mary, or should we take these up one at a time? Thank you to the President. I'm not aware of whether there's going to be consensus. These items were forwarded to the administration to share with the team, the Jaguars as well. So they will be prepared to address each item in turn and they are listed in the order in which I receive them prior to the three of Collock deadline on Wednesday. So I would recommend that you take each one in turn if somebody wants to move in second and then open up for discussion and then you can just have your discourse from there. What I'd like to do is take these up one at a time. And I'm gonna look at this table for the administration and or the Jaguars to say we're okay on the record. And then we will, it need to discuss, if not, we will just vote. So I'm looking at Salem number one. Miss, I'm sorry, Miss Taylor. Thank you. I apologize, Council President. I just wanted to let you know that we just realized in your first amendment, it was included in the technical because it was mentioned during the committees to have that happen. So that has actually been addressed. My apologies on any confusion there. So it would not need to be taken up since it's already been considered. Okay, we will skip, Salem number one. John, are you coming up for another reason? Please. Sorry to interrupt, John Sartre, Officer General Counsel. I just wanted to hopefully clarify that a red line of all changes will be sufficient rather than generating a standalone document where we're referencing each document and what change was made. Are you looking at a particular amendment? Summary, the Council President, item one was a required summary of all technical changes. I don't want to confirm that a red line will be sufficient for those purposes. Okay, do we need to change the language there? to change the language there. If I could defer to Ms. Taylor as to how the technical amendment was written since she's most familiar with this handout, did the technical amendment get into that level of detail? Through the president, no, it did not. And I just want to clarify on this one. This is if there are any amendments to the agreements that can be agreed upon by the city internally that we are just notified of those technical amendments that are made that do not have a financial obligation change. Through the council president to Mr. Taylor understood. I'm Mr. President, based on Mr. Sores' request which I think is probably not something that would cause any consternation to the council members. If you wanted to move an amendment to clarify that that would be provided in red line form, just to have that additional clarification to the technical amendment, that would be appropriate at this time. I would accept that amendment. I have it moved and seconded over here. All those in favor of those comments? Please indicate by saying aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Okay, so we have now completed salem number one. Gay number two. City to retain 100% of the sales tax savings realized through taxes, imp direct purchases, available supplies and materials for the state and project and eliminating the proposed porotta split. Is there a, for the purpose of discussion? Is there a motion? Move and seconded. Okay, so it's on the floor. I, let's go to the auditors. I assume. Go ahead. Yes, sir. Thank you. I don't know if Councilmember Gay wanted to say anything, but for this amendment, in essence, just for your understanding, the sales tax savings of about 25 million are we into getting to the $1.4 billion budget. So it was part of the negotiations as far as the numbers that were arrived at. Mr. Weinstein may be able to weigh in. So in essence, we do get a pro-rata share of that. And considering the numbers, Mr. Gays proposal would be that all of those savings, so in essence, the project to 25 million that instead the city get credit for those rather than a pro-radiportion. Okay, Mr. Weinstein. way too late in process because the savings in the sales tax is built into the estimates that have already been done. Basically, when you get a proposal in from an entity and they know the sales tax is going to be taken off, that's part of the pricing that they do at the very beginning. So again, the idea may work, but it's got to have been up front. And basically, this would tag on another potential 25 million onto the 1.4. Mr. Lamping I assume you feel the same way. I would have a net effect of shifting costs from the city to the Jaguar isn't a deal that was fully negotiated. Okay. Mr. Gay, the recognize. Thank you, Mr. President. To say that it's too late, I'm kind of perplexed on that when it's been in our purchasing code, and if you look at 126 it's there and that was part of our new legislation that we had done. And I've had discussions early on about doing this. If you look at the way that the laws are, we, the city, have to purchase the material. There's no way that the jaguars or any contractor can purchase the material and use our tax savings benefit. And so to say that it's too late, it's got to be, if you look at the way our ordinance is and our code, we will have to purchase it. Any material that receives a tax savings benefit on the stadium has to be purchased by the city. There's no way around that. So I'm kind of perplexed on to say why we can't do it and it should have always been a part of the city benefit. Thank you. If I can just comment it sounds like everyone recognizes the cost savings but the cost savings were built into the to the split between the city and the Jaguars. Did I capture that correctly? Yes, Mr. President. We are purchasing. The purchasing comes through the city. That's why there's so many documents that talks about procurement and talks about the process? The benefit of the tax sales tax elimination is built into the pricing all along, but the anticipation and reality is we do the buying. And Mr. Gages, for your information, I have an amendment that's not on this sheet that addresses this. amendment, it's not on this sheet that addresses this through my comments of yesterday where I didn't want the city to be punished for being late on an issue because we purchased it and the item was not available. The amendment that you'll see later today will reflect that we will not be punished and won't be held accountable if we're purchasing something going through a reasonable process it's not available. So, Mr. Ramara. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question for Ms. Taylor. Those of us who didn't do well in managerial accounting. On what side of the balance sheet is this 25 million being re-infused in the deal? Through the chair to you, Council Member Amaro. Basically in being baked into the budget, our cost would have been $13,750,000 higher. So in essence, what they're saying is if we had gone to the table and negotiated and we weren't taking the savings already into account in the budget, they would have asked for $13.7 million more. So that $775 million contribution would have been higher by that amount for the request to balance out the numbers. I apologize. Vega, you made a comment. Okay. Did I answer your question, Mr. Morrow? Mr. Lainein. Thank you, President. I think my question got answered that last one. I mean, it sounds like the city is still purchasing and then the savings work I think my question got answered that last one. I mean, it sounds like the city's still purchasing and then the savings were a part of the overall negotiation. So that part's already been settled. So that was really my question just to make sure it was part of the negotiation. Mr. Gaye for the second time. Thank you, Mr. President. Your concerns are is fully well well taken but in 126 is specifically Detailed address that the city is a purchasing conduit and that all the liability Responsibility and installation warranty and all that is still upon the contractor so we are No way responsible for any delays that would arise from delay on materials. So that kind of, with that vervege, we were totally protected. The total amount that we're actually dealing with here with the sales tax is going to be around 50 50 something million dollars It's not going to be just 25 million dollars if you take just rule of thumb On a project like this you're gonna have 700 700 plus million dollar for the material and You know just Doing the sales tax figure on that, it's gonna be substantial. And so that's what I want to get realized and that what this here is about, that we're capturing all this benefit. Thank you. Mr. Carlucci, a Mac Carlucci, and then we will vote. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. I moved it for discussion because I have great respect for Mr. Gay and his business prowess. But I think Councilman Lennon kind of summed it up for me that has all been baked into the deal. But I made the motion and I will not withdraw my motion. But at this point, I think the horse is too far out of the barn. I think it's all been negotiated and I would not support the amendment. Thank you. All those in favor of the gay amendment, please raise your hand. OK. of the gay amendment please raise your hand. Okay, amendment fails. Going on to item number three, stadium development agreement or acquired current adherents to local business participation policy to use local businesses to perform a supply at least 40% of the stadium project has outlined in revised chapter 126 ordinance code effective July 1224. Auditors, any comments? Mr. President, I'll just say the reason for it is because chapter 126 is waived in this bill. So trying to bring it other than the Jset portion, so this was trying to bring back this portion in as well. Mr. Weinstein. Yeah, that's more of a gag war in discussion. Okay. So we would be comfortable agreeing to increase the total amount to 40% to include the by-American program. So long as that same scope is treated the way that the JSEB goal is as well, which is that we'll go through the schedule of values. We've already met with the JSEB office to do that find eligible businesses and it's within those scopes of the total project budget that we can either find a JSEB or a vendor that falls under the definitions of 126. As it was by American, we're amenable to it as long as that same parallel structure is followed. So basically if it's aspirational versus a firm number. And so long as it is, we identify those scopes for which there's eligible vendors. Okay. Mr. Gay. Okay Mr. Gay Thank you mr. Brethren and I'm an agreement with that because it's basically the 126 identifies it at the purchasing directors got a the option to elect the whether it's mandated or it's a goal or I don't know if they use word goal but so basically I'm in agreement with that and the the by-American as well thank you. So you're in consensus with what Megas said is that is that correct Mr. Gay and you're okay. I'm sorry Miss Teller didn't see you. You're not on my screen. Council President, I just want to clarify and if Miss Defopolis needs to weigh in, the Buy America provision is a separate provision from this and the code. So the provision mentioned here is just the local business preference and I do want to mention for clarification just so in the end we get there. the if it's going for the direction of 40% in this portion of the code there is a not less than 20% so we just want to make sure in the end that it's clear if it's a 40% goal goal overall and that there's no requirements. That that be discussed and agreed to. discussed and agreed to. Through the president to the committee. So I agree with Ms. Taylor. I was going to also express the same clarification that this local preference is different than the J7. And it's different than the by-American. And again, the council, the committee would need to clarify the intent with respect to the percentage. If there is going to be one and whether it's a requirement versus an aspirational goal because as Miss Taylor indicated, if we're leaning on chapter 126, as is going to be effective July 1, there's that 20% requirement. So just to be sure that and the amendment hasn't been moved. So if Mr. Gay would like to provide some clarification in that regard and then offer that. And you get a second then you can further discuss if you'd like Please go ahead Mr. Gay Thank you, Mr. President I would Like to go along with the framework of our 126 to have the 20% chase up the additional up to another 20% for a 40% total of local business. So if it needs to be a separate separation for J.S. up, then it's how we need to word that, Ms. Mary, and the bi-American as well, would be a good aspiration to. So I actually think sorry, I'm good. Through the president to Council member gay and the committee. So I think that clarifies I would not roll the by-American into this amendment. I would just take up this discussion of an aspirational goal for local business preference. I think we're going to have another amendment that's on your spreadsheet relative to not just by American but local purchase preference that Ms. Clark Murray is likely to offer later. And I see Mr. Sawyer is also standing up so he may need some additional clarification for the purposes of this particular amendment. Mr. Sawyer. John Sawyer, Officer general counsel to the president. I apologize for jumping up and down. I've reached out to several council members, but time is so short. We haven't had the discussions. The structure will be right now 126th's Wade, but not for Jaceb. So Councilman Gays motion here would add to chapter 126's Wade, but for Jaceb, which is standalone, and the local business initiative has set forth in 126. That will be effective July 1. So there'll be two sections. If the local business initiative policy pursuant to the chief of procurement gets reduced, it gets reduced down to 20%. And those JSEBs fulfill that requirement under both JSEB and the local business initiative is how it would be structured. But that's what it would be. We would basically be stating procurement is waived but for one J-SAB and to the local business initiative. So are you suggesting that the amendment is unnecessary because- No, the amendment is necessary. The structure would be that we're not wa waving it as to the local business initiative. Okay. That's clear. Mr. President, I would just recommend that if the committee is in agreement with that, that Mr. Gay can clarify that his amendment was moved in accordance with the explanation for Mr. Sawyer, so that they have sufficient direction to proceed on that if this amendment is passed. Mr. Gaye? Exactly what he said. Okay, I have a motion in a second on what John Sawyer said. And I assume someone has that in writing. I'm looking at mega. Are you comfortable with that? It's exactly what John said. Okay. So, we got consensus on what John said. I have three people in the queue. Mr. Romara. Thank you, Mr. President. It is clear to me what the amendment is trying to achieve. Out of curiosity to the Jags, I guess. Do you anticipate a problem in hiring a good local talent? I know a few days ago we had representatives from some of the local unions who were excited about the possibility of participating. Are you concerned that you won't be able to find the right folks locally to be able to get done what needs to be done? No, that's deep. The only issue we may potentially encounter has to do with the total capacity within the local construction industry. There's a lot of projects going on right now, particularly out at Mayo. This project as well, it's not as if there aren't qualified contractors. Some of them just don't have time to do projects like this. But the focus is to keep local. That's what we want to do. There's no reason why we want to go outside. We want to make sure we have a high quality project that's done on schedule. And it's done within budget. And there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to do that with local contractors. There are some specialized pieces of the project that there simply aren't local contractors that could do that, but that's anticipated as it relates to the goal to begin with. Our track record, this would be the first time that we've had this element in this requirement, which obviously we welcome, because we do want the benefits to be felt locally. As it relates to JSEB, on all the projects we've done in partnership with the city, the four major projects we've done, we've exceeded the JSEB goal in each and every one of those. And we would hope the same thing would happen here. Okay, I have Mr. Poloso and I think we're ready to vote. Thank you, Mr. President. I just kind of had a question. So we will be getting reports on how many J-Subs are being used over the next couple of years on this project. Is that correct? All right. So we're going to regularly know, okay, what's the percentage of individuals that are working? And I don't know enough about contracting. I'm sorry to say that I probably sound a bit naive. But over the next four years, I imagine not hiring everyone the moment we've both this bill through. I imagine it's going to be over the years, you're going to hire different subs and different groups. So if we're not hitting those numbers in year one or two, we as a body could knock on the door and hopefully say, hey, Jack, make sure you're hiring more local folks or make sure that we're kind of working towards that end. The programs that are successful are the ones that plan well ahead and identify the qualified contractors, the qualified vendors well in advance. And I would think the mechanism of your update will occur on the quarterly report that we will be submitting to the finance committee. To the present, I mean, we will in the quarterly report that is one of the reporting criteria, correct? I think that's a great idea and that should be included. Excuse me. Okay. All those in favor of the gay amendment as verbally discussed by John Sartre, please indicate by saying aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Motion passes. Thank you. I'm moving on to amendment number four, the gay amendment. We're required a registered certified apprenticeship program for all major trades, i.e. electrical, Plumbing for the stadium project. Yes, Mr. Lamping. Just as a clarification, there's some duplication here. So you've got the number three amendment. Then you have the Clark Murray number six amendment, which is essentially the same thing that we had, I'm sorry, four and six that we agreed to yesterday. And the same thing exists on amendment number two. And I'm sorry, number three and seven. So there's some duplication on these. Well, when I'm just going through them in order, as we get to those, we may be able to eliminate those or that kind of thing. Okay, so we're on the gay amendment. the same thing. Okay, so we're on the gay amendment. Mr. Lambin, can you respond to the gay number four? As we indicated yesterday, we have no issue with agreeing to a registered certified apprenticeship program we've met with Lance Fouts and the Trade council numerous times, discussions continue. The specific goal is contained in the Clark Murray amendment. And as we indicated yesterday, we're fine with that. That goal actually came from Lance with the building trades. Well, we'll deal with that one separately. Okay, I have missed Clark Clark Murray in the queue unless you want to somehow modify this one. I'm sorry. To the President, I think I was waiting on a I think we need a second or something in regards to his amendment and then I was going to amend the amendment. Make a move. I don't know that we even move the amendment. Correct, Mr. President. It hasn't been moved, but if Mr. Gay would like to include the aspirational goal from the Clark Murray amendment when he moves his amendment, then you wouldn't have to do it as an amendment to the amendment. You could just take it all up as part of this amendment. That's number six. Mr. Gay, would you like to do that? Would you like to move it, including Clark Murray's 6%? Yes, Mr. President. I'd like to include that in mind as well. Okay. So you'll need a second. Okay, I have a motion in a second to include the 10% in Clark Murray's 6th and the gay number 4. So Mr. President, I can reiterate this amendment overall if you'd like me to. I'd love for you. Okay, so we've moved the gay amendment to require a registered or certified apprenticeship program for all major trades for the stadium project with an aspirational goal of retaining a minimum of 10% of those registered or certified apprentices. Okay. I have no one in the queue. Councillor McCartney. Councillor McCartney. Thank you, Chair. Once again, good morning to everyone. Just in case there's any concern. I did speak with Lance and I think most of you are familiar with the can't think of Lance last day right now. I spoke with him in regards to this particular amendment. So this is a collaboration between him and myself and the different union groups that were represented here on I think Monday night. So that's where the impetus for this comes from. And it basically, he told me a scenario in regards to a previous large project here in Jacksonville and some of the lessons that his, the union in different groups learned. And so this is the outcome of discussing those events with him. So once again, I am basically representing them and their interests in this particular deal. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Council member White. Yes, or, Senator Chair, I have a technical question to maybe the Mary. I know this started out with Mr. Gays amendment, and then it was auditioned from Miss Murray's, but she's worked hard, Clark Murray. She's worked hard on this. Can we call it the gay Clark Murray amendment? I mean, I think she needs her name on it along with him. So through the Chair to Council member, why when this gets filed, it'll be filed as an amendment of the Committee of the Whole. So there won't be a specific name on it, but I think the recognition of the composition of this amendment is certainly clear from the floor today. You're good with that, Mr. Locke-Murray. Through the president, pro-designate, through the president, president Salem, yes. Okay. Mr. Gay, you want to come back on the queue? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to kind of elaborate a little bit more about this will benefit the organized labor as well as the open shops because there's apprenticeship programs across the board. So I just want to make sure that it's clear that, you know, we're opening this up for everybody. Thank you. Okay, I have no one else in the queue. All those in favor of the gay slash Clark Murray combined amendment, please indicate by saying aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Great, so we hit two at the same time. Now I'm on Clark Murray number five. Incorporate language from Section Two of Ordinance, 2024 and I have for relying only technical changes to agreements without council approval. Ms. Clark Murray. Thank you, Chair. I think if I understand correctly that to Miss Taylor or the council auditors that this was covered in the The technical amendments that we That we approved earlier which which is the auditor, council auditor's office information that you have the based on filed version. Or if not, Ms. Taylor, please, if it's still needed, please let me know. Through the president to councilwoman Clark- in our recommended amendments not the technical list But the second list on recommended it is covered in for each agreement so it's already addressed Thank you. Thank you, Miss Taylor. So To the president through the president to the body. I think now it's a mood point and so we can strike it or delete it Okay, we are striking We're deleted. Okay, we are striking a amendment number five from Clark Murray. So we are now moving to item number seven, another Clark Murray amendment, include a local purchase preference for the stadium project, require a good faith effort to purchase materials and supplies from Dubov County first before next purchasing from the state of Florida and finally nationally. Ms. Clark Murray. Thank you, Chair. If Mr. Sawyer, if you would come to the podium. Good morning to you. I wish we had an opportunity to speak early, so I could get the full understanding of the email that you sent to me in regards to item 7. So if you would elaborate, then I can see if this actually needs to, if I need to withdraw it, or if it needs to be some changes, need to be done on the floor. John Saurov, General Counsel, through the Council President to the Council member. So the the Bi-American revisions and the procurement code are set forth in section 126.114 in regard local preferences for city projects to Bi-American. We can certainly simply incorporate again as, as we did with JSA, we can waive code, but for the applicability of the section, I believe the Jaguars will need to weigh in on the ability, they see to procure in the market subject to these requirements. But in terms of the ability to enact or have 126.114 be applicable, we can certainly do that, but I think that Jaguars need to offer whether they think they can comply with it. Thank you for your comments. Through the chair to Mr. Lamping in your representative, what are your comments in regards to this amendment? So I think to the extent that it is otherwise an F for just locally we'd be comfortable with that. I think I do have a question potentially for John Sawyer about how this relates to what we just adopted in three. Thank you, too. For the time. John Soror, General Counsel, to the committee. So the gay amendment authorized what will be enacted as of July 1, 2024 for a, and I am not quite capturing it correctly, but it's the local business participation policy. And what that does is state there's a J7 requirement and there's a local business requirement. The local business definition is broader in scope and include several surrounding counties. There's a definition for how long they've been in business, how many employees, etc. So that is a goal to employ those types of businesses. The buy American focus is in some literally what is staged, which is buying American made products and services. Unfortunately, I email that to you, I believe this morning. I don't have a copy of it with me to go through the requirements. But the buy American is mainly for buying goods that American produce as opposed to employing vendors. Who are eligible under J. several local business options. So can someone help me where we are with carcaburri seven? So to the to the chair at this point, we are. The representative for the Jaguars is it she is Okay, but she needs some clarification and so we're getting clarification From someone outside this room. No, she is right here at the table. Oh, okay. I'm sorry And so I think this may be my fault for miss speaking earlier mentioning by America But what I read here is that there will be a good faith effort to purchase from Duval County, then from the surrounding region, then the state of Florida, then we would go outside, which I think is slightly different than the provision that John described regarding the by America. I think we just want some clarity because if it's what I had first stated in terms of trying to buy more specifically locally first and using efforts to do that, I think that conceptually we can get comfortable with that, but I think that is different than the provision that John was just talking about, so I think we just need some clarity. So through the president to the Jaguar representative, the idea is just that not necessarily by American, but local, meaning instead of movie Once again this this amendment comes from my discussion with with Lance and In that we don't want to go say for example a Product that is available here in Duval County for some reason they go to Alabama that is available here in Duval County for some reason they go to Alabama, I'm gonna say Birmingham, just making up, just choosing a city, to get that product when it could have been purchased here first. And the idea also is that it does not create any material delays as well so we don't want any delays in construction because there isn't a search for a particular item or whatever it may be. I am so lost in terms of contract. I'm sorry, construction, verbiage right now. I'm just really wanting to say even like little dump truck or something that sounds really intelligent. But the idea that it doesn't delay any of the aspects of building, you know, materially. And I think you understand what I'm saying regarding materially. I believe that I do. And I think that as long as it's, as long as it complies with whatever the chief procurement and the procurement process requires, in general, all else equal, our preference would be as sort of Mark said, not only to source labor locally, but also to source goods locally. So I think that conceptually that what you just stated I think we're comfortable with is just a matter of making sure that the language reflects that. But all else equal our preference would be of course to infuse and purchase locally. Okay. So thank you. So I think there's everyone through the chair to the body does everyone understand that they're saying yes. But we just need to tweak the language. Well if we're going to tweak the language we need to tweak it today. Mr. sorry did you want to make the comment or my other question would be do we need to come back to this with some adjusted language and just mega and John need to get in the back and chat for a moment and try to come up with some language. Mr. Sawyer. John Sawyer, Officer General Kyle, so I have one suggestion now, if not then maybe tabling it for the time being. The Buy American Act in section 1, 2, 6, but 1, 1, 4 does not contain good faith language. It becomes a hard 51% requirement except that the chief of procurement can waive that. And the waiver would presume would be when you simply can't identify a number of assembled or manufactured products to buy American. One solution would be to make this provision applicable to the project, but simply add a requirement that it be a demonstrated good faith effort rather than a hard 51% requirement. Through the chair, I would prefer good faith because once again in my discussion with Lance I understand what that hard 50 something percent would how it in my discussion with the auditors and OGC how that would create might create materially a problem and so I prefer the language of good faith I chose the language of good faith intentionally. What I was suggest at this point council Council Member Hartbury, John, could you develop some language over the next 10 or 15 minutes that we could come back to that reflects that good faith language effort so we could pass that? Yes, sir. And it won't be complicated. It will just be the provision applies. But shall be your district's simply demonstration of good faith efforts by the team. Can are we comfortable with that verbal comment? Well, hang on a second, Councillor Coralucci. To the President, if that explanation is sufficient for the Committee of the whole and John Sawyer's indicated that should be sufficient for the purposes of what he needs for direction on this amendment. Then yes, you can move and second that. And I think that everybody is clear on the intent of what that amendment would entail. So I think you can move forward now. Ms. Clarkmore, are you comfortable with that? Yes, I am. Okay. I have a motion. A motion is there a second? And a second to move with the language John just said in that language will be put together to reflect that I see no one in the queue all those in favor of the verbal Amendment as described by John sorry, please indicate by saying aye all those opposed please say nay motion passes Thank you, John. Okay. we are now moving to Johnson number eight. This is to revise language to provide that the stating will be managed by a third-party management company agreed upon by the city and the Jaguars rather than managed by the Jaguars. Councillor Member Johnson. Mr. President, could I add something to that? It's kind of based on our discussion on yesterday that it would be managed by a third party management company or Stadco, but still need to come to council for approval even if it includes Stadco. Cause the way it was written yesterday from my notes and my understanding was that they could just decide to use that code and they didn't have to come to council. It would only come to council if they decided to use a third party. Okay. Can Mary, can you restate that? Thank you. Through the present. I just may want to, Mr. Weinstein may want to clarify this before we offer the specifics of the amendment. I believe the understanding coming out of yesterday is this would constitute, the council approves the agreement as written, that would constitute approval of allowing Stadco to be the manager. If it changes to the third party, that's when it would come back. So Mr. Weinstein may want to clarify that, but that may render some of what Dr. Johnson referenced as moot, because this is the action by the council that would allow Stadco to be the management firm. Well, Through the president, that's exactly what the agreement states now. but basically they have the choice of doing it themselves. And if they choose not to, then together the city and Statco decide on a third party. And if you approve the agreement as it states, then you've given them that authorization. And someone defines city for me. That would have to come to the city council. Okay. I just want to make sure it's not the mayor's office or the mayor versus the City Council. Okay. Dr. Johnson, did you hear that? And do you want to? I did and I'm the thing here, my question is while I do understand it's what the agreement says. I am not completely yet because here's the question is while I do understand it's what the agreement says, I am not completely yet, because here's the question that I have. Right now there's a single source for managing all of the venues and my thoughts are scheduling and other issues that will come up. So let me get a little clarification because maybe it's necessary or maybe it's a possibility to withdraw it to the Jaguar's team through the president, is what does that look like, that process of, how would you envision going through the process of that connection so we don't end up with multiple venue managers and having issues that could, in essence, get have a traffic jam. Well, we deal with it now because we have shared parking. That's really where it all comes together and also as it relates to public safety. So there has to be discussions. What our focus, not surprisingly, is not on how the baseball grounds or the arena or the performing arts center is managed. It's how can we ensure we have the best run stadium in the country. And we just want to make sure that we have all operating models in front of us to be able to do that because it really comes down to not the company, but the people that they hire to run the stadium. And I've come across this in my career, where some of the best building managers work for companies like ASM, and some of them don't, and they choose not to work for companies like that, because they'd rather work for the tenant, the football team, because they perceive the benefits of working for a football team are superior to working for a facility management company. So we just want to make sure that we get the best possible people. Councilmember Johnson, if I can jump in here, there is another amendment related to this, not on this page. And I think this may be a time to bring that one out as well. Mary, could you read the the the wider amendment? Yes, through the president to the committee of the whole, the amendment would provide for clarification that the city may optimize the city facility management contract already in place with ASM global to serve as advisor to the city the government's budget for the government's budget for the government's budget for the government's budget for the budget for the government's budget for the budget for the government's budget for the budget for the government's budget for the budget for the government's budget for the budget for the government's budget for the budget for the government's budget for the budget for the government's budget for the budget for the government's budget for the budget for the government's budget for the budget for the government's budget for the Mr. President, so that means that based on what, and I forgive me and maybe need some clarification from Mr. Fopolis or someone I think on yesterday, Mr. Lampings said that there would be someone embedded to be a part of the organization. I think that amendment would then ensure that there would be an amended, excuse me, an embedded person there, and if they chose that their party, then it would come to council. Am I understanding that correct? Well, as I understand it, the city will identify a person that will be our representative. What that amendment says, as I understand it, is that the ASM, which will still be here, irrespective of what happens for several more years, managing the other facilities, can be used as a resource for this person to provide information, advice, et cetera, et cetera. That's number one and number two is if the STAD code decides to go to a third party person, it must be bit out and come back to the council. Is that an accurate description, Miss Staffanopoulos? To the president, I believe so. This is all the information I have is what I read into the record. Mr. White may be able to expound upon it further. But I believe regardless of how you couched this amendment or Mr. Dr. Johnson's amendment in either case, if there is a third party management firm selected that's coming back to the city in some capacity. If you go with the current agreement as written, it would come to the city council for approval. If you go with the white amendment, this makes it so that it would come back for a procurement process under chapter 126, which may or may not entail council involvement or approval. Mr. Taylor wants to jump in. Thank you, Mr. President. And I just want to clarify, so we're all on the same page. The agreement for a third party company just requires in the agreement mutual approval with the city, which would be the city rep. It's the code, our local code of section 126-316 that triggers it coming to city council. So I just want to make sure that's clear for everybody. The agreement does not require city council approval, but in following the local law, which is referenced throughout, it would have to come to City Council by the code. That's what I just asked when Mr. Weinstein, but just a second Mr. Weinstein, when he said City, that's why I asked the question, what does City mean? And he said City Council approval. So. Through the chair that's why I wanted to clarify that in the agreement and only says city But we had the backstop and that's why we did not have a recommendation that they have to follow the person over seeing this contract Has to follow the code and it would then trigger this provision in the code to require city council approval If there's a desire to to have a more comfort level that there's something in the agreement you can certainly discuss that is maybe a separate Amendment Mr. Weinstein that there's something in the agreement, you can certainly discuss that as maybe a separate amendment. Mr. Weinstein. Well, we're off to a couple of different topics here. The agreement basically throughout all the agreements, you got to follow local ordinances, rules and regulations. It's got to come back to council. to designate, present designate white. As I said earlier, we have the intention of hiring a person or a company to basically be our eyes and ears. Remember also, as Councillor Lodrider has mentioned, that our agreement with ASM runs out on 27, 2027. Does have extension opportunities. So I wouldn't tie anything to a name of a company or what have you because this is a 30 year agreement and it doesn't even start until 28. So I'd be cautious in that regard, but the idea that Councilman Desinate White has is valid and we agree with it totally that we need somebody like that And that's whether there's a third party or the stat code does it that's no matter who does it we need our own eyes and ears on it every day So if the language was was changed to say that the rap was changed to say that the rep had the ability to consult the third-party management company of the other facilities, not mentioning ASM in particular. Is there any problem with that? No, no, there's no problem with where you're trying to go at all. I understand. It's another layer of interest and support in eyes. I understand not mentioning ASM layer of interest and support in eyes. I understand not mentioning ASM. That makes complete sense to me. But Mr. White, did you want to jump in? I was just going to verify that. It does not have to mention ASM, just whoever's on contract at a time. I understand. So if I can try to clarify this, the city representative or entity has the ability to consult the third party person managing the facilities for information questions, whatever it is. And it sounds like the third, if they change to a third party, it must come through a procurement process and approval of the city council. Is that accurate? You're nodding your head. Jaguar is all agree with that? Okay. Can we put that in writing, Mary? Well, I'm sorry, Mary, I've got a blank on you for some reason. Please go ahead, Kim. No problem, Councillor Präsident. I think Mr. Foppeless was about to clarify everything. We just had a little confusion on exactly what was being done that I apologize that may be on our part, but if Mr. Foppeless is clarifying, I think we'll get there. Okay. Thank you. So, based on the discussion, and there will be another question at the end that we'll just need some clarification on the clarification, the white amendment that's been proposed is that if a third party management company is selected to manage the stadium facility that the city's city would have a representative from from whoever the current third party management firm is for the other facilities to consult with the management firm that is selected to manage and oversee the stadium facility. The one question I have is the white amendment reference that that third party operator for the stadium would be their services would be procured under chapter 123 of our code and I don't think that particular nuance was discussed, which I think is a little different than what would currently be in the agreement today. Just Taylor please let me know if I got anything or missed anything. Through the chair we may have to take a few minutes and meet in the back to clarify on this. I just want to ensure we're meeting the intention of City Council. Yeah, I'm not sure what chapter 123 says personally. So if we can get some clarification on that in the back and come back to that one, so that would kill the Johnson amendment potentially the White Amendment together. Councillor Morejonson, are you okay with that? I was going to say I think Mr. President, if you'd best to roll the White Amendment with that, once we get clarification on where we are but to ensure that the city is at the table and of course Mr. Lamppings suggestion that there would be an individual embedded in so everybody's at the same, you know, working on the same page. Thank you. Kim, who are you going to consult with in the back? Go to speak. To the president, we'll have Brian or Philip or somebody with probably John Sawyer in mega if that's okay. So we will hold on item number eight, table it for a few minutes. You want a break? Okay. I have 1015. What do we need 10 minutes? Okay, let's come back at 1025. Maybe that can be done back. I hear that we have some compromised language on the Johnson White Amendment. Can someone read that to me? To the President, basically what we've agreed to, and Councilmember Johnson, I didn't get a chance to talk to you during the break. The consensus is there's a definition of qualified operator, which for you all is the third party operator if they so choose, that it just require any reference there or anywhere else in the agreement that it's clear that it's the mutual agreement of the city, stag code, the city or the jaguars, the city and the city council, or that you just clarify, it's subject to the approval of the city council. With waiving the code, the procurement code, it's a good catch to make sure that in the agreement it is clear that the third party operator requires the approval of the city council. We're okay with that. Jaguarsha are okay with that. Yes, Mr. Hague. As far as I just wanted to give her a point of reference. The most recent deals that were done, the teams have had exclusive management responsibilities. Across the league, it's about 50-50, but the most recent ones almost mirror this relationship where third parties do go through city council approval. So that would be consistent with what's more or less been currently done. Well, that's great. I'm makes me feel more comfortable. Okay, so that's the, okay, I have some speakers. Mr. Gaye. Thank you, Mr. President. Just for clarity, the agreement through the President and Mr. Taylor, the agreement the Jaguars can manage the facility themselves without coming to. Through the President, that's correct. You are authorizing Stadco in this agreement to manage the facility. If they then choose to select a third party, right now it states it's mutually agreeable between Stadco and the city. It doesn't say city council. So I think that would be the clarity of clarifying that it requires city council approval. The approval is only if they go to third party. They can elect to do it themselves and not have to come back to city or city council. Through the chair, that's correct. Okay, what I'd like to do, I failed to do the, let's get a motion on the floor reflecting that language. I got a motion in a second. Okay, now we'll have further discussion, Mr. Areas. Thank you, Mr. President. Yesterday and today, now I hear that across the league, 50, 50 teams, 50% of the teams are managing and 50% are being managed by a third party. But I looked online and I couldn't find that specifically. So can you elaborate as to exactly which 50% of the teams are managed by their own, I guess, team and then the rest are by like a third party. And if so, what I want to know is how many entities in the nation can actually manage these facilities and if we were to go to a different entity, let's say the jaguars want to manage their own facilities, but they decide to go to somebody else, one of the options that we have realistically, because as it is from what my research that I did last night, there's really one, if not two, but really there's only one that can manage most of these facilities across the nation, and that's ASM. So what conversations are we having now, and really I wanna know what is 50% of the teams? What can you list all the teams, thank you. Yeah, what I said yesterday is I believe it's about half and half. So I haven't gone through it. I mean, I can do that research for you without a question. As far as companies, there's really only two companies out there that survive. There is ASM, which is in the process of being acquired by a company called Legends. And then there's a company called the Oakview Group. The Oakview Group manages facilities. And then there are a lot of facilities that are managed directly by the team. The only difference is who the general manager and the key staff at the stadium, who they actually work for, where their check comes from. One way to do it is to hire a third party, the other way would be to hire direct. And as I said just in my own career, as President of the St. Louis Cardinals, we self-operated Bush Stadium in St. Louis. When I was CEO of the New Metal Lands Stadium, which is where the MetLife Stadium, the Jets and the Giants play, it's actually the biggest, the busiest stadium in the country. That is also self-operated. When I came here to Jacksonville, it was really the first time that I operated in an environment where there was a third party that was operating in. And there's been no issues. As we've stated from the beginning, and at the risk of being repetitive. This is a 30 year agreement. We don't know what that landscape is going to look like. We want to have the best run stadium in the country, and we want to make sure that we have every facility management model available to us to achieve that goal. Well, thank you for elaborating. I'm through the chair, Mr. President. My question to you is then to whoever can answer this is, these entities that you said are self-managed. Did they pay 100% for their stadium or did they get city contributions? Because in this case, from what I saw as some of these teams actually built the stadiums with their own dollars. So they obviously have the right to manage it themselves because it is their money and they're rightfully so. While I do understand that you guys are investing a significant amount, I just want to make sure we compare apples to apples in this case. Okay, and again, just using the most contemporary examples, both Buffalo and Nashville where there was significant public money into those facilities on a percentage basis greater than what's happening here in both cases those buildings are owned by the public and in both cases the the team has the responsibility to manage the facility. I guess I'd like to just just add one more thing that you know whether the stadium is managed by the team or the decision is made to hire a third party The operating standards are in place Whether it's the team or whether it's an outside party. They're operating standards as to how the The minimum standards that must be met in terms of the operations of the stadium. Those are in place whether it's managed by the team or whether it's managed by a third party. Please. Pull up the microphone. Sorry, I had to unmute. So right now you just mentioned the latest and greatest, right? What will happen in, let's say, 15 years from now or 10, 20 years, whatever the case is, where other stadiums are having the latest and greatest technology or something cool that we don't have. Who's gonna be held liable for that? Is it the city or the Jaguar's art? Let's say a new Wi-Fi system or whatever. I don't, it doesn't matter. Just think creatively. Are we the city going to be liable to upgrade the stadium in that point to make it latest and greatest or is that something that the jaguars will then just do on your own accord? Well, Mike Weinstein through the present, those decisions are made jointly. If you remember all the different budgets, whether they be capital, major adjustments, or whether they be operations, those budgets every year are done collectively in a joint way. So if the decision was made to try to upgrade, it would be a joint decision, and that would be basically paid out of the shared revenues that are coming in. Could I add just a little bit to that as well through the president. The teams collectively in the league are constantly meeting together over stadium management those things. There are monthly meetings where best practices are shared. I would also say that over the current trend, there is more authority given to the individual teams to manage the stadium. The same here where interior security is being managed by the team. When you think of that, it's not Mark and Meg are running around at the stadium gates. I mean, they're hiring the people that are the same professionals that the stadium operator is higher. the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of could you do the chair through the President? Ms. Taylor could you restate the amendment again just so we're on this in the same space? Through the President to Councilmember Johnson it would require that if Stadco goes decides to have a third party hired an outsource that through third party that it requires City Council approval. Let me ask, thank you, and I just got to ask for clarification. That embedded individual through the president to the team at the Jaguars, is the embedded individual since that is not included here? That is just good faith that we will have someone embedded with the team, correct? Yeah, we think it'd be a great idea. I think we suggested it. Yeah, you did. You did. I just want to make sure. So I'm not going to put it in here, but it is on the record that we're going to have someone embedded. I think that at least gets us to the table. Somebody that is responsible to us, the city, and to define what you said, Mr. President, the City Council not just the city as some arbitrary individual, so I'm certainly going to support this amendment. Thank you. Okay. All those in favor of the Johnson White Amendment, please indicate by saying aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Johnson White Amendment passes. Item number nine is the Salem Amendment I was asked to sponsor this after some discussions. Let me just read it, delete property insurance costs expenses for stating from list of items to be paid out of operations, utilities and events fund. The stating will be included on the city's major asset list for property insurance coverage to be paid by the city as is currently done today. Mr. Weinstein. Yes, thank you, Mr. President. The property insurance on the stadium has been bounced around a little bit as to what's best. At the beginning of the process, the brokers in our consultants told us that we wouldn't be able to keep the stadium on the long list of assets on our property. It would have to have a separate insurance policy because it was so substantial. That's when we talked about having it be part of the stadium agreement, the lease agreement, and have it paid for literally out of the operations budget. Later on during the process, they came back and said no, it would be much better if the stadium is in fact included with all the other properties as it is today. Right now basically the current stadium is in with all the other properties and we pay for it and we're just going back to the way it is today. So we wanted to make it clear in the document that it is not to be paid out of the operating budget. It's going to be included in the city's overall property insurance, and it'll be basically paid as it is today. Okay. Mr. Layton. Thank you, President. The President to Ms. Taylor. Does this change the method all on what we were handed out yesterday, page two specifically, as far as the assumptions that add up to the five million savings? Through the Chair to Council Member Leningess, it definitely would. What the assumption baked in was a splitting of that cost and now that would go to city. I don't know on the new policy if the administration has an idea. Right now it's about 1.2, 1.3 million that's allocated. I'm sure that's probably going to double. I don't know. So you're talking probably an annual impact of at least a million. Okay so through the president so just ballpark the net positive impact impact pry drops from five to four million then. Through the chair to councilmember Lane and anywhere from, I'd say roughly half a million to a million that it would drop with the sharing. Okay, through the present. Thank you. I just want to make sure that sounds like it does have an impact first what the assumptions are. So we're a little less positive on the Operating savings each year. Thank you I'm sorry, Councillor President and if I can just add on and those assumptions again, we're dealing with 2223 numbers so we know The collective bargaining agreements when you pay for JSO Exterior all of that will change that positive variable in the future insurance cost, et cetera. That's good, good, President. I guess the one good thing, that's the fund that no matter what is still capped at three and a half million annually, right? Through the chair, you're correct. For the operational cost, not JSO, but for those. Thank you. Councillor Mellon. Matt Callucci. Thank you, Mr. President, through the chair to Ms. Taylor. I suppose. I think I know the answer to this, but is the city reinsured? Through the chair to Councilmember Curlyucci, you are out of my lane of expertise. Okay. Does anybody know if we are reinsured or not? Okay. Well, I'm going to support the amendment, but I would like to know that in this day and age of major litigation, this is such a different type of exposure because there's so many thousands of people that go in so many different things that could happen. God forbid, and to be reinsured would give me a little assurance. But I'm gonna support the amendment, but I would like to know if we are reinsured or not. Thank you. Somebody can get to me later. Mr. Kaye. Thank you, Mr. President. Quick question to the Jaguar's team or the auditor's. Are we going to do a wrap around insurance policy risk regarding the optimal policy overall for the during the construction period. But we are looking at an OSIP but we still are in discussions with risk our next meeting with them is the first week in July to talk through the adequate way in terms of builders risk any owner owned policies the CM policies and the Mubia separate policy as really specifically to the structural engineering. I assume there will be potential savings by doing that and that we'll all be able to share in. Yes, the goal is to optimize the insurance program so that two things are met. One, we make sure that the premiums are as low as possible by bundling things, but two, that there's no gaps in coverage. Okay, thank you. Mr. Liner, do you want to come back? Okay. Okay. No one? Yeah. Can I get a motion on the sale of amendment? Motion in second. I have no one else in the queue. All those in favor of the sale amendment, please indicate by saying aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Saddle amendment passes. Okay guys, we've got one more technical amendment and four or three. Four other amendments to and at that point unless there's something else that comes up we would be finished for the day. So Mary would you finished for the day. So Mary, would you start with the first one? Yes, sir. Thank you through the President to the committee. And I'm going to offer, I'm going to bring these up each in the order in which they were received by me after the three o'clock deadline for the spreadsheet on Wednesday. The first one is an additional amendment that Council Member Gay would like to offer. And I would defer to Mr. Gay to explain the intent of the amendment, which has been shared with the administration and the Jaguars previous to this meeting with respect to identifying the pricing for the stadium project based on need versus additional preference items. And he listed as examples for additional preference items items alternatives that talked about providing for a complete roof shade over the stadium versus a partial roof and shade over the seating area only and Mr. Gail defer to you to further explain your intent for the amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I know it's going to be kind of looked at as being late in the process, but I did make efforts in the early on to be involved in a lot of it. But in normal construction practices and what we do here in the city is we put out bids through public works that's got a base bid of exactly what the need is to get the facility up or the project done. And then we list out the alternates if we have the money that we can add to the project. What we're looking at here is just carte blots. Just there's no options for us. I look around the state at other NFL state, and them being in a hotter climate that they don't have a roof, and I look at the roof as a preference. It's not a necessity that's a need and wanting to get optional pricing. I think it's fair for our citizens and to have these figures to make these decisions as to where a partial roof, if you're not going to do a turf, artificial turf field, that there's different things that we can look at that possibly could be called savings where we're not spending 700 plus me, 700 plus million dollars on our future here. So I just, I'd like to have all these items put on the table where we can actually make a decision that's the most in the best for it to be a good steward for our taxpayers in the city. So that's the gist of it. It's not abnormal construction policies. It's it's normal project bidding and I think we should be afforded that opportunity. Thank you. I'd like to respond. I guess let's start with the roof. That's the most significant part of this discussion. When we got into this process and as Councilman Gague reminded us four years ago when we started this. We started with talking to people that actually used the stadium and looking at our own records. So if you have 150 hospital transports during an NFL game in September, there's something wrong with the stadium. That's highly abnormal. In fact, it borders on being unsafe. And as we did our surveys, as we did focus groups, as we talked to stakeholders, the University of Florida, the University of Georgia, the Gator Bowl, the College Football Playoffs, we came up with a list of things that are customers and people that are responsible for bringing events to Jacksonville. We're identifying as shortcomings in the current stadium. The number one shortcoming is the heat inside the stadium and particularly there's no shade on, particularly during the monthsp September for day games on the east side of the state. Everybody knows that. So as we got into it, we said publicly that if we come up with a solution for the stadium and we don't provide shade on the seats, then we've failed our fans. We looked at other shade structures. In fact, I'll be happy to share this with Councilman Gag. We looked at the Miami model and the Miami sun shade would leave about 65% of our seats in the sun. And if you've been to a football game at Hard Rock Stadium, in fact, go to our home opener down there and you will see that almost the entirety of one side of the stadium is in the blazing sun. So that we simply were not going to move forward with a solution that did not get shade on the seats. We also learned a preference from our fans that they'd also like to be kept out of the rain. Now that is not necessarily an issue that is different than in Tampa or Miami, but we did get a preference from our fans that they would be out of the rain. The roof itself also assists in public safety. So depending on what the weather conditions might be, depending on what the storms might be, our customers may be able to shelter in place, meaning stay in the seats because they have a roof, as opposed to everyone going to crowded con courses. And also the idea of attracting other events, for example, participant in the expanded college football play-offs, they are now showing a clear preference to going to stadiums that have roofs. And our ability to participate in the summer concert, a business, because of all the rain we have in the afternoon, we are in a much better position to be able to get those concerts because we can protect the loading and load out from the rain. So a major re-examination and a major redesign at this stage of the project probably certainly leads to at least a one year delay and based on construction, escalation, let's say continues at 10%. That's another $140 million. We might be bringing to the project. So because of all of that, we think we should continue to look for efficiencies in our design. But the way that should be done is in the city's participation in monthly meetings and the rights you have over approving permits, the rights you have in terms of approving a change orders. And obviously if we can come across the improvements to the stadium that can reduce the cost, that benefits both of us. But what we don't want to do, and I harken back to our first meeting with Councilman Gay, when we first met about this over a year ago. One thing really stuck with me that you told us, whatever you do, don't repeat the mistakes of the cities in the past, don't do it on the cheap. And we've taken that to heart because he's in the industry, he knows what he's talking about. But we're committing to a stadium that we're gonna be in for 30 years and we just wanna make sure that it meets the needs of our fans, not only in the early part of that, but also long term. Council Member Polosa. Thank you, Mr. President. To Council Member Gay, I thought so much of your commentary today and over the past several days has been pretty brilliant. He'd been talking about points and I think a lot of us have overlooked your other perspective on this deal. That's so different than other people. But as somebody who sits in the lower bowl, I could tell you it's how it is. And to not have a roof would be a giant disservice to those, those, those of us who are slummin' it, you know, we're sitting down there. I know some of my fat cat friends up here, maybe they're in the club, maybe they're in sweets. I, you know, certainly calcinerious this. But I mean, I'm telling you, I was next to people who passed out at games, right? So I mean, it truly is a health risk. It's a massive, every community meeting that I went to, somebody talked about, making sure that we have a roof. Again, to not do it, especially here in Jacksonville, in Florida is a ridiculous thing to me. So I'm very much, you know, I'm very excited about what we've been proposed and I just want to make sure that, you know, it genuinely is a major problem and probably one of the number one things that people discussed when talking about upgrades to the stadium. Thank you. Council Member Areas. I'm excited about it. Through the President, thank you for that. So as a business owner, when I'm looking at my restaurant and to see what kind of needs I need to address to improve the restaurant, I look at the biggest priorities and obviously while in this case I don't speak to my patrons as to what I should do, the jaguars have done just that. And the biggest need has been for many years, everybody has complained about the heat, the weather, the rain. I wasn't always in the club section, Mr. Perluso. I was down there as well with you guys. And I've suffered, I've had to do all that. And so when we're comparing ourselves to other cities and being world class, having the state of the art facilities, one thing stands apart from us and from Miami and from other major cities to have a roof. And that's the fact that they could actually have an event, no matter rain or shine, no matter snow or whatever the case is. If we're going to invest 1.4 billion into this deal, I would be remiss if we didn't include the most important component which is a full roof system. I've been to Miami many times and yes, Mr. Lamping, that shade, half shade deck doesn't work all the time. So the fact that we're investing these kind of dollars, if we don't have the roof, this whole deal is off the table for me. And additionally, just for clarification, how much money are you guys investing, Mr. Lamping, altogether? Be at minimum of 625 million plus cost overrun, so the actual cost won't be determined till we're done. So, with that through the chair you guys have all rights to put a roof if you want because this is your dollars Ultimately, this is your design and to go back to the drawing table to do a brand new design Mr. Gay you know very well That will definitely just hold everything back. So I will say continue going with what we're doing Having the best stadium possible and the best experience for our fans and for everybody else. Thank you. Okay, I've got Council Member Clark Murray. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair to Ms. Taylor, and you may say, well, what do I have to do with this particular portion? But according to your comments yesterday, the project program statement is what the Jaguars must adhere to in regards to the actual construction of the stadium of the future. Yes or no? Through the chair, yes. Thank you. So based on that, I'm looking at the program statement. It says in regards to, under the executive summary, it says the stadium will be an open-air stadium, include a new protective enclosure made of a composite polymer on a steel frame structure, cable net root system, provide shade for spectators and general coverage from the rain. All spectator seats will now be covered by a cable net root system to provide shade for spectators and general coverage from the rain. All spectator seats will now be covered by a cable net roof system to provide shade and protection from the rain. That's what's in the agreement. And I mean, I don't know to the, through the chair to Mr. Lamping, is there, is there another example of an existing stadium that we can maybe reference to help us understand what this would exactly look like? I know we have renderings, but is there another stadium in existence that we can reference perhaps on the Internet? Yeah, the best example is Sofie Stadium in Los Angeles where it has a fixed roof, but it's an open air stadium that allows for natural airflow. Thank you. That's the end of my comment, Chair. Thank you. Los Angeles where it has a fixed roof, but it's an open air stadium that allows for natural airflow. Thank you. That's it in my comment, Chair. Thank you. Council member White. Yes, sir, through to Chair, I certainly respect Mr. Gays' opinion, but looking around the room, if Darnel Smith and Weinstein and Peterson and Johnson and Halen and White in the no-here Freeman goes to a game we want shade. So we would appreciate, well, yeah, but you'll be in the box. I know where you are. But that's just my comments. I would like to stay with the shade, I dear. Thank you. I'll like Council Member Gay conclude and then we'll vote. Do you have anything else to say, Councilmember Gaye? Thank you, Mr. President. To address one of Mr. Lampton comment about the statement, yes, the statement that I made was about building a quality product. And what this amendment is is not saying that we're looking to cheapen the product. We're wanting to maximize our spending dollars with the city and identify, let's, I'm going to call it like it is, that the roof is a preference. It is not a need. And so we've had games, we can't have games and we're talking about the month of September for two or three games that you know we're going to justify spending $700 million for a roof and the rest of the games 50-50 on a presence, a preference. So I just, I have to put this out there and we're, you know, how y'all vote is how you vote in that I respect that and we'll just move forward. Thank you. Okay, I'm told I did not get a motion in a second on the gay amendment. Can I get that please? I have a motion and I have a second. Okay, there's no one else in the queue. All those in favor of the gay amendment, please say aye. All those opposed? Okay, motion fails. Let's move on. We're going to the sale of amendment. Mr. President the next amendment that I had on my list that I had received was for Mr. Matt Carlucci. Okay. Legislative services will be able to pass out a handout relative to this amendment which I understand has been reviewed by the JAG's team and everybody is in agreement with the following. So if you recall, Mr. Carlucci had indicated yesterday during the council meeting that he intended to offer an amendment to attach the project program statement to the agreements. And so this amendment that Mr. Carlucci is going to offer would be to do that with the following additional language added to that amendment Which states the attached is a draft project program statement and the parties agreed to continue to work in good faith To finalize and further populate the same to include objective Quantifiable metrics consistent with the requirements of the stadium development agreement and consistent with comparable NFL facilities and finishes to be attached here to within 30 days of the effective date hereof. And I'll leave it to Mr. Carlyucci to move his amendment for a second and then for discussion. Mr. Carlyche, would you like to move the amendment? Is there a second? Okay, there is a second. Mr. Lanean. Thank you, Councillor Puezzan. I fully support this. I think it's the Carlucci amendment because Lanean was a little too slow in sending this to Mary yesterday. So, an easy call here to add this. Thank you. Okay, I have no one else in the queue. All those in favor of the Carlucci amendment, please indicate by saying aye. All those opposed, of the Carlucci amendment please indicate by saying aye. All those opposed please say nay motion passes Mary Thank you through the president to the committee the next amendment was an additional amendment that Dr. Johnson intended to offer with respect to amending the agreements to Request that the Jags commit to exploring a historic Black colleges and universities game each year by May 1st. This proposed amendment which would just be offered verbally at this stage was forwarded to the administration and the Jaguars so that they are aware that this would be offered today. Should this be a part of the stadium agreement, I guess is that an appropriate place to put this? Or should this be a resolution of the council? Through the President, I believe Mr. Johnson's or Dr. Johnson's intent was that it would be incorporated into the appropriate agreement that is part of the stadium package, but I'll defer to him on that. Mr. Dr. Johnson. If I thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Mr. Poppola, for getting us there. I briefly brought it up with the Jaguar, special events, and the entire team. One of the reasons I brought it up is as a graduate of two HBCUs, Everwaters University locally, in Jackson State University, in Jackson. I think it's important. And Black colleges and universities have a really great history and the classic games being played here in Jacksonville. And so I wanted to make sure, especially since in the agreement we spoke to University of Florida Georgia game, I think it's important. And while it's aspirational, as was mentioned yesterday, I think to have it in to explore it by May 1st would be something that less a resolution but just kind of baked into it at least having the team look at that every year and I think it's something that the community could actually see themselves reflected in this agreement through having that baked in. Thank you. I'll ask the Jaguars and the administration to weigh in. Mr. Lamping, we support that objective. We think it's a great idea. Mr. Weinstein. So do we. Mr. Weinstein. No, do we? Okay. Mr. Laney, did you want to jump in? No. Okay. All those in favor of the Johnson Amendment, please indicate by saying aye. All that? Oh, God. Okay. Move it. I have a motion in a second to move the Johnson amendment. All those in favor of the Johnson amendment please indicate by saying aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Johnson amendment passes. Ms. Staffan Obluss. Thank you. Mr. President, the next amendment that I have on the list is the one that you were intended to offer. And I handed out an email that would flex some revised language. If I could, not knowing the 100% of the background, you may want to defer to Mr. Weinstein or Ms. Taylor to explain it. I am aware, though, from speaking with Mr. Sawyer and the JAGs team that they are in agreement on this language. So if you want to take a motion and get a second to start and then you may want to defer for explanation. Can I, I got a motion in a second. I'll explain it just a little bit then I'm happy to let others jump in. There was a discussion that I led yesterday I think it was where I didn't think the city should be punished don't know what that was. I don't know what that was. I don't know what that was. I don't know what that was. I don't know what that was. I don't know what that was. I don't know what that was. I don't know what that was. I don't know what that was. I don't know what that was. I don't know what that was. I don't know what that was John Sawyer developed some language here which starts where the city of points and goes to the back page. Mr. Sawyer did you want to jump in at all or did I explain it correctly? Obviously I didn't explain it correctly. John Sawyer officer, I believe you explained it correctly. Is there any question of my happy to answer? Okay. I have no one in the queue. Everyone okay? Any all those in favor of the sale of amendment please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. Sale of amendment passes. Mr. President, the final item I am aware of for amendments is we caught one additional technical amendment in the bill on page 9 line 17 There's an incorrect reference to a part in the code chapter that's being revised So and then there may be some additional scriveners errors that we would identify in addition to what was listed on the council auditor sheet So if somebody could just move for that technical correction and allow us the ability to correct any true Scriveners errors that would be that would us the ability to correct any true scrimvenors errors. That would be the final amendment I have. I have a motion in second to provide the authority to correct this one and other technical amendments. I have no one in the queue. All those in favor of the amendment, please indicate by saying aye. All those opposed, please say nay amendment passes. Okay, Mary, do we want to roll all these into one amendment? Mr President if that is the will of the committee then that would be our request to allow us to be able to handle this all in one large document rather than multiple competitive competing documents I have a motion in a second to roll all these amendments into one amendment so that the 904 would be the bill as amended. Okay, I have no a Mr. Halle. No, I'm sorry, I want to speak out to you. Okay, all those in favor of that amendment please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay, amendment passes. Mr. Howellin. Thank you, Mr. President. Since we're in committee, I just wanted to say there's something that I've been thinking about the whole several weeks that we've reviewed these agreements. I stated the beginning when we first got the agreements that this appeared to be a fair deal for taxpayers and for Jacksonville. And also that it would ensure that the Jags are here to stay for 30 years with all these deliberations, all these amendments. I think it's an even fair deal now for taxpayers and for Jacksonville. And I'm still very much assured that the Jags are going to be our partner here for 30 years. In fact, I think with the non relocation agreement, the investment that the Con family has made downtown, we have found a great partner in the Jacksonville Jaguars. One thing that I've been talking about with Mr. Sawyer, with Mr. Hugh, with Mr. Weinstein, with Mr. Harden and Mr. L Hugh, with Mr. Weinstein, with Mr. Harden, and Mr. Lamping, it has been the possibility of what happens if the team sells midway through this 30 year deal and what protections transfer to a new buyer. So I wanted to see if Mr. Sawyer, based on the discussion we had, if you can come tell us. And at a high level, going through all this with you, I feel comfortable, but I would just like to hear from you as well. We, I know we have consents on a assignment of every one of the contracts, and I know that on real location transfers to a third party, from what I have heard, and I'd like to hear it again from you. I'm pretty confident that all the protections we put in place will transfer to any new buyer in that event and if you could discuss. John saw our officer general counsel through the council president, Council Member Hall on the Committee. What she summarizes correct, so in the event there is an assignment, there's a sale of the team. All the documents that are in place essentially become assigned to the purchaser of the team, which includes the non-relocation agreement. So the protections you get under that will simply depend where in the term of that 30 years that agreement is. So if, for example, in year eight from the effective date, there's an assignment. There will have been no amortization down of the liquidated damages that the city would be entitled to. So at that point in time, the new purchaser would be on the hook for 100% of those liquidated damages that the city would be in total to. So at that point in time, the new purchaser would be on the hook for 100% of those liquidated damages. But of course, as time goes on, as those amortize out, the amount of damages that the city would be able to recover. Ultimately, in the last year, the lease go down to zero, which is simply how the non-relocation agreement works. Beyond that, we talked about some scenarios that I think would be difficult to include, putting a new nonrelocation agreement on a subsequent purchaser of the team. I think that would work if a new lease was done concurrently, but if there's simply an existing lease with trust, the years remaining, then you tend to put a new nonrelease standalone in place. I think that may be difficult for the team and then it fell to agree to going forward. So not a lot of new ideas from when we talk this morning, but generally that's the type of protection the city has. Okay, so between those consents and this is what I concluded when we spoke earlier to almost every single agreement that is part of 2020-4904 in this overall agreement and between the fact that the non-rolic relocation agreement specifically would transfer to any successor, I'm very confident I think our protections now are even much stronger than they were before. And I applaud the administration for that negotiation. Thank you. Thank you. What I need right now, emotion to move the bill as amended. And this is a ballot vote. So there's no one in the queue. Please open the ballot report vote. Excuse me. I'm going to ask you to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to amended. Okay. Yes. I apologize. That's okay. Going into next Tuesday we would have an additional opportunity for floor amendments. I just want to make sure you were going to address that. I was just moving to that. We are finished for the day. But keep in mind that you have the ability to file additional amendments. They, Mary has said in a deadline of noon on Monday for any additional amendments. If there are no additional amendments, we will be voting on the bill as it's been amended through 11, 10 this morning. Are there any other comments, Dr. Johnson? Before we break. I just have to say this and I'm not trying to prolong the time Mr. President. I want to pause to first of all thank you for your leadership in this process for getting us here. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity. While we may not all speak to it at our next meeting, obviously there could be other floor amendments But colleagues even though we didn't all agree with how to get here we got here and this is an amazing opportunity I feel like I'm a part of something that is launching the future of this city And I could not be more proud to be one of the 19 on this horseshoe Thank you for this opportunity colleagues, and I'm looking forward to help move Duval forward. Thank you. Very kind words. I see no one else in the queue. We are adjourned.